The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: Dspike on December 22, 2015, 08:23:55 am



Title: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on December 22, 2015, 08:23:55 am
The Tulsa World and the Frontier have reported that the Vision extension proposal will include (1) Water in the River; (2) Public Safety; and (3) Economic Development. While not set in stone, the breakdown among those categories is:

  • River: $157.1M
  • Public Safety: $268.8M
  • Economic Dev: $366M

http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-and-mayor-hammer-out-vision-package-but-more-work/article_87a58209-65c3-553f-818a-d9472420e1f9.html?mode=jqm

The Economic Development package currently includes:

Gilcrease Museum expansion, $69 million
Tulsa Zoo expansion, $30 million
Watco rail line relocation, $5 million
Langston University-Tulsa, $18 million
Peoria-Mohawk business park, $12 million
USABMX national headquarters, $18 million
Tulsa beautification fund - $12 million
Commercial revitalization fund, $12 million
Community Health Connection building, $10.5 million
Arts Alliance Tulsa, $3 million
Route 66 Trust fund, $10 million
Air National Guard, $9.4 million
TCC career placement, $5.6 million
Airport infrastructure, $32 million
Transit, $60 million
Center of Universe Transportation Hub, $15 million
Advance funding allowance, $25 million
Contingency fund, $20 million

The Councilors and Mayor expect to move some proposals to the Improve Our Tulsa package that will come after the Vision package:

a portion of funding for Performing Arts Center expansion
Cox Business Center expansion
South Mingo corridor
Peoria Connection
GO Plan
Public schools safety and crosswalks
Teach. Live. T-Town.
Mohawk Sports Complex
Discovery Lab
Page Belcher and Mohawk golf course facilities
McCullough Park
A portion of Center of the Universe transit hub

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/vision-package-cuts-leave-strong-projects-for-later/article_edd25b58-2603-5ce5-943e-ac0461411cae.html

And some projects are left out of the Vision and Improve Our Tulsa plans:

Raw Space
Bike Share
relocation of a Salvation Army warehouse
Spotlight Theatre rehabilitation
Tulsa Fire Museum
Tulsa Rugby Football Club’s clubhouse


So TulsaNow folks, what do you say? Is this Vision package worth supporting?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on December 22, 2015, 10:01:59 am
Unless the vote for the package is multi-tiered into the three categories like the first Vision 2025, I think the dams will kill the entire initiative.  If they stand alone, I think the other two packages will pass and perhaps that $157M could be re-tooled in a later initiative with real economic impact.

To date, I’m not aware that Bynum has returned to the table with a valid payback analysis on the dams.  Secondly, if the dam near 101st St. is important to Jenks and the Creeks, we don’t need to fund that.  I’m all for adequate funding to completely overhaul the Zink Dam.  I was even for the investment in the Spotlight Theater as that is a development along the river which could be very nice without actually encroaching on park space.

I’m also a bit puzzled about what qualifies as economic development.  How does Raw Space get cut while we commit $130M between the airport, zoo, and Gilcrease?  Unless the airport infrastructure funding is for an industrial park or improvements to attract new industries to Tulsa, I don’t see it as improving Tulsa’s economic outlook.  Maybe those investments in the zoo and Gilcrease would make them world class institutions, but it seems like a disproportionate amount considering some of the smaller initiatives that looked like they had very good economic payback for the city.

I’m also not a fan of putting funding for Langston in this package.  I simply do not like the way the board of regents treats Tulsa like a stepchild of other educational institutions and 30 years after the formation of UCAT, we still do not have a “real” four year public university in Tulsa.

I really liked Gilcrease’s proposal when they presented it to the council.  They keep pointing to the success of Crystal Bridges in Bentonville and the annual census numbers of that museum and that is their goal.  However, the entire campus around CB is very unusual and beautiful.  It’s also along a 40 some mile corridor of pedestrian paths, something the Gilcrease package attempts to emulate. 

Unless I missed something in the proposal, USABMX can’t possibly add enough jobs to justify $18M of the pot.  They do a huge race in the Expo Center around Thanksgiving every year, that’s the real prize to the Tulsa economy.  How much would developing a training center here really add back?  I fail to see this as any different than offering Emmett Hahn $18M to establish the “national headquarters” for the Chili Bowl, Tulsa Shootout, and American Sprint Car Series. 

I’m appreciative of the process, and for many different individuals and groups to present their ideas to the council.  Even after that process, the final slate looks like many pre-concieved projects directly from the council chambers, not the at-large projects.  JMO.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 22, 2015, 10:50:19 am
Even though not in Tulsa, I would rather see a few million go the the Oklahoma Botanical garden than anything go to the dams!  That will have much greater return than the dams will - even without the support!  Give it a boost!!


If nothing else, give them money for road improvements to the facility.  I hate that it ended up so far out of town, 'cause this could be like the Ft. Worth botanical garden - very big draw for people, even in fall/winter.  Took a train trip there a couple weeks ago, and the place was packed!  And beautiful.


There is a massively underutilized, large tract of land from 36th St N to 46th St N,  Peoria to Lewis that would have been an excellent place for a large botanical garden/park complex.   And there is a creek corridor from Lewis that extends over under 75 to Yahola lake - could have connections to Mohawk area.  This could have been a very nice, very large facility that would make excellent use of an area that has nice terrain features and could be cleaned up nicely.  Just a thought....

Would have to get rid of the perpetual garage (garbage) sale on Lewis....


Plus, there is another wasted area just south of 36th St N that could be included.... 




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on December 22, 2015, 11:28:39 am
Will the ballot be three separate votes?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on December 22, 2015, 12:43:59 pm
Will the ballot be three separate votes?


It would have to be, if anything were to pass.

Remember this was specifically infrastructure and Quality-of-life funding, not a crutch for too-big-to-fail city departments.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on December 22, 2015, 12:54:37 pm
Mostly what Conan wrote. The bulk of the economic funds, $210,000,000 out of $366,000,000 go for the perennial needy: The Zoo, The Airport, Gilcrease, Tulsa Transit and Langston. They've been begging funding as long as I can remember. I thought we would get some really creative, progressive ideas for the next generation. What happened?

Move the public safety out of the Vision package. This is a short term tax source being used for ongoing expenses of an expected public service. Not a good idea in the long run. They need to find a basic source of funding to rely on and stay within their budgets. Strangely I am reminded that when criticized back in 2005 that the tax would become permanent and used for ongoing expenses we were promised this Vision thing was supposed to be a temporary tax to accomplish specific economic generators for the city. Not an annual turkey/ham giveaway. Anyone else remember those criticisms and promises?

"The river is the thing wherein the conscience of the city will be revealed...."


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on December 22, 2015, 01:09:54 pm
I'll most likely vote "no". 

I'm disappointed that this was not centered more on progressive vision.

River?  Nothing has been done to prove to me that we won't end up with REI developments.

Police?  Should have nothing to do with this.

Economic Development?  It looks like there's just enough money allocated to pay someone to send in quotes for projects that could be done if we want to send more money.

No x 3 - I've never voted that way since I've been legally able to vote.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: brettakins on December 22, 2015, 01:10:09 pm
I do not agree that public safety should be included in the package. So what happens when that expires, will the city of tulsa have to implement a new vision package to fund public safety?

I do not understand why residents of Osage County that live in Tulsa are required to pay taxes to the city but are not included in the vote. Their taxes are being allocated for projects that they have no say so. Gilcrease Hills is in Osage County it makes no sense.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on December 22, 2015, 01:40:52 pm

I’m appreciative of the process, and for many different individuals and groups to present their ideas to the council.  Even after that process, the final slate looks like many pre-concieved projects directly from the council chambers, not the at-large projects.  JMO.


Quote from:  AquaMan  link=topic=21207.msg303453#msg303453 date=1450800119
Mostly what Conan wrote. The bulk of the economic funds, $210,000,000 out of $366,000,000 go for the perennial needy: The Zoo, The Airport, Gilcrease, Tulsa Transit and Langston. They've been begging funding as long as I can remember. I thought we would get some really creative, progressive ideas for the next generation. What happened?

I was really excited how they opened up the process so that many could present their ideas and was looking forward to seeing which projects made the cut. It looks like almost all of those got thrown out except for Ewing's proposal. I love Gilcrease but $69 million is far too much! I agree with Aquaman that this is mostly a welfare package for big organizations who are always trying to get more public money. Even after huge infusions of cash, most will still run at a deficit for the foreseeable future (thus, no return on investment, not to mention only those organizations would see any benefit). Furthermore, those are established organizations which already have the means/connections to raise donations. I thought this was about boosting game-changing ideas which would enhance the economy and might not have a chance otherwise. Most of the game-changing ideas were thrown out (such as the raised sports complex in the parking crater which had the support of TCC) and included a parking garage and mixed use buildings. They also threw out the Pearl District Canal which could create a unique urban mixed-use space which could help downtown grow east to expand towards Cherry St/TU.

One of the best, most unique and potentially valuable projects was the Art Deco museum and that seemed to be cut very early on. I interact with people visiting Tulsa frequently and one of the most common things people ask about and are interested in is Art Deco architecture and buildings like the Boston Avenue United Methodist church. There are Art Deco tour maps of Tulsa and in other cities where this was prominent (LA, Miami Beach & Chicago). Tulsa should build on this.

The Sports Complex and Art Deco museum are both ideas which will 1) Add something new ("game-changing") 2) enhance the economy, especially downtown 3) create another destination in downtown and 4) aren't part of multi-million dollar revenue organizations (Thus have more of a need for Vision money).

The Tulsa Zoo and Gilcrease are already very good. Improving those does not add anything new. The Airport repairs need to be funded by private investment or an alternate tax revenue stream (public infrastructure). They need to throw out the south dam. I really wanted them to make this a good package, but I see at least a dozen reasons I will vote no.

I think they kept most all of the worst options to please the powers that be and threw out any actual innovative ideas (besides Ewing's transit hub which is neat). Then they refuse to throw out the South dam. This looks like another failure. I would be frustrated if I had put the work some of them did just to end up with such a horrible combo of projects. Everyone I know is still adamantly against the River Tax just like in 2007, especially Tulsans paying for Jenks/River Spirit/Bixby's dam. How could they be so foolish to repeat this again?  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on December 22, 2015, 02:02:53 pm

Air National Guard, $9.4 million


Why is this even in there? They are heavily funded and part of a branch which gets tens of billions per year. Why would this be a part of the "Vision" package!? I know several who have worked there and they laugh at how they do very little work and get paid better than 90% of people and how it takes "an act of congress" to get them fired and are quite prideful with how many dollars of fuel/etc they waste. Maybe manage your workforce better.

Yet another reason to vote no.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on December 22, 2015, 02:37:11 pm
On the public safety portion, the first World article notes: "The public safety proposal is designed as a permanent tax." So the concern that it will expire is misplaced. The concern that what was originally promoted as a temporary tax (Vision 2025) is becoming a permanent tax is accurate.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on December 22, 2015, 02:59:12 pm
I'm very disappointed in this.

A friend is back in Tulsa for a project.  She lives outside Denver.

She mentioned how real estate costs have exploded in the Denver area.  I asked her if she knew why.

She read an article that 500 - 800 people are moving to Colorado a day.  (her info, not mine)

The biggest reason for the housing boom is that young college graduates are finding a cool place to live and then finding a job...

Gosh...why isn't that happening in Tulsa?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on December 22, 2015, 03:51:39 pm
I'm very disappointed in this.

A friend is back in Tulsa for a project.  She lives outside Denver.

She mentioned how real estate costs have exploded in the Denver area.  I asked her if she knew why.

She read an article that 500 - 800 people are moving to Colorado a day.  (her info, not mine)

The biggest reason for the housing boom is that young college graduates are finding a cool place to live and then finding a job...

Gosh...why isn't that happening in Tulsa?

The boom has been on-going on the front range for at least 15 years.  The climate is ideal for chip manufacturing and other high tech, it’s cheaper than California to live there (at least it was, not sure if that’s the case now), cheaper to operate there than California, fairly central location for rail, truck, and air, major hub airport...yadda...yadda...yadda.  And then there’s quality of life.  You are an hour or two from a year ‘round recreation mecca.

All that said, I cringe any time I must drive through Denver or Colorado Springs.  In many ways I’m thankful Tulsa has not grown at the rate of these two cities or Austin.  We will eventually settle in Co. or NM, but it won’t be one of the more populated areas, that’s for sure.

Tulsa has opportunities to improve our hip factor and quality of life.  The proposal to remove parts of the IDL and the Elm Creek project were two items I felt were real game changers (even though I hate that cliche’) which took some seriously innovative thinking.  Tulsa is turning the corner on becoming more progressive in terms of development but we need better vision leading the whole show, not Mr. Golly Gee Good Ol’ Boy Bartlett.  He either has no appreciation for how real growth can happen or he simply doesn’t care and goes for low-hanging fruit like developing park land thinking that further diluting the sales tax collection base is somehow going to lead to prosperity.

Dspike was at a Typros Government Crew gathering where I spoke about the mall proposal on Turkey Mountain.  When I did an informal poll of what was a more important consideration of “livability”: green space and recreation or shopping, it was overwhelming for green space and recreation.

I wish our leaders would pay closer attention to what potential future citizens of Tulsa consider to be their priorities.  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on December 22, 2015, 04:00:52 pm

Dspike was at a Typros Government Crew gathering where I spoke about the mall proposal on Turkey Mountain.  When I did an informal poll of what was a more important consideration of “livability”: green space and recreation or shopping, it was overwhelming for green space and recreation.

I wish our leaders would pay closer attention to what potential future citizens of Tulsa consider to be their priorities.  

Green space and recreation don't fill the wallets of those on committees or lobbying those on committees making decisions.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on December 22, 2015, 04:06:08 pm
And Bartlett is at least a white, male, republican. This reddest of the red reputation has a stultifying effect on governance.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on December 22, 2015, 06:27:01 pm
Green space and recreation don't fill the wallets of those on committees or lobbying those on committees making decisions.

And green space is kryptonite to development types.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on December 22, 2015, 06:58:56 pm
I am really curious as to what happened to the National Art Deco Museum proposal we submitted the second time around for 4.5 mill.  We even found some property in the Gunboat Park area (smack dab between Boston Avenue Church and Wharehouse Market buildings, right on Rt 66 and on the new transit route, etc.)  And we showed how it could be practically self sustaining as well.  

It really baffles me.  The "big guy" museums and such will pay huge sums to do what I would do for this museum for practically free.  Heck I am the kind of person they hire to do a lot of the stuff.  And we came up with some really unique and creative ideas to build it and fund it.  I would turn that 4.5 mill into easily 80 mill worth of museum.  

I run into people all the time who have told me all my life "you can't do this or that, or that is not how things are done, etc."  Usually because they don't understand what I am actually doing.  And even when I succeed,,, they are still perplexed lol.  But that is what I do, thats been my job for over 30 years. Creative thinking and solution finding.  

Sad thing is some, including some of our city councilors will cry out about how we need "Creative Class" type people.   Then when you present them with a creative and unique idea... they say "Well that won't work because thats not how things are done. etc."  Which absolutely makes no sense. How its always been done, is NOT creative lol.

If it won't work one way, and people say it can't be done that way...well thats when I do it in a way others aren't doing and make it work that way! lol


You can't paint.

You can't make a living as an artist.

You have never had a store you can't make retail work downtown.

You can't start a museum.

You have never even thrown a party at your house, how can you think you will throw a huge fundraising event.

Etc. etc. etc.

Well I keep doing what people say can't be done, and people still often can't figure out how I managed to do it lol.

Think outside the box, turn obstacles into creative opportunities, and do that over and over and over until until something wonderful happens.



There aren't many people like me with my set of talents.  Why the councilors can't see the opportunity they have missed, with what I was willing and able to do for Tulsa, is so unfortunate. People keep judging me and my ideas by how "they would have done it or how something is usually done" and then say it can't be done... Well they were right, it couldn't be done the way they would have done it.  And I wouldn't have done it that way. I see what I want done, and find a creative unique way to do it.  

That National Art Deco Museum for 4.5 mill would have been more astounding than what Gilcrease would do with their 70 mill, cause they are going to do it the usual way and throw a lot of money down a hole paying "retail" when I "the creative people they hire" could do it below "wholesale".  

Rant over lol






 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: sgrizzle on December 22, 2015, 08:46:39 pm
I don't agree with some of the the things on the list and some of the things that didn't make the cut, but I think it's a decent mix. The public safety part is the number 1 concern for me. I don't like the idea of the city operating budget effectively jumping in size so much.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Hayduke on December 23, 2015, 11:49:22 am
I worry that if the package is divided as to the river, economic development, and public safety, the only thing that would pass would be the public safety component given the irrational culture of fear currently enveloping this country, especially in this area of the country.  Selling more cops to protect us from all the bad people out there is a lot easier than selling art museum renovations and public transportation initiatives to the voter base in this city.

 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 23, 2015, 12:07:07 pm
I'm very disappointed in this.

A friend is back in Tulsa for a project.  She lives outside Denver.

She mentioned how real estate costs have exploded in the Denver area.  I asked her if she knew why.

She read an article that 500 - 800 people are moving to Colorado a day.  (her info, not mine)

The biggest reason for the housing boom is that young college graduates are finding a cool place to live and then finding a job...

Gosh...why isn't that happening in Tulsa?


That has been going on since I was in high school....60's.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on December 23, 2015, 12:09:06 pm


You have never even thrown a party at your house, how can you think you will throw a huge fundraising event.

Etc. etc. etc.

 


We can help you with that....throw a big party at your house and invite all of us...kind of a practice event...!!



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on December 23, 2015, 01:09:21 pm

We can help you with that....throw a big party at your house and invite all of us...kind of a practice event...!!



The point was, I have done all the things people said I couldn't do lol.

I have done plenty of fundraising events now.  I think the best compliment I got was from the guy at the Union Depot who works setting up the tables and dance floor and such.  The next day after one of our museum fundraising events when we came to get our stuff, he came up to me and said, " I have seen a lot of events here, I think yours was probably the best I have ever seen."  That made me feel good, especially since I had until that time never really been to any fundraisers for any other organization myself to see how they did things.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on December 23, 2015, 01:28:10 pm
since I had until that time never really been to any fundraisers for any other organization myself to see how they did things.

Which kind of proves your point.
 
 :D



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: CoffeeBean on December 23, 2015, 07:54:38 pm
What an epic fail.

The public safety/permanent tax is a joke.

There is no wow-factor.

Opportunity wasted. 

Terrible, terrible disappointment.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on December 24, 2015, 02:10:10 pm
What does $269M get us for "public safety"?  More officers I assume but what else?  I agree that should be a separate deal.

I'm one of the few on here that supports the dams.  I support the other econ dev proposals but definitely think they missed the boat on any real game changers.  I think the process of getting public input was good and would like to see more of that.

Hoping for more of a mass transit push with the next transportation tax proposal, especially streetcar.  OKC will have one running by then so maybe it will have more support.  :P


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on December 24, 2015, 02:30:35 pm
The World article states that the $269M for public safety (and making that part of the tax permanent) buys 160 additional police officers and 70 additional firemen.

"Public safety tax — $268.8 million: a permanent tax that would hire 160 police officers, 70 firefighters, street maintenance crews and 911 operators."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-and-mayor-hammer-out-vision-package-but-more-work/article_87a58209-65c3-553f-818a-d9472420e1f9.html?mode=jqm


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on December 24, 2015, 03:24:24 pm
The World article states that the $269M for public safety (and making that part of the tax permanent) buys 160 additional police officers and 70 additional firemen.

An earlier World story pointed out that police academies are meant to replace patrol officers who are due for promotions, and whats left over become new patrol officers.  Sometimes that actually ends up with fewer patrol officers and a glut of specialty squads looking for something to do.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on December 24, 2015, 05:07:55 pm

So TulsaNow folks, what do you say? Is this Vision package worth supporting?


  • River: NO
  • Public Safety: NO
  • Economic Dev: Maybe, depending on how the ballot question/questions is/are structured


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: natedog784 on December 24, 2015, 05:32:35 pm

So TulsaNow folks, what do you say? Is this Vision package worth supporting?


I will be voting "no" on all three portions as currently proposed/structured.

This is a first for me for a city improvements package.

In my view, there has been a colossal failure of leadership from the council and the mayor.
What is being proposed is straight out of a sausage factory with pet projects and items that belong in an operating budget, not a capital improvements package.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on December 24, 2015, 10:40:21 pm
I live in Bixby so I can only express my opinion here.

I would vote against the river dams.  I think public transit is more important.  Of course I favor electric powered, rail guided, real trolleys.  I also like Artist's proposal for the Art Deco Museum, something uniquely Tulsa.

Public safety needs to be a separate issue from anything labeled Vision anything.  If Tulsa needs the money for public safety on the sales tax, make it a stand alone issue.

Green space and parks is important, more important than another generic big box store.  We have enough in the Tulsa/Suburbs.  I agree with the idea that unless we bring in outside money, we are just shuffling money around and wasting development potential.

I wish I could help, but not enough to give up my big lot in suburbia.  (The house is only about 1500 sq ft)  No McMansion here.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on December 25, 2015, 08:09:38 pm
What does $269M get us for "public safety"?  More officers I assume but what else?  I agree that should be a separate deal.

I'm one of the few on here that supports the dams.  I support the other econ dev proposals but definitely think they missed the boat on any real game changers.  I think the process of getting public input was good and would like to see more of that.

Hoping for more of a mass transit push with the next transportation tax proposal, especially streetcar.  OKC will have one running by then so maybe it will have more support.  :P

What do you like about the dam proposal?  That’s not meant to be a rhetorical question.  The dams are such an unpopular measure, I’d like to hear the reasons you’d be for it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on December 26, 2015, 10:08:38 am
Quote
What do you like about the dam proposal?

I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on December 26, 2015, 03:41:20 pm
I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.

Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on December 28, 2015, 08:58:08 am
Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?

From the discussions I have been a part of the City of Jenks is definitely planning to significantly participate (in excess of 1/2 of their Vision renewal) but the Council has not yet taken an official vote on the final package, just like Tulsa hasn't.  

I expect that meaningful discussions with the Creek Nation will occur following swearing in of the new leadership in early January that will include a request to participate.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: sgrizzle on December 29, 2015, 04:28:12 pm
Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?

I've heard 1/3rd each.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Laramie on January 02, 2016, 10:45:09 am
I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.

What do you like about the dam proposal?  That’s not meant to be a rhetorical question.  The dams are such an unpopular measure, I’d like to hear the reasons you’d be for it.

Not that familiar with the dam proposals on the Arkansas River.   I can say this.   Oklahoma City's North Canadian River was the pits.  Three dams were constructed on the 7-miles stretch of the North Canadian River that's now called the Oklahoma River at Eastern Avenue, Western Avenue and May Avenue in OKC.

The development from the construction of those 3 dams have changed the whole river development scene.  You know, people chuckled about OKC having to mow its river 3 times a year.   I've been on Tulsa's Arkansas River, it makes OKC's river look like an underdeveloped stream.  You have a lot more potential to make something happen.

Since the 3 OKC dams were built, a boathouse row was developed which spurred more than $100 million in development. MAPS 3 penny sales tax  includes a Riversport Rapids which is now under construction.    

Those dams totally transformed OKC's river:

Oklahoma City Boathouse Row: Fun Things to do in Oklahoma City | Boathouse District (http://boathousedistrict.org/)

Oklahoma City Riversport Rapids: Whitewater Rafting in OKC | Boathouse District (http://boathousedistrict.org/whitewater/)

I've seen the scenic Arkansas River areas in Tulsa; your Vision 2025 future development plans look awesome.  I'm not familiar with how those dams will be strategically placed; however they could be a game changer.

  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 02, 2016, 04:29:47 pm
Not that familiar with the dam proposals on the Arkansas River.   I can say this.   Oklahoma City's North Canadian River was the pits.  Three dams were constructed on the 7-miles stretch of the North Canadian River that's now called the Oklahoma River at Eastern Avenue, Western Avenue and May Avenue in OKC.

The development from the construction of those 3 dams have changed the whole river development scene.  You know, people chuckled about OKC having to mow its river 3 times a year.   I've been on Tulsa's Arkansas River, it makes OKC's river look like an underdeveloped stream.  You have a lot more potential to make something happen.

Since the 3 OKC dams were built, a boathouse row was developed which spurred more than $100 million in development. MAPS 3 penny sales tax  includes a Riversport Rapids which is now under construction.    

Those dams totally transformed OKC's river:

Oklahoma City Boathouse Row: Fun Things to do in Oklahoma City | Boathouse District (http://boathousedistrict.org/)

Oklahoma City Riversport Rapids: Whitewater Rafting in OKC | Boathouse District (http://boathousedistrict.org/whitewater/)

I've seen the scenic Arkansas River areas in Tulsa; your Vision 2025 future development plans look awesome.  I'm not familiar with how those dams will be strategically placed; however they could be a game changer.

  

I’ve competed on the Oklahoma River several times with Tulsa Rowing Club and it’s a great rowing venue.  Two things OKC has that Tulsa still won’t is the river is not near as wide through that part of OKC, and the impoundment used for recreation is longer than that of Zink Lake in Tulsa.  One reason it is ideal for training is how the banking works as somewhat of a shield against winds so training can pretty well happen year-round.  Once you get high south winds coming up the Arkansas against a water flow coming from the north, it gets very choppy and dangerous.

This proposal won’t be near as transformative as OKC’s unless a bunch of retail development is desirable to many others than myself and people I associate with. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 03, 2016, 01:30:45 pm
I realize the Arkansas is different than the Oklahoma River, and it's more of a challenge to "tame" it.  The Oklahoma River is more similar to the Colorado in Austin where there is also a lot of on-river recreation.  However I think with Zink Lake you could have kayak rentals in the right conditions, maybe even stand-up paddle boards.  With the Gathering Place that could be a hub for River recreational activities.  The adjacent kayak flume next to Zink Dam which is part of the Vision proposal is really cool and will be an attraction.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 03, 2016, 03:40:32 pm
Nothing has prevented a kayak operation currently that merely fixing the Zink dam couldn't cure. Or stand-up paddle boards as well. In fact I considered a dinner boat when it appeared as if the dam was going to be improved in the past. Ran a few practice runs with some dignitaries at the time with some water in the river. Had live music, catered food, liquour. They loved it. Lots of things can/could have been done with ongoing repairs and improvements over the last two decades. Now, deferred maintenance and more promises are being lumped in with an omnibus package and I am doubtful.

I hope some of these promises materialize. I hoped in the past. Hope is important in developments like this. But repairing or replacing the Zink with Gathering Place in mind is the best plan.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 04, 2016, 08:37:49 am
Oklahoma City spent $50mil for their river project to accomplish what Zink Lake has done in Tulsa for a generation - a stretch of water in the river that is available for fishing, man-powered boats, and looking at water in a river. Because they have a narrow stream and Tulsa has a wide prairie river prone to flooding, and because Tulsa has a large cyclical dam upstream - their dam provides a 7 miles stretch while Zink is only couple of miles long.

http://www.okc.gov/maps/river/

Zink Dam is nearly 1300 feet across. Oklahoma City has nearly 450 feet, and they doubled the width of the stream bed when they dammed it.

Also worth noting that the river area of Oklahoma City was built over and around, it was not developed or utilized. Only when they dammed it did they really put park amenities in.  Other than the publicly funded park facilities (Boat house, wake board facility, etc.)  there hasn't been significant development - you have a rail yard, Conway Freight, a junk yard, and a few other things that predated the development.

I think OKC did well with this development. But the Arkansas River will not be a stable world-class reservoir suitable for year round Olympic caliber rowing. It is simply too wide, too windy, and the flow is too varied (even with dams). As we have seen in OKC and in the last 40 years with Zink, simply adding water doesn't add development -  the real benefit is recreation (which Tulsa already does well utilizing the river area for)  and aesthetics.

Cost/benefit.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 04, 2016, 11:43:31 am
Oklahoma City spent $50mil for their river project to accomplish what Zink Lake has done in Tulsa for a generation - a stretch of water in the river that is available for fishing, man-powered boats, and looking at water in a river. Because they have a narrow stream and Tulsa has a wide prairie river prone to flooding, and because Tulsa has a large cyclical dam upstream - their dam provides a 7 miles stretch while Zink is only couple of miles long.

http://www.okc.gov/maps/river/

Zink Dam is nearly 1300 feet across. Oklahoma City has nearly 450 feet, and they doubled the width of the stream bed when they dammed it.

Also worth noting that the river area of Oklahoma City was built over and around, it was not developed or utilized. Only when they dammed it did they really put park amenities in.  Other than the publicly funded park facilities (Boat house, wake board facility, etc.)  there hasn't been significant development - you have a rail yard, Conway Freight, a junk yard, and a few other things that predated the development.

I think OKC did well with this development. But the Arkansas River will not be a stable world-class reservoir suitable for year round Olympic caliber rowing. It is simply too wide, too windy, and the flow is too varied (even with dams). As we have seen in OKC and in the last 40 years with Zink, simply adding water doesn't add development -  the real benefit is recreation (which Tulsa already does well utilizing the river area for)  and aesthetics.

Cost/benefit.




Don't forget...there may be an Indian Museum there sometime.... a long, long time from now.  Or not.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Laramie on January 05, 2016, 09:54:32 am

Don't forget...there may be an Indian Museum there sometime.... a long, long time from now.  Or not.


Quote
City Manager Jim Couch requested the extension after the Chickasaw Nation offered to partner with the city, potentially bringing millions of dollars to the effort to get the dormant project on track.

Oklahoma City wins extension in finalizing plans for American Indian Cultural Center and Museum | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/okc-wins-extension-in-finalizing-plans-for-indian-museum/article/5469740)

The Chickasaw Nation wants to finish the museum and develop the land around it.   They have promised not to build a casino on the land if given the development rights for land around the  American Indian Cultural Center & Museum.  They are willing to underwrite it for $2 million for 7 years once its completed.   OKC city officials are working with the Chickasaw Nation to craft something that will allow them to move forward.


Excerpts from the Journal Record:  Possible partnership: Chickasaw Nation offers to save American Indian Cultural Center | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/12/22/possible-partnership-chickasaw-nation-offers-to-save-american-indian-cultural-center-real-estate/?platform=hootsuite)

Quote
The Chickasaw offer could take care of that problem, at least for a while. Lance said his government would be willing to establish a foundation to operate the AICCM and provide up to $2 million annually to cover deficits for the first seven years, with the tribe and municipality to develop a sustainability plan thereafter.

As for as the surrounding area, Lance said the tribe wants commercial property to be leased or conveyed to the Chickasaws, thus giving the opportunity to develop it with the city’s cooperation. A tribal representative told city officials Tuesday the Chickasaws have no interest in trying to include gambling in the overall plan, even if it were legally possible to do so.

The Chickasaw Nation has the financial resources/portfolio to push the project forward; they own & operate the world's largest casino--WinStar World Casino & Resort in Thackerville, OK between Oklahoma City & Dallas on I-35.

(https://casinoin.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/winstar-world-casino_4.jpg)



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 05, 2016, 12:05:13 pm
What a farce. I'd take that deal too!

The Chicasaw can't build a casino there anymore than I can. It is not Chicasaw Trust land. So saying they won't build a casino is damn nice of them, but meaningless.

The land was donated by OKC and valued in 2004 at $15mil - it is 210 acres and in the master plan the group was going to develop it to generate money to pay bonds, operate, and expand the museum as they went along (So $2 - 10mil a year in expected development revenue). The Chicasaw have benevolently offered to develop underwrite up to $2mil a year in operating expenses for 7 years in exchange for $15mil+ worth of land and development revenue north of $2mil a year. Risking up-to $14 million in exchange for $15mil in land and development income.

Great move by them. The tax payers kick in $140 mil to make $15mil worth of land into a real revenue stream, and the Tribe gets to cash in on it while influencing the museum. WIN!  (for the Nation). What irritates me is the tone that this is some kind of a gift. Let them buy the damn thing, but it is a business proposition (not faulting the Nation, good move by them).

The Chickasaw recently built a $40million cultural center and museum for themselves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Cultural_Center


To go on more with this tangent:


The entire thing is a great example of Oklahoma government -

In 2003 Vision 2025 included a City of Tulsa plan for a Native American Center because, you know, we have lots of Indian tribes around here. Oklahoma City duped the state into funding their project instead, effectively killing Tulsa's effort. But OKC would only cost $70mil and would be fully funded before it even started...

http://m.newsok.com/article/1937204

But don't worry!  The Oklahoma City American Indian Cultural Center and Museum will only cost $110mil (di dI say $70?), will be open by 2007 2013 soon, and will convert worthless oil land into a $200,000,000.00 annual economic impact, creating 1,500 jobs and drawing in 500,000 visitors!!1!11!$$1!!! Better yet - it will generate revenue. The things a money maker!

http://www.theamericanindiancenter.org/oklahomas-next-tourism-asset

What I meant was, we need $180 million, a couple hundred acres, $2mil a year in operating money, and $5mil more to service annual bonds. Also, it is worth noting that we don't actually have fa museum yet, but we will soon. All we need is more money.

All this goes away if you just give the land the state has invested in to the Tribe. What a stupid catch-22. Land is donated to the State, we dump $100mil+ into making that land valuable, then create such a cluster f$^& that it might actually make more sense just to give it away.

Yay fiscally conservative small government Oklahoma!
- - - -

I support the arts. I support museums. I think quality of life is THE NUMBER ONE THING a community need to focus on (and it is nearly all encompassing, no quality of life without infrastructure, jobs, good schools, culture, etc.). Hand out money, grants, or limited operating guarantees. But the State should never be on the hook for an open ended project ever again.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 06, 2016, 02:45:46 pm
What a farce. I'd take that deal too!


The entire thing is a great example of Oklahoma government -

In 2003 Vision 2025 included a City of Tulsa plan for a Native American Center because, you know, we have lots of Indian tribes around here. Oklahoma City duped the state into funding their project instead, effectively killing Tulsa's effort. But OKC would only cost $70mil and would be fully funded before it even started...

But don't worry!  The Oklahoma City American Indian Cultural Center and Museum will only cost $110mil (di dI say $70?), will be open by 2007 2013 soon, and will convert worthless oil land into a $200,000,000.00 annual economic impact, creating 1,500 jobs and drawing in 500,000 visitors!!1!11!$$1!!! Better yet - it will generate revenue. The things a money maker!

What I meant was, we need $180 million, a couple hundred acres, $2mil a year in operating money, and $5mil more to service annual bonds. Also, it is worth noting that we don't actually have fa museum yet, but we will soon. All we need is more money.

All this goes away if you just give the land the state has invested in to the Tribe. What a stupid catch-22. Land is donated to the State, we dump $100mil+ into making that land valuable, then create such a cluster f$^& that it might actually make more sense just to give it away.

Yay fiscally conservative small government Oklahoma!

I support the arts. I support museums. I think quality of life is THE NUMBER ONE THING a community need to focus on (and it is nearly all encompassing, no quality of life without infrastructure, jobs, good schools, culture, etc.). Hand out money, grants, or limited operating guarantees. But the State should never be on the hook for an open ended project ever again.




Sounds like you share my frustration due to the graft and corruption of this state...and the total ignorance and stupidstition that keeps people voting for the same ole thing election after election....


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 08, 2016, 08:21:15 am
Update on Vision 2025:


NOTE: there are meetings next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday:

Vision public meetings
Monday, Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 N. Greenwood Ave.
Tuesday, Kirk of the Hills, 4102 E. 61st St.
Wednesday, TCC Southeast at the Van Trease PACE, 10300 E. 81st St.
All meetings scheduled for 6-8 p.m.

Link to pdf of Proposed capital improvements on new Vision proposal:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/39/13944bd8-4481-5d59-8cc7-cef03c9ddf77/568f5911c1bb4.pdf.pdf (http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/39/13944bd8-4481-5d59-8cc7-cef03c9ddf77/568f5911c1bb4.pdf.pdf)

City councilors debate whether more public input should be sought on Tulsa's Vision package
Posted: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 7:55 am, Fri Jan 8, 2016.
Quote
City officials governing Vision renewal discussions tangled Thursday over how much influence an upcoming series of public meetings should have on the final shape of the package.
A majority of councilors defended keeping the plan largely as drafted at a meeting Dec. 18, when the overall scope of Vision changed dramatically to include votes on general obligation bonds and an extension of Improve Our Tulsa to accommodate the desired projects.
A majority group including Councilor Anna America and Mayor Dewey Bartlett defended the months and years of public engagement to date, saying enough public input has been gathered with little time left to make changes.
“We don’t have time to start from scratch, and that’s why we did such an exhaustive process,” America said. “So, yes, while people can give us feedback, I don’t want everybody who made a project coming back and start to tell us why we need to have an amusement park or why we need to have a rugby field or why we need to have any of these things we’ve gone through.”
But America said changes to the package are possible, and public input will be considered for the final package.
“I hope and believe we are pretty close,” America said. “That was the goal of the extensive public input up to this point. But we have to listen to the public. If the feel is that extensive changes are needed, we have to listen and respond.”
City legal officials said they would be able to accept changes into this month, but the hard deadline to get an item on the ballot is Feb. 4.
Councilor Blake Ewing, who introduced the idea of holding additional meetings, staunchly defended keeping the draft flexible to public opinion, saying the council would be ignoring public feedback if it finalized the package before bringing it to a vote.
“We are talking about things since the 18th that we’ve never talked about and that the public will have an opinion about, and that is the composition of what would be the most complicated package that has ever been presented to voters in the history of this city,” Ewing said.
He said he always intended for the final draft to be brought to residents before it was “set in stone.”
“There’s no way that the people we’ve talked to over the last year were anticipating six ballot questions or seven ballot questions all on the same day,” Ewing said. “And there’s no way that because they read the Tulsa World … we should assume that the citizens of Tulsa have a comprehensive understanding of the most complicated capital improvement package in the history of the city.”
As it stands, Vision would pare off more than a third of the 0.6 percent tax for a permanent public-safety tax contemplated by Councilor Karen Gilbert and Bartlett, which would become operations funding.
The remainder of Vision would become a 15-year plan to accrue about $523 million. The process also would obligate $148.8 million of upcoming general obligation bonds and $105 million in a two-year extension of Improve Our Tulsa.
Officials are contemplating putting all of the above before voters in early April.
The councilors eventually accepted the need for meetings, which are scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
However, the conversation turned to the level at which Vision should be open to change.
America and Bartlett defended the consensus reached at the Dec. 18 meeting, saying the projects should not be touched unless deemed necessary by city staff during the vetting process — not due to influence from the council or public.
Councilors who supported largely leaving the list of projects alone also included Jeannie Cue, Karen Gilbert, David Patrick and Connie Dodson.
“It needs to be final from us,” America said. “We’ve all made our case for the things we feel passionately about. … We don’t want everybody who made a case and didn’t make the final draft list to think, ‘Hey, another chance to come and send a thousand emails.’ “
Bartlett agreed and supported America in the meeting, at one point giving her a thumbs up.
“I think this has been an extremely good process, very transparent,” he said. “The public safety idea I started floating around three years ago, so other things have been done in that time. It’s been going on for a long, long time.”
Bartlett said the meeting on Dec. 18 only changed the package “in that we made decisions.”
“But it was still a huge volume of projects. We did have a lot of discussion about it,” Bartlett continued. “When you get to the tail end of it, you have to winnow it down, and that’s what we did.”
Bartlett said he would “prefer not to see a wholesale change on anything” in the project list decided Dec. 18.
“I would be open to it if there is very, very serious extenuating circumstances from a legal and/or financial perspective,” Bartlett said. “Other than that, I think changes are not warranted. We’ve gone through a process.”


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 08, 2016, 08:36:41 am
Quote
It needs to be final from us,” America said. “We’ve all made our case for the things we feel passionately about.

Bartlett agreed and supported America in the meeting, at one point giving her a thumbs up.

As they clearly stated over and over, Bartlett and his team believe the decisions need to come from them and should only be things they feel passionate about. Ignore public opinion on which items make the final cut (which looks to be their plan all along) despite giving lip service to an open process. The public has not had any input since they narrowed it down and if it weren't for Blake Ewing, this would be the final package (which is still terrible and looks to have very little public support).


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 08, 2016, 08:41:43 am
I want to know what the $45,000,000 under "Other" is which says "Design, inspection, contingency & advance funding" is for. Does anyone know?

There is still $52 million (plus another $14-40 million) allotted to the Jenks/Casino dam. We don't want to fund their dam. It will help River Spirit and Jenks. It will not help Tulsans. I see virtually zero return on investment for Tulsa and huge subsidies for a small amount of people who will benefit from this.

What is the "Peoria Connection and "South Mingo Corridor"?

How can they possibly believe this will pass as-is? I see the signs already "River Tax 2.0 - VOTE NO"


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2016, 12:10:49 pm

How can they possibly believe this will pass as-is? I see the signs already "River Tax 2.0 - VOTE NO"

It's got my "no" vote.  And anyone else I know who'll listen to me.

I've always voted yes.  This is incredibly disappointing.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2016, 12:37:53 pm
Tulsa Vision Renewal Moving Toward Several Separate Ballot Measures, More Funding Sources

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/tulsa-vision-renewal-moving-toward-several-separate-ballot-measures-more-funding-sources (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/tulsa-vision-renewal-moving-toward-several-separate-ballot-measures-more-funding-sources)

Quote
Tulsa residents will vote on a handful of sales tax measures in April — if city officials can reach an agreement in time to get them on the ballot.

Public safety, transportation, the river and economic development will each have at least one ballot measure spelling out the sales tax rate and term and how revenues will be spent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Mark Swiney said they’re trying to avoid the specter of logrolling.

"You don't want the voter to say, 'Well, I want this, but I don't want this. So I have to vote for this thing I don't want in order to get what I do want,'" Swiney said. "That's unfair to the voter. It's illegal."

Tulsa’s Vision renewal package has grown to include Improve Our Tulsa and bonds. City Finance Director Mike Kier crunched numbers through 2031 to make sure everything works.

"You know, this is a long period of time to be forecasting, but I think we've got some pretty solid numbers," Kier said.

Right now, voters would separately approve four sales tax measures totaling 0.55 percent: a permanent 0.2 percent sales tax for public safety, which would increase to 0.3 percent after five years; a permanent 0.05 percent sales tax for public transportation; a 15-year, 0.125 percent sales tax for river projects; and a 15-year, 0.175 percent sales tax for economic development projects.

Councilor Phil Lakin said the funding package is still just a draft.

"And I think everybody agreed that, yeah, there may be changes," Lakin said.

Draft ordinances are ready should Tulsans approve those sales tax measures this spring. Councilor Blake Ewing thinks the city has skipped a step.

"Have we felt like we've had public comment about a 15-year program, ever once with the public? Have we ever had a scenario where the public was allowed to weigh in over — " Ewing said during Thursday's Vision task force meeting, at that point cut off by Councilors Karen Gilbert, Jeannie Cue and Anna America saying yes. "Then what planet was I on when we had that public meeting after we've created a draft on [Dec.] 18?"

The ordinances came out of a mayor-council retreat Dec. 18 to build consensus on Vision renewal projects.

City officials rushed to schedule a slate of public hearings next week after Ewing's comments. They are tentatively scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, with additional time for public feedback during Thursday's regular council meeting.

Feb. 4 is the deadline to file for an April election.

This is the first time I can think of that I've seen the image of VisionTulsa sinking into the abyss.

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201507/vision_tulsa.png)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 08, 2016, 01:00:51 pm
It's got my "no" vote.  And anyone else I know who'll listen to me.

I've always voted yes.  This is incredibly disappointing.

I once tried to vote NO, but I had my ballot upside down. Turns out I voted ON.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: utulsadenverite on January 08, 2016, 01:06:14 pm
That proposal is a disaster. Public safety isn't an investment and Bartlett is an ahole.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2016, 01:17:39 pm
I once tried to vote NO, but I had my ballot upside down. Turns out I voted ON.

This ballot should be turned upside down and lit on fire.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on January 08, 2016, 01:52:07 pm
I will fight tooth and nail against this thing and get everyone I know to do the same.  The whole process and criteria for consideration shifted several times which was quite frustrating and we never felt that we were fairly acknowledged.

Several "newcomers" like the Arts Alliance, got more consideration and funding for instance.

We have been working on this museum project for over FIVE YEARS!  I think if anything that certainly shows determination and resolve, a willingness to be in it for the long haul and work hard.  I think of all the events we have thrown like fundraisers large and small, all the students and interns we have worked with, all the tours given to people from around the world, the tens of thousands of dollars of just my own personal money, not to mention the incredible amount of time and work organizing things, keeping the accounts, doing the appropriate legal work, paying rent and insurance on our current space, coordinating projects with other groups, creating displays, educational worksheets, maps and material, etc. etc. etc.  We have put a LOT of work into this for over FIVE YEARS!  A lot of people, from all walks of life and having lots of different talents and skills have worked very hard for this.

Then out of the blue someone has an idea and ends up getting funding!?     

I call BS.

I am also frustrated that Gilcrease got such a huge amount of money.  You know, I am on the ground floor seeing what many visitors and tourists say and want to do in Tulsa.  Many aren't interested in "Western Art" and throwing another 60 some odd million at that museum won't make them any more interested in it!

Not everyone is interested in Art Deco either, but how the councilors could not see that also having a National Art Deco Museum in the mix for only 4.5 mill could greatly enhance our draw, is beyond me.  Utterly baffling. 

Surely a diversity of attractions to satisfy more interests would be a positive, especially when we could FINALLY truly take advantage of something that people from around the world, already have a positive view of our city about, and when we have a dedicated, determined, talented group of people who have shown that they would work hard to make this pan out and be something great for this city.

Seeing what is on that list is like a kick in the gut for all those years of hard work.  Apparently meant nothing to those councilors.







Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2016, 02:18:40 pm

Seeing what is on that list is like a kick in the gut for all those years of hard work.  Apparently meant nothing to those councilors.


I'm sorry your project was tossed out.

I agree with you.  I'll do my damnedest to make this fail.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 08, 2016, 02:44:27 pm
Maybe we should just bring back the "No Islands in the River" signs and place them near the polling places.

That'd probably kill it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 08, 2016, 02:48:32 pm
I once tried to vote NO, but I had my ballot upside down. Turns out I voted ON.


Good to see you back...haven't heard from you in a while.




Count me as "no"...or "on"...whichever...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 09, 2016, 12:38:04 am
I will fight tooth and nail against this thing and get everyone I know to do the same.  The whole process and criteria for consideration shifted several times which was quite frustrating and we never felt that we were fairly acknowledged.

Several "newcomers" like the Arts Alliance, got more consideration and funding for instance.

We have been working on this museum project for over FIVE YEARS!  I think if anything that certainly shows determination and resolve, a willingness to be in it for the long haul and work hard.  I think of all the events we have thrown like fundraisers large and small, all the students and interns we have worked with, all the tours given to people from around the world, the tens of thousands of dollars of just my own personal money, not to mention the incredible amount of time and work organizing things, keeping the accounts, doing the appropriate legal work, paying rent and insurance on our current space, coordinating projects with other groups, creating displays, educational worksheets, maps and material, etc. etc. etc.  We have put a LOT of work into this for over FIVE YEARS!  A lot of people, from all walks of life and having lots of different talents and skills have worked very hard for this.

Then out of the blue someone has an idea and ends up getting funding!?     

I call BS.

I am also frustrated that Gilcrease got such a huge amount of money.  You know, I am on the ground floor seeing what many visitors and tourists say and want to do in Tulsa.  Many aren't interested in "Western Art" and throwing another 60 some odd million at that museum won't make them any more interested in it!

Not everyone is interested in Art Deco either, but how the councilors could not see that also having a National Art Deco Museum in the mix for only 4.5 mill could greatly enhance our draw, is beyond me.  Utterly baffling. 

Surely a diversity of attractions to satisfy more interests would be a positive, especially when we could FINALLY truly take advantage of something that people from around the world, already have a positive view of our city about, and when we have a dedicated, determined, talented group of people who have shown that they would work hard to make this pan out and be something great for this city.

Seeing what is on that list is like a kick in the gut for all those years of hard work.  Apparently meant nothing to those councilors.


Since arts enhance the quality of life and economic development in a city, a better arts package would spread $60M over many projects and ideas rather than staking it all on one entity which (to quote CF’s term) makes an alchemist’s promise that $80M (I think that was their original ask) would make Gilcrease an attraction on par with Crystal Bridges in Bentonville.  The return is every bit as speculative as an outlet mall in the middle of an urban wilderness, a sporting goods store in a city park, etc. 

Gilcrease had a very nice proposal. 

One that made you want to stand up and cheer.  However, the call to the public from the council was for ideas that would improve economic development, health outcomes, address transportation (and two other criteria that escape me at the moment).  I honestly do not see how a massive investment in Gilcrease will get people to book flights to Tulsa to come see the museum all the sudden or convince Boeing or GE to relocate their corporate HQ here. 

If the total collection value at Gilcrease is $2 billion, as claimed, why aren’t investors or bankers lined up waiting to loan the museum the money for expansion? 

I hope Blake is still monitoring this thread.  He was one of the councilors saying there needed to be public commentary on what has been fleshed out by the council and mayor thus far.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 09, 2016, 09:17:49 am
There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.

To put this in perspective.
     -forms based zoning had lots of input from innovative planners....they nodded their heads and ignored it.
     -Aquarium originally planned for west bank....interfered with zoo plans, Jenks got it
     -Outlet Mall planned for heavily used hiking/biking area....leaders listened, nodded heads and proceeded...barely saved
     -Sports retail complex planned for (arguably) park land next to river....leaders got input, nodded and ignored...to be announced

Now its more formal. Yes, we will have more public comment but no changes allowed.

At least they're being more honest about it.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 09, 2016, 09:58:07 am
Came across this quote in an article drawing from WalletHub ranking the fitness of cities. Thought it might apply here as to leadership or lack thereof.

"However, lifestyle behaviors lie in the hands of the city policy makers, as well as the residents. “We need to change our physical and built environment,” Heather A. Hausenblaus, PhD, physical activity and healthy aging expert and associate professor at Jacksonville University’s Brooks Rehabilitation College of Healthcare Sciences, tells Yahoo Health.

For example, she suggests that city officials “close off streets to motorized traffic and open the streets to bikes, walking and jogging,” and provide their communities with more sidewalks and bike lines “making it harder to drive.”

Stop electing people with closed minds and authoritarian attitudes Tulsa. They appoint people they can identify with and over time your community ossifies.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 09, 2016, 11:44:49 am
There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.

To put this in perspective.
     -forms based zoning had lots of input from innovative planners....they nodded their heads and ignored it.
     -Aquarium originally planned for west bank....interfered with zoo plans, Jenks got it
     -Outlet Mall planned for heavily used hiking/biking area....leaders listened, nodded heads and proceeded...barely saved
     -Sports retail complex planned for (arguably) park land next to river....leaders got input, nodded and ignored...to be announced

Now its more formal. Yes, we will have more public comment but no changes allowed.

At least they're being more honest about it.

City of Tulsa Suggestion and Comments box.

(http://static1.cartoonsy.com/preview/263/78ca31f61e075ad)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Ed W on January 09, 2016, 11:52:38 am
There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.

...Now its more formal. Yes, we will have more public comment but no changes allowed.



We've seen this time after time in bicycling advocacy in communities across the nation. Public input is solicited and it results in 4 or 5  plans, all but one or two totally unacceptable. The remaining ones are what the planners wanted to do in the first place, but needed the political cover of that supposed public input. (As you know, Joseph Stalin observed that who votes is irrelevant. It's who counts the votes that really matters.)

Is there a solution for this? Yes, but remember, I'm a radical and it involves blindfolds and final cigarettes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on January 09, 2016, 12:07:19 pm
There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.


Likewise, how much of the extensive public comment on the new Zoning Code made it into the code?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 09, 2016, 12:39:10 pm
The only thing that would work is if each proposal is separated. For instance I like the idea of planning for replacing the projects west of Riverparks West and totally re-developing the land towards Southwest blvd. That would stimulate the area and tie it into rt 66. I also like dedicating some funding to hasten the route 66 development across from Webster. However, they may be lost by tying them in with unpopular elements like the Jenks/casino dam, Gilcrease, Zoo, police/fire etc.

Is it too late for that change?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: brettakins on January 11, 2016, 12:32:08 pm
http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa (http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa)

Quote
TULSA, Oklahoma - The Raw Space Tulsa proposal may have been left on the cutting room floor after last month’s Vision 2025 retreat between Tulsa city leaders.
However, those behind the idea for a maker’s village technology and manufacturing hub say a lot has changed since then, and they hope to convince the city council that this plan is exactly what Tulsa needs.

It is180,000-square feet of empty space.

The old Fin Tube site, sitting just outside of downtown Tulsa, is one of the city’s most historic properties.

It is surrounded by similar industrial warehouses that Scott Phillips says are ready to be brought back to life.

“So, if we can reinvigorate this area with an innovation hub that is growing, companies and jobs and inspiring students, we can take that million-plus square footage and turn it into an innovation hub for Tulsa," he said.

The idea is similar to what has been done in other cities across the United States, bringing together advanced technology, traditional manufacturing, already established industry and the community.

“I want a facility where Tulsa's greatest welder is mixing with one of Tulsa's greatest advanced technologists," he said.

Phillips is asking for $24 million in Vision funds.

“The message being Tulsa is truly visionary and embrace entrepreneurs and innovators globally and that would've been powerful message,” Phillips said.

He pointed out the volatile oil and gas industry and that the more options the better.

“We need to make that smart decision to invest in our future in technology and the maker movement and innovative and manufacturing,” he said. “Those jobs are a way to diversify our economy and grow our future."

Vision 2025 public town hall meetings begin Monday at 6 p.m. at the Greenwood Cultural Center.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 11, 2016, 01:11:25 pm
The article from today with more info:

What you need to know going into Vision town hall meetings

Quote
Vision public meetings
Monday, Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 N. Greenwood Ave.
Tuesday, Kirk of the Hills, 4102 E. 61st St.
Wednesday, TCC Southeast at the Van Trease PACE, 10300 E. 81st St.
All meetings scheduled for 6-8 p.m

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/what-you-need-to-know-going-into-vision-town-hall/article_439665ad-1b18-53ed-a8de-e9f4c1a2465b.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/what-you-need-to-know-going-into-vision-town-hall/article_439665ad-1b18-53ed-a8de-e9f4c1a2465b.html)

Quote
Residents have three last opportunities this week to provide input on the Vision renewal tax package before it is put on a ballot to go before voters in April.
There will be town hall meetings from 6 to 8 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, starting at Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 N. Greenwood Ave.
The process to draft the package began at least three years ago in some regard with Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s call for a portion of it to be dedicated to public safety.
Another major portion of the package, Arkansas River infrastructure, began to take shape on Councilor G.T. Bynum’s river taskforce formed in November 2013.
Despite years in the making, Vision renewal efforts changed dramatically just before Christmas when it was decided as a 15-year renewal to include more than $1 billion from taxpayers.
The $1 billion ask

Last week, Councilor Blake Ewing called the tax package the most complicated ever to be put before Tulsa voters.
It includes draws from three separate revenues, two of which are designed to be made permanent.
As drafted, the package would renew 0.55 percent of Vision 2025’s 0.6 percent sales tax. The city is leaving out 0.05 percent to be pursued by Tulsa County — whose officials have said they will pursue as much as 0.1 percent.
How much is 0.55 percent sales tax? Every $5 burger in the city limits would see 3 cents going to the projects listed. Those 3 cents are already taxed today under Vision 2025, which paid for the BOK Center and dozens more projects supported by voters in 2003. That tax is set to expire at the end of this year.
But renewing 0.55 percent isn’t the only thing being considered under the current draft.
At the Dec. 18 meeting, city officials agreed to pursue general obligation bonds and a two-year extension of the Improve Our Tulsa’s sales tax, collectively adding more than $370 million to the package aimed for voters in April.
How the billion breaks down

Almost a third of the package would become a permanent tax dedicated to public safety.
Out of Vision, $240 million would be obligated while $80 million would come from the Improve Our Tulsa extension.
That funding would go largely to hire 160 police officers, but would also hire 70 firefighters, 16 additional 911 staff, street maintenance crews and school crossing guards.
More than $642 million would go to economic development projects that include Arkansas River low-water dams, parks and amenities.
The low-water dams and other infrastructure, including a rebuild of Zink Dam and a new south Tulsa/Jenks dam, are to cost $177 million in the plan, which includes Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness investments, levee rehabilitation and new parks.
The remaining $464 million, nearly half, is drafted to go toward projects that include — in order of expense — a Gilcrease Museum expansion, Cox Business Center improvements, airport infrastructure, Tulsa Zoo expansion, Center of the Universe transportation hub and the South Mingo Road street widening and improvement.
There are 28 projects in the remaining $464 million.
Transit operations and capital, also to become a permanent tax, will garner $60 million from the 15-year renewal — with those taxes being obligated past the package.
What to expectfrom the meetings

City officials have been arguing over what level of impact public input should have on the projects at this point.
The final 28 projects have the most contention due to a majority of the council and mayor having a consensus on the list from the Dec. 18 meeting they don’t want to lose.
The minority argued last week that the goal is not to change the project list but to engage the public with the final — and significantly larger — package before it’s finalized for voters.
Once the meetings are over midweek, the council may have a follow-up meeting where they would decide on any changes to make. However, doing so would be against a deadline.
City legal staff have said they need several weeks to prepare the ballot language, so as to avoid challenges. That work is up against a hard deadline of Feb. 4 to deliver the language to the state election board for an April 5 vote.Following Feb. 4 and until the vote, city officials will likely start a campaign to pitch the final package to voters, encouraging them to approve it in its final form.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 11, 2016, 01:27:35 pm
The article from today with more info:

What you need to know going into Vision town hall meetings


No islands in the river!  (Place disgruntled emoji here)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 11, 2016, 06:14:25 pm
In case anyone was curious about the breakdown on the river improvements.

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/12540755_10206969721937995_6321720116451288592_n.jpg?oh=64c2c99c4088fcc9eaac4d3e4f81c8e2&oe=57067AE6)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 11, 2016, 06:30:29 pm
In case anyone was curious about the breakdown on the river improvements.

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/12540755_10206969721937995_6321720116451288592_n.jpg?oh=64c2c99c4088fcc9eaac4d3e4f81c8e2&oe=57067AE6)
I don't see how Zink Dam can be re-built with recreational gates (whatever those are) and flume AND a new iconic pedestrian bridge (whatever that is) for $62,900,000.

What was wrong with the Midland Valley trestle bridge?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 12, 2016, 10:19:45 am
Here's the thing I struggle with: what is the "vision?"  I look at this list and it's just like someone bashed a pinata and a bunch of candy fell out and scattered all over the place.  I can't see a targeted strategic plan for accomplishing any particular thing.  And I can't say that the list is based on anything other than which organizations could rally the most squeaky wheels to the cause.

If we had started with PlaniTulsa as a guide for the types of projects that should receive public funding, this would make more sense to me.  The comprehensive plan includes sections on Economic Development, Housing, Transportation and Land Use.  We know that one of the major goals is to focus growth back into the existing center city and other underutilized spaces where we've already got infrastructure. Another was to spur economic development and revitalization of north and west Tulsa. But there are pages and pages of priorities and goals to be achieved in the near and long term... all based on the research and massive public input of the comp plan update.

But if feels like we just ignored all that and did the "scatter confetti" method here.  "Hey, if everyone gets a little something, they'll vote for it!"

Here's another question: public safety already consumes one quarter of the municipal budget (second only to streets and public works).  If they get this quarter billion dollars, can we re-purpose more of our city's annual budget for other critical purposes?  Like parks, for instance?  (Since strong parks programming is actually proven to reduce crime, while simply adding more cops does not.)

I really can't decide where I fall on this whole thing. The ballot for these items will be split into 4 categories: River, Economic Development, Public Safety and Transit. 

I guess we'll see how the final list shakes out. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 12, 2016, 10:33:42 am
I still can't get over that we're being asked to pay sales taxes to cover things that should come from income and property taxes (public safety and schools).  The Visions and similar packages are for truly visionary things that affect quality of life.  BOK Center put us on the map and has brought things to town that we otherwise were having to go to OKC, Dallas, or KC for.  The river plan is truly visionary, to make our city a river city again instead of a sand pit city.  New industry can thrive on it for boating, fishing, and entertainment along the river.  The travel hub also is visionary and would bring big changes to how we operate as a city.  I also can get behind our museums and other entertainment venues to make the city more attractive for tourists and conventions.  If we need more cops and to better fund our schools, that money comes from long term sources.  And yes, that means killing tax breaks and (gasp) raising some taxes.  We don't really have a choice at this point.  If we allow Visions funds and sales taxes to creep into areas they weren't intended, it'll set a precedent that will lead to all things being funded by sales taxes, which is a major problem since its the most regressive tax in the system.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 12, 2016, 10:36:40 am
Along those lines, use the public safety funds for a soccer/multi-use stadium downtown.  USL is going to be the premier minor league for soccer soon and the Roughnecks can really thrive.  Make it multi-use enough to accomodate a high school football game of the week and available to host outdoor concerts and other shows and outdoor events.  Ideally it would be built with the ability to expand.  Even though MLS is largely a pipe-dream, lets leave the door open just in case.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 12, 2016, 11:11:55 am
The "vision" is for good schools, decent roads, functional public transit, consistently funded police and fire... Some people are confusing "vision" with "things local government should already be doing."

On the public safety tax: I hate funding firm commitments with sales tax revenue, but such is state law. However, I'm still skeptical that we need such a drastic increase. I'd be fun devoting the tax to them for somewhat of an increase, but can we supplant some of the other funding to other sources? I hate that the Golden "security" goose gets dedicated funding increases, while infrastructure, education, transit, community programs, parks, transit etc. etc. etc. fights for scraps.  (Similar to what Ponder said)

Otherwise - there is enough in there for me to vote YES.

The South Tulsa dam is a joke in my book, Jenks and the Creeks can build their own dam, but... package deals are a package.  Overall, they adjusted the dam proposal enough to get 'er done so they can shut up about "water in the river." Plus, Zink needs to happen and funding for trails and Turkey Mtn are priorities in my little world.

Yay public transit!  Ewings Transportation Hub idea is interesting and is outside the box thinking, but I hate the fact that it basically means abandoning a functioning and architecturally interesting bus station that isn't very old (also, the logistics of buses at the proposed location is interesting).  I suspect to get this funding there was a deal for an equal amount of funding for specific road projects, I don't know the road projects well enough to say yay or nay.

I'm a fan of the Gilcrease expansion, partially because I think uTulsa is doing a good job running it, partially because I think it is long overdue, and partially because I think the collection SHOULD be better known. If done right, it can clearly be an actual tourism draw.

The Convention Center, Airport, community health, parks, and performing arts center are all part of core infrastructure in my book. Yes, parks and performing arts centers are at the same level as airports and convention centers.

The Discovery Lab is a long overdue addition to Tulsa. It is just expected that a community of over 500k has such a thing.

Some "economic development" items in there that will probably fall short of their goals:  happy if we lure the BMX National HQ, particularly if it enhances our robust cyclist community. Same with the National Guard station, seeing new fighter jets out there will be neat and does dive some economics. But, I don't harbor the delusion that either will have a decent return on investment.

Education gets a few bones.  OSU-Tulsa, Langston, TCC - too bad OSU Tulsa will never be the 4 year on-campus institution we were promised.  I'm not even sure what Langston really does, other than be a Historically Black College.  TPS is broke, I'm sure they really need money to lower the student to teacher ratio, but funding is funding I guess.

Then we get "luxury" items which shouldn't be luxuries. The Arts Commission, city beautification, the Zoo, etc.

Toss in some slush funds...

Not sure on what a couple of the items actually are. And I agree with scatter gun criticism, but that's the "palm greasing" that apparently has to happen around here to get any progress.  Unfortunately, when we get a plan that has some, even mostly solid investments in it, I have to vote yes. Mostly because I doubt we will see a better plan and getting something in terms of public investment is better than nothing. (great attitude?)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 12, 2016, 01:33:03 pm
I’m of the opinion that higher education should not receive funds out of this package.  They have plenty of venues to raise the money and are a “pay-as-you-go” enterprise.  At the K-12 level or even Vo-Tech, I’d really have no problem with.  Air Guard? Unless our contribution is doubled or tripled by Federal funding and it actually adds a significant amount of jobs at the base, it’s a sink-hole.  I’m ambivalent on the airport.  That is a commerce hub, but like other projects still in the mix, I’d like to see a breakdown of what each proposal is.

Shocking to some, I even question the $9 million for Turkey Mountain considering the amount RPA is borrowing from GKFF and QT is only $5.6 million unless that is the ultimate payback with interest assuming it is 10 years or so before that project gets its funding.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 12, 2016, 01:58:52 pm
http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa (http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa)



Except for that pesky little reality that the state has cut education 30% under Gov Failin'.  That will be a BIG draw to the state...not.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 13, 2016, 01:00:53 pm
I know we have all heard and read a lot about this this week, but there is one more public meeting tonight at 6pm (at TCC SE campus) and this is important to voice our concerns while it still might make a difference in the final proposals. It was nice to see a standing room only crowd at the Greenwood meeting Monday.

Tulsans could end up voting on as many as 11 Vision proposals

https://www.readfrontier.com/tulsans-could-end-up-voting-on-as-many-as-11-vision-proposals/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/tulsans-could-end-up-voting-on-as-many-as-11-vision-proposals/)

Quote
If too many Jeannette Kings and Karen Chapmans show up to vote April 5, the city’s billion dollar Vision 2025 renewal proposal could well turn into a billion dollar bust.

King and Chapman challenged city councilors at Monday’s town hall meeting to explain how and why they decided to move away from the traditional Vision format — a straight 0.6 percent sales tax — to one that includes multiple funding sources, some permanent some not, that do not all begin and end at the same time.

“I predict it won’t pass because it won’t even make sense,” King told a packed auditorium at Greenwood Cultural Center, adding, “this, to me, seems sneaky and not up front.”

Tuesday’s Vision 2025 town hall meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church, 6040 S. Pittsburgh Ave. Wednesday’s meeting is 6 p.m. at Tulsa Community College Southeast Campus, 10300 E. 81st St.

Chapman elicited some of the loudest applause of the evening when she questioned why the Vision renewal proposal calls for revenue to be used to pay for operating costs in the city’s Police, Fire and Street Maintenance departments. Chapman pointed to the fact that the current Vision 2025 package, which expires at the end of the year, is dedicated solely to capital improvements and economic development.

“This Vision 2025 is not viable,” she said. “It’s not a good package.”

Councilors Phil Lakin, Blake Ewing and Karen Gilbert responded to King’s and Chapman’s concerns, noting that the draft package represents the City Council’s best effort to address the city’s needs as communicated to them by the public while not raising taxes.

“Lots of surveys were done, and lots of calls were made trying to figure out what the appetite of the Tulsa community was,” Lakin said. “The Tulsa community does not want a tax increase to pay for all of these things.”

As for King’s assertion that city leaders are trying to pull a quick one, the facts don’t bear that out. The City Council and Mayor Dewey Bartlett have held dozens of well-publicized and well-attended public meetings over the past several years as they’ve worked to put the Vision renewal package together.

But it’s also true that the composition of the package — including what funding sources would be included — has been fluid up to and including the Dec. 18 City Council/mayor retreat to finalize the draft proposal.

As recently as June, councilors held public meetings to discuss using as much as half of the expiring Vision 2025 sales tax to build low-water dams in the Arkansas River with the other half going to economic development projects. This was happening at the same time that Bartlett was pushing for using 0.2 percent of the Vision renewal for public safety.

By August, Bartlett and Councilor Karen Gilbert had announced a compromise plan for public safety that called for using 0.2 percent of the Vision 2025 renewal and another 0.1 percent of the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax when it expires no later than 2021. Both taxes would be permanent.

As Ewing noted Monday night, any question about whether the city’s public safety needs could be put off until after the Vision vote was put to rest when a University of Cincinnati study found that Tulsa needs 175 more patrol officers.

At that point, Ewing said, city officials could not go to the public and say, “Trust us, we’ll get to public safety after we get to the river.”

Above are the proposed funding sources for the city of Tulsa's proposed Vision 2025 renewal. PROVIDED
Above are the proposed funding sources for the city of Tulsa’s proposed Vision 2025 renewal. PROVIDED
Which brings us to another question asked of councilors Monday night: Just how many Vision propositions will Tulsans be asked to vote on in April?

City Finance Director Mike Kier told the crowd four: two permanent taxes, one for public safety and one for transit; one for Arkansas River Infrastructure; and one for economic development projects.

But speaking to The Frontier later in the meeting, he confirmed that he was referring strictly to questions related to how Vision 2025 sales taxes revenue would be spent.

Because the City Council and the mayor are also using Improve Our Tulsa funds to pay for Vision projects, an additional three questions will be on the ballot, Kier said.

Those include one proposition to extend a portion of the city’s Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for transportation and street projects, and one proposition to extend a portion the city’s improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for Parks and Recreation projects.

The seventh ballot proposition would be to extend 1.0 percent of the Improve Our Tulsa sales for two years beginning no later than 2021 to pay for a variety of projects.

But that’s not the end of it. Tulsa County officials have said they plan to ask voters to approve a countywide 0.1 percent Vision 2025 sales tax renewal to fund approximately $150 million in road, street and building projects.

Depending on how the ballot is put together, that could mean an additional three or four Vision-related propositions Tulsa voters will have to decide come April 5.

So, yes, when it’s all said and done, Tulsans could be asked to vote on as many as 11 Vision 2025-related ballot questions.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 13, 2016, 03:11:04 pm
I don't see how Zink Dam can be re-built with recreational gates (whatever those are) and flume AND a new iconic pedestrian bridge (whatever that is) for $62,900,000.

What was wrong with the Midland Valley trestle bridge?

That is the current Engineers Estimate (plus the item below it for mitigation costs).  All of the estimates for the LWD's have been reviewed in detail with an independent engineering review committee and local construction resources.  Additionally, it was escalated for construction inflation to the intended starting time and it includes appropriate contingency's and the cost for advance funding is shown elsewhere.  I assure you, as others can, that the proposed LWD(s) project scope(s) and cost estimates are the most vetted piece of the entire proposal.

I understand from various discussions with Public Works that there are significant structural issues with the Pedestrian Bridge and it's intended expansion that are not easily overcome and unfortunately replacement appears to be the best action.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 13, 2016, 03:15:32 pm
Shocking to some, I even question the $9 million for Turkey Mountain considering the amount RPA is borrowing from GKFF and QT is only $5.6 million unless that is the ultimate payback with interest assuming it is 10 years or so before that project gets its funding.
I understand from what I have read in the media that there is interest on the loan when repaid and from discussion in committee meetings that RPA desires to make some appropriate user enhancements.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 13, 2016, 03:47:00 pm
Thanks for the link, TulsaGoldenHurriCAN.

Tulsans could end up voting on as many as 11 Vision proposals

https://www.readfrontier.com/tulsans-could-end-up-voting-on-as-many-as-11-vision-proposals/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/tulsans-could-end-up-voting-on-as-many-as-11-vision-proposals/)

Quote
Just how many Vision propositions will Tulsans be asked to vote on in April?

City Finance Director Mike Kier told the [Greenwood Cultural Center] crowd four: two permanent taxes, one [1] for public safety and one [2] for transit; one [3]for Arkansas River Infrastructure; and one [4] for economic development projects.

Because the City Council and the mayor are also using Improve Our Tulsa funds to pay for Vision projects, an additional three questions will be on the ballot, Kier said.

Those include one proposition [5] to extend a portion of the city’s Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for transportation and street projects, and one proposition [6] to extend a portion the city’s improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for Parks and Recreation projects.

The seventh ballot proposition [7] would be to extend 1.0 percent of the Improve Our Tulsa sales for two years beginning no later than 2021 to pay for a variety of projects.


But that’s not the end of it. Tulsa County officials have said they plan to ask voters to approve a countywide 0.1 percent Vision 2025 sales tax renewal to fund [8-10 or 11] approximately $150 million in road, street and building projects.

My intentions:

[1] public safety = NO
[2] transit = Maybe
[3] Arkansas River Infrastructure = NO
[4] economic development projects = Maybe
[5] transportation and street projects = Probably NO
[6] Parks and Recreation projects = Probably NO
[7] a variety of projects = NO
[8-10 or 11] approximately $150 million in road, street and building projects = Probably NO, but it depends on the projects...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 13, 2016, 03:48:22 pm
I don't see how Zink Dam can be re-built with recreational gates (whatever those are) and flume AND a new iconic pedestrian bridge (whatever that is) for $62,900,000.

What was wrong with the Midland Valley trestle bridge?

That is the current Engineers Estimate (plus the item below it for mitigation costs).  All of the estimates for the LWD's have been reviewed in detail with an independent engineering review committee and local construction resources.  Additionally, it was escalated for construction inflation to the intended starting time and it includes appropriate contingency's and the cost for advance funding is shown elsewhere.  I assure you, as others can, that the proposed LWD(s) project scope(s) and cost estimates are the most vetted piece of the entire proposal.

I understand from various discussions with Public Works that there are significant structural issues with the Pedestrian Bridge and it's intended expansion that are not easily overcome and unfortunately replacement appears to be the best action.


Thank you for your response.

What are recreational gates?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 13, 2016, 04:03:52 pm
A bridge made for trains cant handle cyclists and pedestrians at the same time? Like its bee doing for the last few decades?

Seems odd. Not saying there isn't something wrong with the bridge, just odd. There are train bridges all over the country that old that still carry trains.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 13, 2016, 04:10:33 pm
A bridge made for trains cant handle cyclists and pedestrians at the same time? Like its bee doing for the last few decades?

Seems odd. Not saying there isn't something wrong with the bridge, just odd. There are train bridges all over the country that old that still carry trains.

Yes, such as the railroad bridge near US 75 / Southwest Blvd, constructed about 130 years ago...

But I don't understand what a new iconic pedestrian bridge is supposed to accomplish.  What's the design?  When is it to be built?  

Overall, I don't understand the current Zink Dam and pedestrian bridge situation.  Is the dam in danger of rupturing?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on January 13, 2016, 11:20:57 pm
TPS is broke, I'm sure they really need money to lower the student to teacher ratio, but funding is funding I guess.

TPS dug their hole by taking money from education to create a complete duplicate police department, mainly to keep things like this out of the news:

http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/students-parents-accuse-security-officer-using-exc/np34p/


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 14, 2016, 08:17:22 am
TPS dug their hole by taking money from education to create a complete duplicate police department, mainly to keep things like this out of the news:

http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/students-parents-accuse-security-officer-using-exc/np34p/

But that's not TPS


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 14, 2016, 09:40:21 am
A bridge made for trains cant handle cyclists and pedestrians at the same time? Like its bee doing for the last few decades?

Seems odd. Not saying there isn't something wrong with the bridge, just odd. There are train bridges all over the country that old that still carry trains.
I understand there is issues with the piers and portions of the iron structure. Another issue that I am aware of are that the bottom cord of the bridge structure is below the flood of record elevation which adds significant side loading during flood events.  The same condition exists at the 11th street RR Bridge however as that bridge is in RR service the RR (as standard practice, in many locations) can and does park loaded ballast cars on it during extreme events in order to add stability.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Markk on January 14, 2016, 10:45:06 am
The Tulsa World and the Frontier have reported that the Vision extension proposal will include (1) Water in the River; (2) Public Safety; and (3) Economic Development. While not set in stone, the breakdown among those categories is:

  • River: $157.1M
  • Public Safety: $268.8M
  • Economic Dev: $366M

http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-and-mayor-hammer-out-vision-package-but-more-work/article_87a58209-65c3-553f-818a-d9472420e1f9.html?mode=jqm

The Economic Development package currently includes:

Gilcrease Museum expansion, $69 million
Tulsa Zoo expansion, $30 million
Watco rail line relocation, $5 million
Langston University-Tulsa, $18 million
Peoria-Mohawk business park, $12 million
USABMX national headquarters, $18 million
Tulsa beautification fund - $12 million
Commercial revitalization fund, $12 million
Community Health Connection building, $10.5 million
Arts Alliance Tulsa, $3 million
Route 66 Trust fund, $10 million
Air National Guard, $9.4 million
TCC career placement, $5.6 million
Airport infrastructure, $32 million
Transit, $60 million
Center of Universe Transportation Hub, $15 million
Advance funding allowance, $25 million
Contingency fund, $20 million

The Councilors and Mayor expect to move some proposals to the Improve Our Tulsa package that will come after the Vision package:

a portion of funding for Performing Arts Center expansion
Cox Business Center expansion
South Mingo corridor
Peoria Connection
GO Plan
Public schools safety and crosswalks
Teach. Live. T-Town.
Mohawk Sports Complex
Discovery Lab
Page Belcher and Mohawk golf course facilities
McCullough Park
A portion of Center of the Universe transit hub

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/vision-package-cuts-leave-strong-projects-for-later/article_edd25b58-2603-5ce5-943e-ac0461411cae.html

And some projects are left out of the Vision and Improve Our Tulsa plans:

Raw Space
Bike Share
relocation of a Salvation Army warehouse
Spotlight Theatre rehabilitation
Tulsa Fire Museum
Tulsa Rugby Football Club’s clubhouse


So TulsaNow folks, what do you say? Is this Vision package worth supporting?


It's really tragic that nothing is set aside to finish the Mohawk Park soccer complex.   The entire east side of the park has no restroom facilities, parking is inadequate, and getting in and out is limited to a single road rather than having a road that loops through the park and provides a second entrance/exit. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 14, 2016, 11:12:26 am
Overall, I don't understand the current Zink Dam and pedestrian bridge situation.  Is the dam in danger of rupturing?
Given that it's a low water dam, a "rupture" would simply result in old fashioned river flow instead of confining a few feet of water in a decorative bathtub.

One of the main arguments for fixing Zink Dam is that the design is dangerous.  You can see this in times of heavy flow, when it creates a strong vertical hydraulic.  Several people have drowned because of this over the years.  You basically get sucked under and because it's such a wide area with a vertical circulation pattern, it just keeps pushing you underwater. 

Supposedly, the new design is supposed to be better for fish, too.  But don't remember the details.  I think it's supposed to create a more gentle stair step flow?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 14, 2016, 02:00:53 pm
It's really tragic that nothing is set aside to finish the Mohawk Park soccer complex.   The entire east side of the park has no restroom facilities, parking is inadequate, and getting in and out is limited to a single road rather than having a road that loops through the park and provides a second entrance/exit. 

I thought they said last night there was money set aside for the Mohawk complex as they called it a “sure” tourism draw.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 14, 2016, 02:09:35 pm
I thought they said last night there was money set aside for the Mohawk complex as they called it a “sure” tourism draw.

Visitors from out of town playing in a soccer tournament at Mohawk are probably staying at a hotel in Owasso.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: rebound on January 14, 2016, 02:18:48 pm
Visitors from out of town playing in a soccer tournament at Mohawk are probably staying at a hotel in Owasso.

No,  the guest teams are given a list of hotels, usually a package arrangement between the hotels and the tournament sponsors. (Several years with daughter in traveling clubs...) In previous lists and from talking to friends who came up from Dallas with teams, I don't think an Owasso hotel was even on the list.  But I did not see list for the most recent set of games that were held there, and Owasso may have been added as an option.

As far as logistics and generally "something to do", the hotels downtown are a lot more favorable options than an Owasso hotel. 

And I agree with the problems with the park.  It needs serious work on entry/exit, and bathrooms on the East end.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 14, 2016, 02:44:20 pm
It's really tragic that nothing is set aside to finish the Mohawk Park soccer complex.   The entire east side of the park has no restroom facilities, parking is inadequate, and getting in and out is limited to a single road rather than having a road that loops through the park and provides a second entrance/exit. 
Funding for that project IS presently included but by a different proposition.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 14, 2016, 03:25:22 pm
More on the county's proposal:
County and city consider an agreement to avoid tax raise

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html)

Quote
A possible agreement to fold $35 million in improvements to Tulsa County's Expo Square into the city's Vision renewal proposal could avoid the threat of a tax increase from the county.
Councilor G.T. Bynum put the offer on the table Thursday after a meeting between several councilors, Mayor Dewey Bartlett and Tulsa County Commissioner Ron Peters on Wednesday, Bynum said.
Peters said if Tulsa can include the $35 million in improvements for Expo Square and allow for eventual surplus to fall to the county rather than the city, the county would stop its pursuit of a 0.1 percent tax for county needs.
Tulsa's Vision package is intended to be a 0.55 percent renewal of Vision 2025's 0.6 percent sales tax, leaving 0.05 percent for the county.
The county's intention, which the agreement may avoid, has been to seek 0.1 percent, effectively raising taxes if approved by voters.
Bynum said the compromise would get the county and city "on the same page," but where the funding would come from is yet to be decided.
The agreement is up for discussion and was not officially accepted Thursday.
"It's a big tourism draw (for the city), and investing in that facility will keep it that way," Bynum said of Expo Square. "I think this is a good compromise. ... Obviously, we have a lot of work to do over the next two weeks to try to fund this."

I would be in favor of the improvements to the fairgrounds. In the past they have paid off so more improvements could be good for the county and the area. The facilities are already nice and bring in lots of events. It would be neat to see how busy it would be with even better facilities. The BMX headquarters is interesting but I wonder how realistic a chance there is of that is of happening.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 14, 2016, 03:55:28 pm

And I agree with the problems with the park.  It needs serious work on entry/exit, and bathrooms on the East end.


I never really understood why in the late 70's the closed off the three entry/exit points on the east side, and then through the 80's and 90's as the expanded the zoo the cut off more and more of the east side of the park. When the built the new entrance, and built the guard houses there, I seem to remember they were going to start charging a fee to get into the park on top of paying to get into the zoo.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 14, 2016, 03:56:51 pm
More on the county's proposal:
County and city consider an agreement to avoid tax raise

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html)

I would be in favor of the improvements to the fairgrounds. In the past they have paid off so more improvements could be good for the county and the area. The facilities are already nice and bring in lots of events. It would be neat to see how busy it would be with even better facilities. The BMX headquarters is interesting but I wonder how realistic a chance there is of that is of happening.

According to Blake at last night’s meeting, when asked if there was an LOI for them to locate here if the package is approved, he said there was.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 14, 2016, 03:59:12 pm
From Kevin Canfield at The Frontier, something to consider is the possibility of starving funding for other essential services:

Quote
A plan to capture future Improve Our Tulsa revenue to pay for Vision 2025 projects would not only significantly reduce funding for street rehabilitation but also eliminate funding for sidewalk construction, traffic signals, facility repairs, small area plans and dozens of other projects, according to an analysis done by the city’s Finance and Engineering departments.

The report focuses on the city’s capital improvement needs from fiscal years 2020 through 2023.

If the Vision proposal is approved as currently configured, additional capital improvement projects that would suffer include repairs for police, fire and parks department facilities and replacement of guardrails and roadway lights.

Approximately $17 million a year for the replacement of equipment in the police, fire, streets, stormwater and other departments also would not be available if Improve Our Tulsa funds are reallocated into the Vision program.

The reallocation of funds would also hamper the city’s ability to keep city’s buildings and transportation network in compliance Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

In all, approximately $135 million a year in funding for capital improvements would be lost from fiscal years 2020 to 2023, according to the report.

The draft Vision 2025 renewal package formulated by city councilors and Mayor Dewey Bartlett calls for capturing nearly $300 million in Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond revenue that would have otherwise gone to the projects identified in the report.

In addition, the city’s capacity to raise additional bond revenue beyond what would be raised by extending Improve Our Tulsa is expected to be limited from 2020 to 2023, leaving few options to fund non-Vision-related capital projects.

(http://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/projects-that-could-lose-funding.jpg)

The graphic above shows the ongoing capital improvement projects that would likely not be funded from 2020 to 2023  should the city chose to use Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond revenue to fund Vision 2025 renewal projects rather than to continue to dedicate the funds to ongoing capital needs./CITY OF TULSA graphic

Under the draft Vision proposal, 1.0 percent of the existing 1.1 percent Improve Our Tulsa sales tax — commonly known as the third-penny sales tax — would be extended for two years beginning no later than July 2021. The extension would cover the cost of $142.5 million in projects, none of which are directly related to street repairs and rehabilitation.

The Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds would be extended three years, beginning in fiscal year 2020, to fund $148.8 million in Vision projects.

City councilors and Mayor Dewey Bartlett said Thursday that they are aware of the issue and plan to address it.

“We have definitely asked them (Finance and Engineering) the question and we definitely want answers to know what the impact is,” said Councilor Phil Lakin. “They will tell us that and we will just have to weigh that with everything else we have to consider.”

Bartlett said his message from the beginning of the process has been that the city has to live within its means.

Lakin and Bartlett stressed that the Vision renewal package has not been finalized and that changes could still be made.

“I will bring up several ideas that I think could lesson the amount of money expended on future projects,” Bartlett said.

“We still have the ability to cut it back.”

The mayor added that additional funding sources may be available to Oklahoma municipalities by 2020. Bartlett and Oklahoma City Mayor Nick Cornett are leading an effort to get the state Legislature to expand revenue sources available to cities.

Bartlett and the City Council are scheduled to discuss the Vision proposal again Thursday at a council committee meeting.

The $918 million Improve Our Tulsa package was approved by voters in 2013. The program includes more than $625 million for street-related projects, including $482 million for street repair and rehabilitation. The remainder of the Improve Our Tulsa funding, $293 million, is paying for non-street-related capital improvements.

The proposal to extend the Improve Our Tulsa program to fund Vision projects would not result in the elimination of any Improve Our Tulsa projects approved by voters in 2013.

The 0.6 percent, countywide Vision 2025 sales tax package is set to expire at the end of the year.

The city is proposing extending 0.55 percent of that tax to pay for its Vision needs over the next 15 years and beyond.

The 0.55 percent rate would include two permanent taxes — 0.2 percent for public safety and 0.5 percent for transit — and 0.3 percent for Arkansas River infrastructure and economic development projects.

The remaining funding for the proposed $1.1 billion Vision renewal package would come from the Improve Our Tulsa revenue stream.

The city has until Feb. 4 to present its ballot resolutions to the Tulsa County Election Board. Tulsans are scheduled to vote on the proposal April 5.

https://www.readfrontier.com/report-millions-for-streets-sidewalks-facility-repairs-could-be-lost-in-vision-2025-plan/


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 14, 2016, 06:36:12 pm
Overall, I don't understand the current Zink Dam and pedestrian bridge situation.  Is the dam in danger of rupturing?

Given that it's a low water dam, a "rupture" would simply result in old fashioned river flow instead of confining a few feet of water in a decorative bathtub.

One of the main arguments for fixing Zink Dam is that the design is dangerous.  You can see this in times of heavy flow, when it creates a strong vertical hydraulic.  Several people have drowned because of this over the years.  You basically get sucked under and because it's such a wide area with a vertical circulation pattern, it just keeps pushing you underwater. 

Supposedly, the new design is supposed to be better for fish, too.  But don't remember the details.  I think it's supposed to create a more gentle stair step flow?

I'd like to see the proposed design for the dam and for the iconic bridge.  Also, I'd like to know if the current dam and Midland Valley bridge must be removed before a new dam and a new iconic bridge can be built, and if so, the associated demolition costs.  Could any portion of the existing dam be re-used?  Could the existing dam's weir be kept in place, and its existing gates removed?  Would that eliminate the danger?

I don't understand the need to impound river water near 29th St, when The Gathering Place will have its own pond.  I've lived near Zink Lake since 1989.  I've enjoyed it, but I'd like to have a braided stream that flows and ebbs with the releases from Keystone. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Markk on January 15, 2016, 09:57:52 am
I thought they said last night there was money set aside for the Mohawk complex as they called it a “sure” tourism draw.

That's encouraging.  The improvements outlined in the original proposal will make it one of the better facilities in the region.   I wish there was a way to remove the picturesque view of the landfill across the street.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 15, 2016, 11:13:38 am
That's encouraging.  The improvements outlined in the original proposal will make it one of the better facilities in the region.   I wish there was a way to remove the picturesque view of the landfill across the street.

A friend of mine attended the meeting with councilors yesterday.

It sounds like the council is getting the picture that what they had assembled so far was getting confusing.  Parks will go to GO bonds including $13.3 million for Mohawk improvements.  They are also thinking about adding Gilcrease and the Zoo to a GO bond question.  It sounds as if they are trying to narrow the ballot to four measures.  This graphic is prior to adding Gilcrease and the Zoo.  If I’m understanding correctly that the parks would be separated from the dams, that may sink the dams (JMO) but might assure Gilcrease and the Zoo get their funds or the general affinity for Gilcrease and the Zoo may end up with getting the park and trail improvements approved.

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/12508894_816588808468935_3717618171588910513_n.jpg?oh=513cf1223d6431f1f635b1507ffd7969&oe=573C1DA0)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 15, 2016, 12:47:04 pm
It was a very productive meeting.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Markk on January 15, 2016, 01:58:29 pm
It was a very productive meeting.

I just hope they don't try to do Mohawk on the cheap.  It's a proven revenue generator.  Do it right, or don't do it at all.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 15, 2016, 02:06:36 pm
With the recent rains the river has been nearly continuously full of water.  It looks so much better and enhances not only RiverParks but the whole city IMO.  While the two dams won't make it look like it does now all the time (that is dependent on seasonal rainfall/mountain snowmelt) it will be a huge improvement over what we have now when it dries out especially near downtown and the Gathering Place.  That is why I would vote yes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 15, 2016, 02:21:17 pm
A friend of mine attended the meeting with councilors yesterday.

It sounds like the council is getting the picture that what they had assembled so far was getting confusing.  Parks will go to GO bonds including $13.3 million for Mohawk improvements.  They are also thinking about adding Gilcrease and the Zoo to a GO bond question.  It sounds as if they are trying to narrow the ballot to four measures.  This graphic is prior to adding Gilcrease and the Zoo.  If I’m understanding correctly that the parks would be separated from the dams, that may sink the dams (JMO) but might assure Gilcrease and the Zoo get their funds or the general affinity for Gilcrease and the Zoo may end up with getting the park and trail improvements approved.

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xal1/v/t1.0-9/12508894_816588808468935_3717618171588910513_n.jpg?oh=513cf1223d6431f1f635b1507ffd7969&oe=573C1DA0)

I am still a bit confused. Is the 7.8 million proposed for Vensel Park and Vensel Boat Docks part of GO bonds or the V2025? Vensel is at 111th and Delaware. No need for a boat dock if the dams aren't approved is there?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 15, 2016, 03:29:18 pm
Swake I completely agree that area needs the river to "tie it all together". 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 15, 2016, 03:44:51 pm
I am still a bit confused. Is the 7.8 million proposed for Vensel Park and Vensel Boat Docks part of GO bonds or the V2025? Vensel is at 111th and Delaware. No need for a boat dock if the dams aren't approved is there?
This is for the improvements proposed to be located in the channel that is North of the shopping area and South of the River Parks Park at the 96th St. Bridge, it's really at about 98th.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 18, 2016, 04:20:34 pm
Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 18, 2016, 05:27:08 pm
And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

Maybe "they" are leery that a lot of rain in the right places could redefine it as back in the flood plain.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 18, 2016, 08:30:13 pm
Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

Because it makes perfect sense?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on January 18, 2016, 09:41:28 pm
Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

I would MUCH rather do what you have laid out there than the dams in the river.  Would have a much larger positive economic and improved lifestyle impact on the city.
 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 19, 2016, 02:08:31 am
I would MUCH rather do what you have laid out there than the dams in the river.  Would have a much larger positive economic and improved lifestyle impact on the city.
 

Agree, Hopefully it can make it into a future package.  Get the dams passed and out of the way and then some of these ancillary proposals such as Elm and Crow Creek redevelopment can begin to gain more public support. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 19, 2016, 09:07:34 am
Agree, Hopefully it can make it into a future package.  Get the dams passed and out of the way and then some of these ancillary proposals such as Elm and Crow Creek redevelopment can begin to gain more public support. 

Honestly, I think they could have had better public support than dams in the river if anyone in a leadership position would have latched onto the concepts and worked it out like they have the dams.  Even after two or so years of studies on the dams, there’s still no demonstrated economic benefit to them.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 19, 2016, 10:21:45 am
Conan, the dams have very little to do with demonstrated economic benefit. The one thing I have learned about development in Tulsa, and the Riverparks specifically, is that the powers lean towards large concepts backed with known players and/or corporate identity. We don't tend to grow organically. Thus we are slow to grow new players in their group.

This forum tends to measure success by local grass roots involvement leading to smart, planned growth. We find it easier to talk to small businessmen like the Artist or Blake because they are hands on managers. Or planners like Ponder. We speak the same language. 

Power measures success in different terms: national franchises attracted, large single source retail tax development, deep pocket foundation support, political support and corporate involvement. They find it easier to talk to board members, commercial developers and other players. Hence, they like Crossland, Flintco, Casinos, Outlet Malls etc. Cherry Street wasn't successful til they rid it of the organics and brought in a Chipotle. They talk the same language.

We have different goals as well. If they can get the taxpayer to carry the heavy load to achieve their goals, then ours are inconsequential.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: ElTurnado on January 21, 2016, 02:42:10 pm
Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot.  Tossing out Transportation hub.  Removing funding for Langston.
Bynum offered to take money from the river package to help fund Rawspace. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 21, 2016, 02:55:42 pm
Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot.  Tossing out Transportation hub.  Removing funding for Langston.
Bynum offered to take money from the river package to help fund Rawspace. 

Anyone have specifics?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 21, 2016, 03:25:22 pm
Kevin Canfield is tweeting about this.  Sounds like more meetings on Tuesday at 5 & 7 pm in city council chambers.  Lots of talk of cutting things, but no decisions yet.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: ElTurnado on January 21, 2016, 03:27:11 pm
So is Jarrel Wade, @JWPrairieDog


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on January 21, 2016, 03:45:18 pm
Lol no, Canfield is tweeting about something else.  The funding of "Ross Base."

https://twitter.com/KCFrontier


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 21, 2016, 04:14:48 pm
Lol no, Canfield is tweeting about something else.  The funding of "Ross Base."

https://twitter.com/KCFrontier


He sent out a correcting tweet minutes later. The guy does some pretty good reporting, but when you are trying to live tweet things go south sometimes...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on January 21, 2016, 05:53:42 pm
Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot. 

Its looking like that will end up as a separate tax rather than a separate V2025 ballot issue.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 21, 2016, 11:13:27 pm
Quote
Vision 2025 proposal in flux as councilors ponder public safety funding

“It doesn’t matter where the money comes from. It just matters that we can keep this city safe, and we know what we need to do," said Clay Ballenger, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93.

Council pic Vision 2016-01-21 at 1.12.21 PM
City councilors discuss the city’s Vision 2025 proposal at City Hall Thursday. Pictured, left to right, are councilors G.T. Bynum, Phil Lakin, Anna America, Connie Dodson and Karen Gilbert. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier
Talks on a new Vision 2025 package took a sharp and unexpected turn Thursday, with City Councilor Karen Gilbert proposing that the city look into finding an alternate funding source for public safety.

Gilbert made her suggestion after City Engineer Paul Zachary presented an analysis showing that the city’s proposed Vision 2025 renewal package would leave Tulsa without funding for major street rehabilitation projects and other capital improvements from fiscal years 2020 through 2023.

The city’s Vision proposal includes $320 million for public safety, $60 million for transit, $177 million for dams and other infrastructure in the Arkansas River, and the remainder for economic development projects.

“If there is another option that we could possibly use to fund public safety, which we also know is a need in the city, then let’s hold off and cool our jets a little bit and see what other options are out there,” Gilbert said.

Approximately $135 million a year in funding for capital improvements would be lost from fiscal years 2020 to 2023 if the existing Vision proposal went into effect, Zachary told councilors.

Other capital improvements that would be cut or reduced in those years include replacement of guardrails, maintenance of Police and Fire department facilities and construction of sidewalks, according to Zachary’s report.

The cuts and reductions would be necessary because the $1.1 billion Vision package being considered by city leaders calls for capturing the Improve Our Tulsa revenue stream once it expires and using it to pay for Vision projects.

The existing countywide Vision 2025 program is funded through a 0.6 percent sales tax. Area municipalities announced last year they were going to disband the countywide Vision program and come up with their own renewal packages.

The city’s plan calls for renewing 0.55 percent of the 0.6 percent Vision sales tax within the city of Tulsa. Funding for public safety (0.2 percent) and transit (0.5 percent) would be permanent taxes, with the remaining 0.3 percent a 15-year tax.

In addition, nearly all of the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax — commonly known as the third-penny sales tax — would be extended for two years no later than July 2021. The Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds would be extended three years, beginning in 2020.

Zachary told councilors that capturing Improve Our Tulsa revenue after the package expires and diverting it to the Vision renewal package would lower the the city’s Pavement Condition Index, which measures the condition of the streets.

Reallocating that funding would result in the score for arterial streets dropping from 68 in 2021 to 60 in 2025. The score for non-arterial streets would drop from 65 in 2019 to 57 in 2025, according to Zachary’s analysis.

The city’s stated goal when proposing the $918 million Improve Our Tulsa package was to get the Pavement Condition Index for arterial and non-arterial to 64 by 2019, Zachary said.

When asked after the meeting how much money it would take to keep the city’s scores at the level they are projected to be when the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond programs end, Zachary estimated $344 million.

Above is the list of ongoing capital improvement needs the city would not have funding for if the current Vision 2025 sales tax proposal were approved. The city would be without $135 million annually from 2020 to 2023. PROVIDED
Above is the list of ongoing capital improvement needs the city would not have funding for if the current Vision 2025 sales tax proposal were approved. The city would be without $135 million annually from 2020 to 2023. PROVIDED
Complicating matters further is the city’s effort to come up with nearly $44 million for Expo Square and a entrepreneurial center for manufacturers.

In all, the city could be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in the Vision proposal if another funding proposal can’t be worked out.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93 President Clay Ballenger said he’s confident the City Council and Mayor Dewey Bartlett will come up with a way to fund the city’s public safety needs.

“It doesn’t matter where the money comes from,” Ballenger said. “It just matters that we can keep this city safe, and we know what we need to do.”

Bartlett said he would not support any reconfiguration of the Vision proposal that results in a tax increase.

“I think a tax increase is a death sentence for the (Vision) concept,” Bartlett said.

Gilbert said that as far as she is concerned, everything is on the table when it comes to funding public safety  — including a tax increase.

“I think we owe it to the citizens to do what we can to make sure we’re doing this properly,” she said.

City Councilor Blake Ewing may have done the best job of anyone at Thursday’s day-long meeting in describing the predicament the city finds itself in.

“I think there is a general sense in the public that Vision was for big new ideas, third penny was for maintenance and upkeep, the general fund was for year-to-year maintenance and operations.

“Because there hasn’t been a political will to increase the revenue at any point with a tax increase, we’ve shuffled things that might have been in operations — from what I’m hearing today — into third penny and general obligation bonds. We have shuffled things that … might have been in general obligation bonds into Vision.

“And then, instead of using Vision for the big, fancy stuff, we are lopping off part of Vision to take care of operations. Do we see the vicious cycle?”

Councilors voted to continue Thursday’s meeting until 5 p.m. Tuesday. The meeting will take place in the City Council chambers. Councilors also plan to call for a separate special meeting at 7 p.m. the same day to address any other matters that not addressed on Thursday’s agenda.

https://www.readfrontier.com/vision-2025-proposal-in-flux-as-councilors-ponder-public-safety-funding/


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 22, 2016, 09:28:50 am
Perhaps we should focus our attention on changing state law, so that property taxes can be used for municipal operations. 

That way, we wouldn't be 100% reliant on an unpredictable, regressive tax to run our city.  And we would suddenly have an incentive to care about land use planning, not just sales tax whoring.  Once we start caring about intelligent land use, we would make more productive use of the land within our city.  By increasing the productivity of the land (for example, not wasting 2/3 of our commercial space on surface parking), property values would go up which would increase funding for schools.  Which would make Tulsa a more desirable place to live, which would bring more people and jobs to Tulsa, which would increase tax revenues...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 22, 2016, 10:32:48 am
Perhaps we should focus our attention on changing state law, so that property taxes can be used for municipal operations. 

That way, we wouldn't be 100% reliant on an unpredictable, regressive tax to run our city.  And we would suddenly have an incentive to care about land use planning, not just sales tax whoring.  Once we start caring about intelligent land use, we would make more productive use of the land within our city.  By increasing the productivity of the land (for example, not wasting 2/3 of our commercial space on surface parking), property values would go up which would increase funding for schools.  Which would make Tulsa a more desirable place to live, which would bring more people and jobs to Tulsa, which would increase tax revenues...

I think we worked it out before, it’s technically 65%, but who’s counting  ;D

The issues you brought up NEED to be a primary focus of this next mayoral campaign.  Bartlet (sic) claimed at the town hall last Weds. at TCC he’s actually either doing something about changing the municipal funding mechanism or is planning to.   If I understood correctly, one thing he referenced was trying to harness sales tax on internet purchases.  It was also mentioned that Tulsa's sales tax remittance has been relatively flat for 30 years.

I call that fiscal insanity.  We’ve been doing the same thing over and over and the net result has not changed in 30 years.  The national internet sales tax initiative is DOA unless someone can figure out a way to A) Make it compulsory for everyone; B) Make it enforceable; C) Come up with a simplified method for small businesses to track, calculate, and remit the proper sales tax to literally thousands of taxing authorities or at the very least the 40-some-odd states that have sales tax.  I own an on-line retail business and the idea of tracking, ensuring we collect the correct % for the state and city or county is daunting.

Whomever the next mayor is, they need to make lobbying for a change in municipal funding one of their top three priorities and they need to be held to that.  If it were me, I’d make that my economic development director’s primary function lobbying for that change until it happens.  We simply cannot cheap-sell our way to prosperity with retail projects which do not import enough sales tax dollars to produce a noticeable gain in revenue.

The problem we have in this is exactly what Bartlet (sic) is afraid of with the public safety tax and what every GOP legislator in Oklahoma is afraid of: “tax increases”.  Whether it’s personal income-based or property tax-based they don’t want to be labeled with raising taxes even if it means abolishing one method of funding for another they still consider it an increase even if the net cost is negligible to most people.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 22, 2016, 10:54:37 am
I think we worked it out before, it’s technically 65%, but who’s counting  ;D

The issues you brought up NEED to be a primary focus of this next mayoral campaign.  Bartlet (sic) claimed at the town hall last Weds. at TCC he’s actually either doing something about changing the municipal funding mechanism or is planning to.   If I understood correctly, one thing he referenced was trying to harness sales tax on internet purchases.  It was also mentioned that Tulsa's sales tax remittance has been relatively flat for 30 years.

I call that fiscal insanity.  We’ve been doing the same thing over and over and the net result has not changed in 30 years.  The national internet sales tax initiative is DOA unless someone can figure out a way to A) Make it compulsory for everyone; B) Make it enforceable; C) Come up with a simplified method for small businesses to track, calculate, and remit the proper sales tax to literally thousands of taxing authorities or at the very least the 40-some-odd states that have sales tax.  I own an on-line retail business and the idea of tracking, ensuring we collect the correct % for the state and city or county is daunting.

Whomever the next mayor is, they need to make lobbying for a change in municipal funding one of their top three priorities and they need to be held to that.  If it were me, I’d make that my economic development director’s primary function lobbying for that change until it happens.  We simply cannot cheap-sell our way to prosperity with retail projects which do not import enough sales tax dollars to produce a noticeable gain in revenue.

The problem we have in this is exactly what Bartlet (sic) is afraid of with the public safety tax and what every GOP legislator in Oklahoma is afraid of: “tax increases”.  Whether it’s personal income-based or property tax-based they don’t want to be labeled with raising taxes even if it means abolishing one method of funding for another they still consider it an increase even if the net cost is negligible to most people.



Sales tax is regressive, and it places all the tax burden on citizens, none of it on business. It especially taxes the poor because such a large percentage of their income is spent on retail goods. We even tax food! There is no way we should have sales tax on groceries. I do support sales tax on internet purchases, but that’s not the real long term answer.

This is why I have such a hard time with Boren’s sales tax proposal for schools. He’s letting the state off the hook for destroying the state tax base by giving schools more money from an expanded regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor. Schools need more money, but the path to do that is by a graduated income tax on personal income and property taxes on everyone including business.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 22, 2016, 11:08:24 am
In the last 30 years, the City of Tulsa has gained 40,000 people. BUT --- thirty years ago everyone within 50 miles came to Tulsa to do their shopping, to go out to eat, or to see a new release movie.  The fact that you can do all of those things in any suburb now probably accounts for the wash. Add in the fact that the internet is a thing, and I'm surprised it is at break even.

Conan hit the internet sales tax on the head. If it was workable, lets talk about it. But it isn't workable. Worse yet - it often isn't legal. The reason I pay sales tax at Walmart is because the City is provide infrastructure, police, and other services to Walmart. The employees contribute to the local economy. The shoppers live in Tulsa. Everyone is part of the community, and everyone is subject to City of Tulsa tax jurisdiction. That isn't true for retailers outside of Oklahoma, I bought a candle from garage based company in Minneapolis - how is it fair to require that person to remit funds on my behalf to Tulsa?

I'm not opposed to taxes in general, I get that we need taxes.  But sales taxes are a predictably unreliable source of revenue. Our continued reliance on sales tax revenue encourages stupid behavior (like tax incentives to attract a Walmart) and discourages development opportunities by hindering tax policy.

Small government, right? Then let cities set their own tax policies.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 22, 2016, 11:49:50 am
Personally, I have no problem with the idea of internet sales taxes.  And I think it would be possible to set up a national database of tax rates based on zip code that could be used by all vendors and updated by local taxing authorities as needed.

One could argue that every time you get a shipment from an out of town retailer, their deliveries arrive via local infrastructure.  It wouldn't be possible to sell to you without that public benefit.  Until they start delivering by drone, all those trucks still travel (and damage) our roads. 

But if you follow that logic (a shipping tax?), you'd have to pay taxes on every road you traveled.  Which would essentially require every single road to be a toll road.

Which would be a royal pain, but would at least only affect people who use the roads.  I am currently being waaaay overtaxed for road widening and maintenance for streets I will never (or rarely) drive on.  And I'm not receiving a break for bicycling, even though I cause 1/65,000th of the damage a car does every time I traverse a street by bike.

So... back to property taxes as a simple and logical alternative.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 22, 2016, 12:24:46 pm
I believe both The Tulsa Mayor and OKC mayor lobbied to allow the cities to collect on other sources and were smacked on the nose with a newspaper.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 22, 2016, 02:20:07 pm
Personally, I have no problem with the idea of internet sales taxes.  And I think it would be possible to set up a national database of tax rates based on zip code that could be used by all vendors and updated by local taxing authorities as needed.

One could argue that every time you get a shipment from an out of town retailer, their deliveries arrive via local infrastructure.  It wouldn't be possible to sell to you without that public benefit.  Until they start delivering by drone, all those trucks still travel (and damage) our roads. 

But if you follow that logic (a shipping tax?), you'd have to pay taxes on every road you traveled.  Which would essentially require every single road to be a toll road.

Which would be a royal pain, but would at least only affect people who use the roads.  I am currently being waaaay overtaxed for road widening and maintenance for streets I will never (or rarely) drive on.  And I'm not receiving a break for bicycling, even though I cause 1/65,000th of the damage a car does every time I traverse a street by bike.

So... back to property taxes as a simple and logical alternative.

The only way I could see that even remotely working is if a commerce host like eBay or Amazon handled collection, withheld and performed distribution of sales taxes to the proper taxing authorities.  Up to now eBay has lobbied heavily against such a tax and they are arguably the biggest mom & pop online mall with thousands if not millions of people making part or all of their income on there. 

As it is right now MC and I are pretty covered up on time between our day jobs and this business.  If we needed to hire someone to handle sales tax compliance I’d be better off shutting the business down and with it would go the income tax we pay on our profits.  The business allows us to accelerate our retirement goals, pays for some nice vacations, and some toys.  We could survive quite well without it if it got too complicated.  Many others are in the same boat.  Plus you’d still have a regressive tax.

The talk of a national sales tax is a non-starter as well.  That would fall into a black hole in DC and wouldn’t benefit cities or states where they need it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 22, 2016, 03:10:01 pm
Ponder: the two issues you are overlooking is 1) there is a lack of legal jurisdiction by Tulsa to tax someone in Minneapolis and 2) practicality: A) the poor candle maker in Minneapolis would have to send sales tax checks for $1.50 to a thousand different jurisdictions every month (assuming a database existed allowing them to collect the tax)  B) other retailers would have to know if it was a taxable transaction in each jurisdiction (in Iowa a pumpkin or gourd is taxable if sold as decoration, but not taxable if sold as food)  C) still others would have to verify the tax exempt status of whole sellers, Indian tribes, etc. and D) the retailer is now subject to audit from every jurisdiction it sold goods to.

As Conan pointed out, for a small business it just simply isn't possible. If, as you say, there was a better system --- I have no issue with it as a practical matter of needing to raise revenue. But there are better sources that are not regressive and don't touch upon those issues.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 22, 2016, 06:18:20 pm
Sales tax is regressive, ...   It especially taxes the poor because such a large percentage of their income is spent on retail goods. We even tax food! There is no way we should have sales tax on groceries.
We should not have sales tax on groceries, clothes and prescription drugs.  I think we do not have sales tax on prescription drugs already (or it is included in the price).

Quote
I do support sales tax on internet purchases, but that’s not the real long term answer.
I agree it is generally unworkable.

Quote
but the path to do that is by a graduated income tax on personal income and property taxes on everyone including business.
I could support a modified flat tax on income.  Allow a basic deduction for living to everyone.  A higher deduction for family dependents would be easy, we already do that.  Above the threshold, everyone pays the same percentage.  No additional deductions.  I might consent to a deduction for interest on a primary house that the family actually lives in full time.  No summer homes included.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 22, 2016, 06:28:07 pm
But if you follow that logic (a shipping tax?), you'd have to pay taxes on every road you traveled.  Which would essentially require every single road to be a toll road.
We've had that discussion several times.

Quote
Which would be a royal pain, but would at least only affect people who use the roads.  I am currently being waaaay overtaxed for road widening and maintenance for streets I will never (or rarely) drive on.  And I'm not receiving a break for bicycling, even though I cause 1/65,000th of the damage a car does every time I traverse a street by bike.
I am being waaaay over taxed for bike trails I cannot drive my car on.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vashta Nerada on January 22, 2016, 07:40:05 pm
Quote

“And then, instead of using Vision for the big, fancy stuff, we are lopping off part of Vision to take care of operations. Do we see the vicious cycle?”


TPD has no intention of working within is budget, and every intention of making it everyone else's problem.

Just for fun, has anyone accounted for how much $$$ they regularly siphon off of the city's Sinking Fund to pay off settlements and lawsuits?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: rebound on January 23, 2016, 11:07:06 am
I could support a modified flat tax on income.  Allow a basic deduction for living to everyone.  A higher deduction for family dependents would be easy, we already do that.  Above the threshold, everyone pays the same percentage.  No additional deductions.  I might consent to a deduction for interest on a primary house that the family actually lives in full time.  No summer homes included.

That is almost exactly what I've been discussing in a different circle.   Basic principle, every adult (or working person) gets the first XX dollars of income tax free.  Tie that to poverty rate, or similar. (The idea being "it costs this much, at a bare minimum, to live...)  After that, each individual gets taxed the same rate regardless of income.  No deductions at all.  Not for being married, not for kids, not for houses, none.  It gets the govt. out of indirectly managing behaviors, and would be incredibly easy to manage. 



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 25, 2016, 09:25:49 am
Ponder: the two issues you are overlooking is 1) there is a lack of legal jurisdiction by Tulsa to tax someone in Minneapolis and 2) practicality: A) the poor candle maker in Minneapolis would have to send sales tax checks for $1.50 to a thousand different jurisdictions every month (assuming a database existed allowing them to collect the tax)  B) other retailers would have to know if it was a taxable transaction in each jurisdiction (in Iowa a pumpkin or gourd is taxable if sold as decoration, but not taxable if sold as food)  C) still others would have to verify the tax exempt status of whole sellers, Indian tribes, etc. and D) the retailer is now subject to audit from every jurisdiction it sold goods to.

As Conan pointed out, for a small business it just simply isn't possible. If, as you say, there was a better system --- I have no issue with it as a practical matter of needing to raise revenue. But there are better sources that are not regressive and don't touch upon those issues.

Regardless of my day job, I respectfully disagree.  

Sales Tax is already a point of delivery tax.  Take for instance a load of lumber or concrete ordered for a construction project.  The materials may be loaded from a yard in Broken Arrow however the tax is applied and remitted at the rate and point of delivery in say Glenpool... happens every day.

As for internet purchases they have to be delivered, and with legal authorization the seller could easily provide the shipper (USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc.) with the actual sale amount and since they already have the point of delivery (to the customer) they could easily remit the appropriate sales tax using add-on software to their delivery system and make a small percentage for the processing.  Seems like the Postal Service could use it.

Sorry but I don’t see the challenge for the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker and increasing the tax base is a great way to reduce the burden by eliminating it on groceries if purchased at a local store.

KHC


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Cats Cats Cats on January 25, 2016, 09:35:32 am
Regardless of my day job, I respectfully disagree.  

Sales Tax is already a point of delivery tax.  Take for instance a load of lumber or concrete ordered for a construction project.  The materials may be loaded from a yard in Broken Arrow however the tax is applied and remitted at the rate and point of delivery in say Glenpool... happens every day.

As for internet purchases they have to be delivered, and with legal authorization the seller could easily provide the shipper (USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc.) with the actual sale amount and since they already have the point of delivery (to the customer) they could easily remit the appropriate sales tax using add-on software to their delivery system and make a small percentage for the processing.  Seems like the Postal Service could use it.

Sorry but I don’t see the challenge for the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker and increasing the tax base is a great way to reduce the burden by eliminating it on groceries if purchased at a local store.

KHC

I sell things online.. I sell things in Oklahoma.  Trying to pay tax at point of delivery just in Oklahoma is pain in the donkey.

First off the list changes quarterly
I have to enter a code for the county and for the city tax.
In places like Oklahoma City to be accurate I have to figure out which of the four counties it is to get the correct tax rate for that person.
https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/copo1Q16.pdf (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/copo1Q16.pdf)

Now I have to do that for every state.. That will work great.
Places like Amazon know the tax rates for Oklahoma.  But I am the one that has to actually pay the state.
As far the previous thousands of jurisdictions. At least in Oklahoma we pay the state and they send out the city/county payments.  Hopefully they do the same elsewhere.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 25, 2016, 10:36:21 am
My method moves the burden from the seller to the Shipper, for a small fee.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 25, 2016, 10:40:23 am
Shippers like FedEx are increasingly utilizing third party contractors to deliver. So, the burden is partly or entirely theirs. If it takes them more time, that is money.

Does Uber and their drivers collect tax or are they exempt?



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Cats Cats Cats on January 25, 2016, 10:58:10 am
If I'm not responsible for taxes they can do what they want. I still don't think they will put the burden on shippers.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 25, 2016, 12:52:39 pm
Regardless of my day job, I respectfully disagree.  

Sales Tax is already a point of delivery tax.  Take for instance a load of lumber or concrete ordered for a construction project.  The materials may be loaded from a yard in Broken Arrow however the tax is applied and remitted at the rate and point of delivery in say Glenpool... happens every day.

Glad you disagree, discussions without intelligent disagreements are really just rallies.

You are correct, intrastate transactions that involve a separate point of delivery will generally be taxed at the deliver point. All counties and cities are political subdivisions of the State of Oklahoma. The State can collect the tax and remit payment accordingly no matter where the sale "occurred."

However, Amazon's fulfillment center in Coffeyville (which is closing anyway) is NOT in the State of Oklahoma. Amazon does not have a sufficient physical presence in the State of Oklahoma to avail itself to the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma. As a matter of constitutional law, Oklahoma cannot collect taxes from Amazon unless the US Congress approves such taxation.  The law goes back to a 1992 case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html), so there are arguments that the implications were simply unknown at the time and practicality would dictate a different outcome today; the other side of the argument is this ruling is a reason why e-commerce became a thriving business.

The argument goes way back to mail order catalogs, who were also generally exempt from sales tax without a physical presence in a state. So this isn't a new conversation, it goes back at least to the 1960s to a case called Bellas Hess, which was affirmed and heavily quoted in the above reference Quill decision (which is the current state of the law):

Quote from: The US Supreme Court
the Bellas Hess rule appears artificial at its edges: whether or not a State may compel a vendor to collect a sales or use tax may turn on the presence in the taxing State of a small sales force, plant, or office. This artificiality, however, is more than offset by the benefits of a clear rule. Such a rule firmly establishes the boundaries of legitimate state authority to impose a duty to collect sales and use taxes and reduces litigation concerning those taxes. This benefitis important, for as we have so frequently noted, our law in this area is something of a "quagmire" and the "application of constitutional principles to specific state statutes leaves much room for controversy and confusion and little in the way of precise guides to the States in the exercise of their indispensable power of taxation."

Moreover, a bright line rule in the area of sales and use taxes also encourages settled expectations and, in doing so, fosters investment by businesses and individuals. [n.9] Indeed, it is not unlikely that the mail order industry's dramatic growth over the last quarter century is due in part to the bright line exemption from state taxation created in Bellas Hess.
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html) Internal citations omitted.

Basically, in order for Oklahoma to collect sales tax on Amazon et al. we need an act of Congress, probably a narrowly tailored act of Congress as it is sure to be challenged as a violation of due process (as it pertains to the act of Congress) and as a restraint on trade in violation of the commerce clause (as it pertains to individual state laws).

I do appreciate your proposed solution, a similar mechanism exists for collection of production tax revenue on beer - the distributor collects the tax and retains a percentage of the tax as a processing fee. However, as it applies to internet sales, I'm fairly confident we run into the exact same problem and then add a layer too it. Oklahoma can compel FedEx to comply with regulation, but it cannot compel Amazon to give the required information to FedEx, let alone remit payment to FedEx for the taxation portion. So we would still need an act of Congress, but we would likely have FedEx and Amazon lobbying against the effort (internet sales tax would very likely reduce the number of shipments FedEx delivers, and is not likely to be offset by percentage of sales tax remittance).

I'm not against a mechanism to collect sales tax on internet purchases. Taxes have made communities function for 3,000 years - its no different today. But the fix has to be comprehensive in nature and not burden start-ups too much. Given the Constitutional obsticles that there are 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions, a Federal solution appears to be the only way. (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/state-sales-tax-jurisdictions-approach-10000)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on January 25, 2016, 01:14:31 pm
Attempting to steer back on topic. What are the odds we actually vote on Vision extension in April? And if it delays to June or even November, how does that affect its chances at passing? Is there any chance low-water dams are dropped to make space for other items?

"A proposed overhaul to the way the Vision tax package is fundamentally structured may delay its appearance on the ballot, which has long been planned for April.

Councilors said last week they plan on Tuesday to make a full proposal — or at least introduce a plan for discussion — to address a gap in street funding that would occur under the current structure of Vision."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/vision-overhaul-might-delay-april-vote/article_6aa57113-73da-5d00-b310-2dabc78a7666.html


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on January 25, 2016, 03:23:48 pm
Glad you disagree, discussions without intelligent disagreements are really just rallies.

You are correct, intrastate transactions that involve a separate point of delivery will generally be taxed at the deliver point. All counties and cities are political subdivisions of the State of Oklahoma. The State can collect the tax and remit payment accordingly no matter where the sale "occurred."

However, Amazon's fulfillment center in Coffeyville (which is closing anyway) is NOT in the State of Oklahoma. Amazon does not have a sufficient physical presence in the State of Oklahoma to avail itself to the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma. As a matter of constitutional law, Oklahoma cannot collect taxes from Amazon unless the US Congress approves such taxation.  The law goes back to a 1992 case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html), so there are arguments that the implications were simply unknown at the time and practicality would dictate a different outcome today; the other side of the argument is this ruling is a reason why e-commerce became a thriving business.

The argument goes way back to mail order catalogs, who were also generally exempt from sales tax without a physical presence in a state. So this isn't a new conversation, it goes back at least to the 1960s to a case called Bellas Hess, which was affirmed and heavily quoted in the above reference Quill decision (which is the current state of the law):
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html) Internal citations omitted.

Basically, in order for Oklahoma to collect sales tax on Amazon et al. we need an act of Congress, probably a narrowly tailored act of Congress as it is sure to be challenged as a violation of due process (as it pertains to the act of Congress) and as a restraint on trade in violation of the commerce clause (as it pertains to individual state laws).

I do appreciate your proposed solution, a similar mechanism exists for collection of production tax revenue on beer - the distributor collects the tax and retains a percentage of the tax as a processing fee. However, as it applies to internet sales, I'm fairly confident we run into the exact same problem and then add a layer too it. Oklahoma can compel FedEx to comply with regulation, but it cannot compel Amazon to give the required information to FedEx, let alone remit payment to FedEx for the taxation portion. So we would still need an act of Congress, but we would likely have FedEx and Amazon lobbying against the effort (internet sales tax would very likely reduce the number of shipments FedEx delivers, and is not likely to be offset by percentage of sales tax remittance).

I'm not against a mechanism to collect sales tax on internet purchases. Taxes have made communities function for 3,000 years - its no different today. But the fix has to be comprehensive in nature and not burden start-ups too much. Given the Constitutional obsticles that there are 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions, a Federal solution appears to be the only way. (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/state-sales-tax-jurisdictions-approach-10000)

Technically, all sales taxes are charged to and paid by the purchaser.  Where the seller is located in or has a sufficient presence in the state, the state requires the seller to collect the sales tax from the purchaser and remit the tax to the state.  Where the seller is not located in or does not have sufficient presence in the state to be subject to the state law requiring the purchaser collect the tax, the purchaser is still liable for the tax.  It is called “use tax” and it is owed on every internet, telephone or mail order purchase you make in which the seller does not collect Oklahoma sales tax (for the reason stated above).  The problem is that the use tax is the most disobeyed tax law and the state has no reasonable way of enforcing it.  Nonetheless, if you aren’t paying use taxes on those purchases you make, you are a tax scofflaw and are cheating Oklahoma and Tulsa out of tax revenue rightfully owed.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 25, 2016, 03:34:05 pm
Attempting to steer back on topic. What are the odds we actually vote on Vision extension in April? And if it delays to June or even November, how does that affect its chances at passing? Is there any chance low-water dams are dropped to make space for other items?

"A proposed overhaul to the way the Vision tax package is fundamentally structured may delay its appearance on the ballot, which has long been planned for April.

Councilors said last week they plan on Tuesday to make a full proposal — or at least introduce a plan for discussion — to address a gap in street funding that would occur under the current structure of Vision."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/vision-overhaul-might-delay-april-vote/article_6aa57113-73da-5d00-b310-2dabc78a7666.html

Would I be correct in guessing that the haste behind getting a ballot together by April was to essentially have a seamless transition from the original V-2025 tax and this one so as not to have the appearance of a “tax increase”?

We’ve proven in the past we would tolerate a tax increase for improved amenities or street repairs so I don’t understand why the words “tax increase” are viewed as such an anathema down at City Hall or the Capitol. 

Fiscal conservatism isn’t just cutting or keeping taxes low.  It also means being a good and efficient steward of public resources.  If it costs more to maintain public resources or there are amenities which make a city a better place to live and more desirable for companies to stake more jobs there, that is a responsible stewardship.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 25, 2016, 03:37:56 pm
Attempting to steer back on topic. What are the odds we actually vote on Vision extension in April? And if it delays to June or even November, how does that affect its chances at passing? Is there any chance low-water dams are dropped to make space for other items?


I hope they do some "soul-searching" on this and come up with a proposal which could pass.

  • * Either get significant matching funds from Riverspirit/Jenks/Bixby or trim it to just the Zink dam overhaul (which by itself should pass easily and would compliment the Gathering Place).
  • * Reduce the Gilcrease amount
  • * Remove the funding for the Air National Guard
  • * Add some of the actual visionary projects which weren't from large already-established organizations or the counsel/mayor.
  • * Some good projects to add: The Art Deco Museum, "Raw Space" at the Evans/brownfield site, maybe a reduced version of the Pearl project to mitigate flooding and enhance near downtown


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 25, 2016, 03:55:51 pm
I hope they do some "soul-searching" on this and come up with a proposal which could pass.

  • * Either get significant matching funds from Riverspirit/Jenks/Bixby or trim it to just the Zink dam overhaul (which by itself should pass easily and would compliment the Gathering Place).
  • * Reduce the Gilcrease amount
  • * Remove the funding for the Air National Guard
  • * Add some of the actual visionary projects which weren't from large already-established organizations or the counsel/mayor.
  • * Some good projects to add: The Art Deco Museum, "Raw Space" at the Evans/brownfield site, maybe a reduced version of the Pearl project to mitigate flooding and enhance near downtown

I believe the current amount for the south dam and related work is 50% of the total cost.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 25, 2016, 03:59:48 pm
Glad you disagree, discussions without intelligent disagreements are really just rallies.


Here’s an interesting thing to digest:

We charge Tulsa sales tax when a customer sends their truck or contracted truck from Dallas (or NYC, or Denver, or San Francisco, etc.) to pick up their new boiler unless they have a valid Oklahoma tax exemption certificate.  When we arrange the shipping and the trucking company we contract with delivers the boiler to the customer in Dallas, they remit no sales tax to us.  We all get that, right?

If I sell a boiler to someone in Wichita and they send their truck or contracted truck to pick it up, they pay Tulsa sales tax.  If the boiler is shipped to them on a truck we contracted, we collect sales tax at whatever Wichita & the state of Kansas rates are and remit it to the state of Kansas.  We don’t maintain an office in Kansas, yet we are required to file monthly sales tax reports to the state of Kansas.  We have a fair amount of customers in the southern part of Kansas but virtually every part they buy goes via UPS and unless they have a re-sale or manufacturer’s exemption, we collect and remit the tax to the Kansas Treasurer.

I was asking our office manager how this came about and she said it was in place before she started here 20 years ago.  We’ve never maintained a Kansas office.  It makes me wonder if the Amazon warehouse had been in Nowata if the state of Kansas would have forced Amazon to report sales to them.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 25, 2016, 04:02:29 pm
I hope they do some "soul-searching" on this and come up with a proposal which could pass.

  • * Either get significant matching funds from Riverspirit/Jenks/Bixby or trim it to just the Zink dam overhaul (which by itself should pass easily and would compliment the Gathering Place).
  • * Reduce the Gilcrease amount
  • * Remove the funding for the Air National Guard
  • * Add some of the actual visionary projects which weren't from large already-established organizations or the counsel/mayor.
  • * Some good projects to add: The Art Deco Museum, "Raw Space" at the Evans/brownfield site, maybe a reduced version of the Pearl project to mitigate flooding and enhance near downtown

They claimed at one of the town halls that the Air Guard base would get matching funds from the Feds for upgrades for the next generation fighter.  The F-16 is being phased out and I don’t recall which one they said Tulsa would be trying to get.  Essentially, the line is if the city does not pony up its “fair share” the feds could shutter the base because it would be obsolete without the funding for upgrades.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 25, 2016, 04:07:56 pm
Technically, all sales taxes are charged to and paid by the purchaser.  Where the seller is located in or has a sufficient presence in the state, the state requires the seller to collect the sales tax from the purchaser and remit the tax to the state. . .

Technically, I used the word "collect taxes" when referring to amazon. I even referenced FedEx "remitting payment" and discussed the manner in which to collect sales tax revenue on internet purchases. You'll note I never once said that any retailer would be required to "pay" any sales tax. My language was precise for the very reasons you pointed out.

Interesting side not to this side note (in an attempt to keep the topic on a tangent) - Oklahoma could adopt a Service Tax to augment the sales tax.  Lawn mowing, attorney services, cable TV, etc. etc. etc. - millions of taxable transactions. Now, I'm not advocating for this as I have barely begun to think of the consequences, but we always sit back and think of ways of getting more sales tax revenue and ignore other revenue streams.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 25, 2016, 04:12:25 pm
Technically, I used the word "collect taxes" when referring to amazon. I even referenced FedEx "remitting payment" and discussed the manner in which to collect sales tax revenue on internet purchases. You'll note I never once said that any retailer would be required to "pay" any sales tax. My language was precise for the very reasons you pointed out.

Interesting side not to this side note (in an attempt to keep the topic on a tangent) - Oklahoma could adopt a Service Tax to augment the sales tax.  Lawn mowing, attorney services, cable TV, etc. etc. etc. - millions of taxable transactions. Now, I'm not advocating for this as I have barely begun to think of the consequences, but we always sit back and think of ways of getting more sales tax revenue and ignore other revenue streams.

Actually, a service tax might make pretty good sense.  It would be much more stable as you can’t get your grass mowed on-line, you can’t get your lawn mower repaired on line, and you can’t replace a sewer line on line.

If your toilet seal is leaking and you don’t have plumbing know-how, it’s not like you are going to continue to allow toilet effluent to leak all over the floor just because there’s now a tax associated with having it fixed.  It’s not a tax that would make out of state competition more attractive.

Great potential idea!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on January 25, 2016, 04:34:40 pm
(1) Gilcrease's amount is so high because TU is providing matching funds for almost all of the amount. Leveraging Vision funds via matching offers was a criterion in choosing projects.
(2) Passing a bill in 2016 should allow proponents to run on the "it's not a tax increase" platform because the tax does not expire until Dec. 31, 2016. So a June or November vote would not change that.
(3) However, April would have been the lowest turnout date. Like school board elections, tax votes are purposefully placed on dates with low turnout. That way the only motivated voters are those in favor of the projects. June will be higher turnout, especially if the Mayoral race is that date (i.e. if 3 or more people file to run for Mayor). And November, of course, will be the highest turnout.

If the Council or other Vision extension proponents were confident in their assessment of what is important to Tulsans, then they could put each major category on separate ballots in November when turnout will be high. Public safety; low-water dams; economic development projects; public transit.

Regardless, I personally am happy to see them take it slow and weigh projects against each other. I'm just still unclear how low-water dams end up being worth so much when you put them next to much cheaper projects like RawSpace, the transit hub, the uncovering of creeks proposal, Deco museum, etc. I guess the Mayor and Councilor Bynum are just really dedicated to "water in the river" because I don't hear anyone reassessing whether now is the right time for a $150-200M aesthetic project.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on January 25, 2016, 05:07:42 pm
Technically, I used the word "collect taxes" when referring to amazon. I even referenced FedEx "remitting payment" and discussed the manner in which to collect sales tax revenue on internet purchases. You'll note I never once said that any retailer would be required to "pay" any sales tax. My language was precise for the very reasons you pointed out.

Interesting side not to this side note (in an attempt to keep the topic on a tangent) - Oklahoma could adopt a Service Tax to augment the sales tax.  Lawn mowing, attorney services, cable TV, etc. etc. etc. - millions of taxable transactions. Now, I'm not advocating for this as I have barely begun to think of the consequences, but we always sit back and think of ways of getting more sales tax revenue and ignore other revenue streams.

Your leg work in describing the issue was very useful - I just added the clarifying point.  I find it annoying when people think of internet purchases as "tax free" when it really just means they are tax cheats who won't get caught but who nonetheless loudly complain about the poor quality of city streets and local government services.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on January 25, 2016, 05:13:54 pm
(1) Gilcrease's amount is so high because TU is providing matching funds for almost all of the amount. Leveraging Vision funds via matching offers was a criterion in choosing projects.
(2) Passing a bill in 2016 should allow proponents to run on the "it's not a tax increase" platform because the tax does not expire until Dec. 31, 2016. So a June or November vote would not change that.
(3) However, April would have been the lowest turnout date. Like school board elections, tax votes are purposefully placed on dates with low turnout. That way the only motivated voters are those in favor of the projects. June will be higher turnout, especially if the Mayoral race is that date (i.e. if 3 or more people file to run for Mayor). And November, of course, will be the highest turnout.

If the Council or other Vision extension proponents were confident in their assessment of what is important to Tulsans, then they could put each major category on separate ballots in November when turnout will be high. Public safety; low-water dams; economic development projects; public transit.

Regardless, I personally am happy to see them take it slow and weigh projects against each other. I'm just still unclear how low-water dams end up being worth so much when you put them next to much cheaper projects like RawSpace, the transit hub, the uncovering of creeks proposal, Deco museum, etc. I guess the Mayor and Councilor Bynum are just really dedicated to "water in the river" because I don't hear anyone reassessing whether now is the right time for a $150-200M aesthetic project.

Without getting into specifics of the projects, I would much rather see the overall package trimmed back so that the tax extension would only be for 8 years (10 years at the most).  A package this large locks us in for way too long and gives us no way to adapt to short-term and medium-term changes to development opportunities, the economy or the city.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on January 25, 2016, 06:37:56 pm
...I personally am happy to see them take it slow and weigh projects against each other. I'm just still unclear how low-water dams end up being worth so much when you put them next to much cheaper projects like RawSpace, the transit hub, the uncovering of creeks proposal, Deco museum, etc.

I think the election(s) should be delayed until after the issues are hashed out, and I don't think the Council and the public are capable of ironing out the wrinkles by Feb 4.

New low-water dams are a bad idea, in my opinion.  If new dams are combined with anything else on any ballot, I'll vote NO.

Without getting into specifics of the projects, I would much rather see the overall package trimmed back so that the tax extension would only be for 8 years (10 years at the most).  A package this large locks us in for way too long and gives us no way to adapt to short-term and medium-term changes to development opportunities, the economy or the city.

A term even shorter than eight years would be better.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 25, 2016, 08:01:23 pm
What are the odds we actually vote on Vision extension in April? And if it delays to June or even November, how does that affect its chances at passing?

I hope April. I am ready. I have flipped a coin enough times to see a trend.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 25, 2016, 10:12:34 pm
I hope April. I am ready. I have flipped a coin enough times to see a trend.

2 headed coin?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on January 26, 2016, 07:21:11 am
I heard the Mayor speak to how he would like to see this tax extension proposal rewritten. If he gets his way the whole package will fail. Hopefully the council will listen to their constituents and work together. The thing is called "Vision 2025" so it needs to be used for things that are "Visionary" and not for more pavement.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 26, 2016, 08:13:06 am
I heard the Mayor speak to how he would like to see this tax extension proposal rewritten. If he gets his way the whole package will fail. Hopefully the council will listen to their constituents and work together. The thing is called "Vision 2025" so it needs to be used for things that are "Visionary" and not for more pavement.

Is there road construction included in the Vision package? I know they are trying to reappropriate the Fix Our Streets sales tax for the last couple of years to pay for the increased police and fire tax.

I don't understand why they don't just scale the police and fire tax back. Leave the Fix Our Streets for repairing roads.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 26, 2016, 08:51:03 am

New Tulsa Vision to get council discussion Tuesday

Quote
Tulsa councilors, along with Mayor Dewey Bartlett, plan to discuss a possible new foundation for the city’s Vision tax package Tuesday.
The overhaul was first pitched at a meeting last Thursday when staff reports showed the revenues Vision would draw from for economic development projects and operations would decrease expected funding for streets for several years.
A possible solution offered by Councilor Blake Ewing would include keeping Vision tax dollars purely for economic-development projects, as were the Vision 2025 funds approved by county voters in 2003.
Operations needs, such as public safety, would then go on a separate ballot that would effectively raise taxes — but only by the amount, 0.4 percent, voters approved in 2003. However, that additional tax never went into effect.
Ewing’s option would dramatically change the way the tax is structured, but would ultimately simplify the question before voters while leaving future tax packages available to cover street rehabilitation.
Several officials have said they are open to discussing the idea, but are not ready to abandon their current approach.
“We are so close to having this right, and I don’t think we should allow it to run off the rails because one issue came up,” Councilor G.T. Bynum said. “There’s plenty of opportunities for us to fund the proposal.”
Bynum said he’s been working since Thursday’s meeting on options to make the existing package work.
Bartlett’s spokesman, Lloyd Wright, said the mayor’s position is that the current package can take care of the last-minute issues.
Bartlett offered several cuts from economic development projects at Thursday’s meeting, but didn’t cover the $240 million gap staff said might be created for streets.
Wright said Bartlett’s plan Tuesday will look similar to the existing plan, but at the cost of economic development projects — also avoiding any talk of a tax increase.
Almost a third of the $1.17 billion 15-year Vision package, as currently envisioned, would go toward buffering the city’s public-safety operations spending as a permanent tax.
Another permanent tax, about $60 million of the $1.17 billion, would be created for transit operations and capital.
The remaining $642 million would go toward economic development projects, including Arkansas River low-water dams, parks and amenities.
Councilor Karen Gilbert, in calling for the Tuesday meeting, said everything would be “on the table.”
The meeting is scheduled to start at 5:05 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall’s second-floor Council Chambers.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/new-tulsa-vision-to-get-council-discussion-tuesday/article_d331c12b-c74e-5544-9e60-bf35502fcb80.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/new-tulsa-vision-to-get-council-discussion-tuesday/article_d331c12b-c74e-5544-9e60-bf35502fcb80.html)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 26, 2016, 08:54:41 am
Is there road construction included in the Vision package? I know they are trying to reappropriate the Fix Our Streets sales tax for the last couple of years to pay for the increased police and fire tax.

I don't understand why they don't just scale the police and fire tax back. Leave the Fix Our Streets for repairing roads.

Especially since repairing streets was what the voters approved that assessment for- not to divert funding elsewhere. 

The mayor needs to quit treating the public safety measure like a political pawn.  If people believe public safety will improve via more police and fire spending and an expansion in personnel, they will make it a priority and will vote for a tax increase.  Attaching this to the Vision 2025 extension has been a bad idea all along.

It’s time for Dewey’s dim-witted leadership to be over.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 26, 2016, 08:58:54 am
Bartlett keeps doing his best to mislead voters into believing that using a third of the 1.17 billion Vision package on public operations and making that a permanent tax is not a tax increase. As it stands, the tax will expire. Any new Vision tax is a tax increase!

Furthermore Vision is for ECONOMIC development. Bartlett wants to cut back on economic development projects even further. They need to do the opposite. If anything, they should have a drastically scaled back public operations segment and increase the economic development. Otherwise this is not very visionary.

Go ahead and have a public safety tax vote and if the voters approve, great. Stop lying to the people and saying it is not a tax increase. Reappropriating funds from Vision purposes to public operations to cover bad management is stealing tax dollars from their original intent.

At this rate, I can see Vision 2035 - We need to repair the crumbling roads we neglected! We need to pay for basic maintenance of city parks and property! We need to hire someone in city hall who knows what they're doing!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 26, 2016, 09:04:15 am
It’s time for Dewey’s dim-witted leadership to be over.

Yes. We can thank South Tulsa for this "leader" whose primary agenda is getting reelected ("I personally increased Firefighters and police by X% without increasing tax, just lying! I am a brilliant man!"). Bynum seems much better but it would be nice if there was an option who wasn't such a political schmooze.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 26, 2016, 10:49:33 pm
Lots of shifting today on vision proposal. Sounds like there were some "small get togethers" - to avoid open meeting act? - in which some serious horse trading occurred. Giant cluster 5 hour meeting tonight. I couldn't be there, but was following on Twitter and the news. Thanks Councillor Ewing for fighting for transit. Dooey: please resign.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1601/visionpdf.pdf (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1601/visionpdf.pdf)

And here's a fun video where the mayor talks about meetings with 3 or 4 councillors at a time, "because of the open meetings act." (Also funny bc the Tulsa World video shows Bartlett is City Council District 1. (Henderett? Barterson? Dew-Jack?)

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/30256039/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=30256039&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017 (https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/30256039/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=30256039&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 09:29:49 am
Lots of shifting today on vision proposal. Sounds like there were some "small get togethers" - to avoid open meeting act? - in which some serious horse trading occurred. Giant cluster 5 hour meeting tonight. I couldn't be there, but was following on Twitter and the news. Thanks Councillor Ewing for fighting for transit. Dooey: please resign.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1601/visionpdf.pdf (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1601/visionpdf.pdf)

And here's a fun video where the mayor talks about meetings with 3 or 4 councillors at a time, "because of the open meetings act." (Also funny bc the Tulsa World video shows Bartlett is City Council District 1. (Henderett? Barterson? Dew-Jack?)

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/30256039/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=30256039&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017 (https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/30256039/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=30256039&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017)

So, they added $17.9 million for the Jenks dam and removed the entire $24.8 million long term operating and maintenance endowment for the dams package.  That means they will be back with their hands out in 15 years needing maintenance funding for the dams.

How is this going to help pass the package when a full analysis is put before the voters?

North Tulsa was hard hit by cuts including Mohawk Sports Complex which has generally been a success at attracting amateur sporting events on a regional or national scale.  Some of the remaining crumbs left for various projects seem rather meaningless.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/Screenshot%202016-01-27%2009.12.38_zpsaabjaou1.png)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 09:50:01 am
Can anyone explain why COT should raise $30 million for the county fairgrounds?

Also, the amount going to the fire department just went up, as far as I can tell. 

Personally, I'm opposed to including public safety in a vision proposal.  We either need to change state law and allow cities to fund basic services like police and fire, water and sewer from property taxes; or we should impose levies on new development that is proposed outside the existing service area to help fund the excessive costs of extending police and fire protection to greenfield areas.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 27, 2016, 09:59:08 am
Can anyone explain why COT should raise $30 million for the county fairgrounds?

Also, the amount going to the fire department just went up, as far as I can tell. 

Personally, I'm opposed to including public safety in a vision proposal.  We either need to change state law and allow cities to fund basic services like police and fire, water and sewer from property taxes; or we should impose levies on new development that is proposed outside the existing service area to help fund the excessive costs of extending police and fire protection to greenfield areas.

I believe you can already do that for fire by creating a fire district. I don't see why we don't have a countywide fire department anyway and like the library fund it from property taxes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 27, 2016, 10:13:38 am
So, they added $17.9 million for the Jenks dam and removed the entire $24.8 million long term operating and maintenance endowment for the dams package.  That means they will be back with their hands out in 15 years needing maintenance funding for the dams.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/Screenshot%202016-01-27%2009.12.38_zpsaabjaou1.png)

I know its hard to lead by committee, especially when there are so many competing agendas. But there are some questions here that beg answers.
     1. Of course, the operating and maintenance endowment for the dams. Unless they simply don't expect the south dam to ever be built. Same thing with the Jenks dam Phase 2 river corridor study and design.
    
 2. The reduction in funding several items namely "23rd and Jackson redevelopment planning", "performing arts center renovation", and a few others whose amounts were slightly reduced. Either they were over estimated or they will now be underfunded. Just kill them if you're only going to go half -arsed on them.
    
3. I can see each area of town took some strong hits. But I am most sorry to see the funding dropped for the Rte 66 trail Village Train Depot trust fund. They have actually shown much initiative in starting this development locally. West Tulsa always gets screwed it seems.

My gut feeling is that there is a premonition by leaders of bad economic realities about to commence. They want to get this done fast and get some seed money into the system before Oklahoma collapses under the weight of state leadership's failure to manage.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 12:36:30 pm
Under this, the Route 66 train village still has it’s own line item for $3M.  I’m not sure why they had two separate line items before unless that was to help fund the Route 66 stuff at the north end of Riverside Drive.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 27, 2016, 01:27:47 pm
Will the ballot be separated into these 3 taxes?

Public Safety
Transportation
Economic Development

edit - With further reading, this may not be the final product.  So far, it remains very disappointing.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 27, 2016, 02:21:31 pm
If it's already in this thread, I apologize, but what is "Cox Business Center and Arena District Master Plan"?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 02:29:54 pm
Renovations to Cox business center, and purchasing the downtown post office building.  I haven't watched that video.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 27, 2016, 03:08:08 pm
I like how he just casually mentions at the end acquiring the Page Belcher Federal Courthouse.  Are we finally getting a new courthouse?  Seems like it's been talked about for years but I've never heard more than a rumor and confirmation that we're "on the list" for a new one, with no timeline whatsoever.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 27, 2016, 03:32:39 pm
The Federal Building is reasonably well appointed and certainly meets their needs (Courtrooms have been kept up to date, etc.), but it is an architectural atrocity IMHO. Better suited to be a prison along a highway than a Courthouse in the middle of downtown. Also, with the post office processing moving to a brand new facility in East Tulsa (before moving to Oklahoma City), there is 86,000 square feet of space unoccupied in that building.

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=17672655&STID=CB0003&LL=true

400,000 square feet more than satisfies the requirements based on the listing, could probably get that down to 300-350k with more efficient designs.  You could have the same square footage in a 9 story building occupying half the footprint, sell the rest of the line for hotel space, build a parking garage connecting to the BOK center garage extending over the little strip of road to the new hotel, throw a sky bridge between Aloft, convention center, and this new hotel and over to the BOK. Poof! Added parking. Added hotel space. New non-ugy Federal building and sky bridges. WIN!

Or... move it to the parking lot desert on the fridges of downtown or over by TCC. The Federal Courthouse doesn't really interact with the State facilities, so no need for the immediate proximity.

But, I have to admit, it isn't a huge priority for me. The new OKC Federal Building cost $33mil and is only 185k square feet. on a true cost benefit analysis, it probably isn't a wise community investment. But damn it Inhoffe, where's the pork!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 04:00:58 pm
$30 million for the Fairgrounds (county owned property).  Can anyone explain what that $30 million would be spent on?  Some disagreement on the council of whether we should be responsible for funding the fairgrounds with city money.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 04:19:47 pm
The Federal Building is reasonably well appointed and certainly meets their needs (Courtrooms have been kept up to date, etc.), but it is an architectural atrocity IMHO. Better suited to be a prison along a highway than a Courthouse in the middle of downtown. Also, with the post office processing moving to a brand new facility in East Tulsa (before moving to Oklahoma City), there is 86,000 square feet of space unoccupied in that building.

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/Looplink/Profile/Profile.aspx?LID=17672655&STID=CB0003&LL=true

400,000 square feet more than satisfies the requirements based on the listing, could probably get that down to 300-350k with more efficient designs.  You could have the same square footage in a 9 story building occupying half the footprint, sell the rest of the line for hotel space, build a parking garage connecting to the BOK center garage extending over the little strip of road to the new hotel, throw a sky bridge between Aloft, convention center, and this new hotel and over to the BOK. Poof! Added parking. Added hotel space. New non-ugy Federal building and sky bridges. WIN!

Or... move it to the parking lot desert on the fridges of downtown or over by TCC. The Federal Courthouse doesn't really interact with the State facilities, so no need for the immediate proximity.

But, I have to admit, it isn't a huge priority for me. The new OKC Federal Building cost $33mil and is only 185k square feet. on a true cost benefit analysis, it probably isn't a wise community investment. But damn it Inhoffe, where's the pork!

What happens in this federal building vs. the one at 2nd & Boulder?  Or is the one at 2nd & Boulder exclusively for bankruptcy?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on January 27, 2016, 04:39:30 pm
Page Belcher includes the District Judges and the Magistrate Judges. I believe the probation office and the clerks' office is there as well.

The old (and beautiful) courthouse holds the Bankruptcy Judges and retired District Judges (who still carry a reduced caseload). The old courthouse is not quite big enough to fit everyone in it, but it would be great if they could expand it just a little and move everyone back there. Certainly should be able to do it for less than the $33M spent on the OKC federal courthouse (based on comments upthread).


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 04:40:15 pm
Most recent draft of the list of items.  This is the current draft.  More discussions tomorrow (Thurs).

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/115177/visionproposalsummary(1-27-16).pdf (http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/115177/visionproposalsummary(1-27-16).pdf)

Includes the contingency items in case the South Tulsa dam doesn't get funded by all 3 funding partners.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 05:10:52 pm
Contingency items may be funded if the south low water dam doesn't happen (Tulsa, Jenks and Creek Nation all have to approve funding.  If one party doesn't, we can use the money currently allocated for the south dam for other priorities).

It's sad that the $60 million of dedicated transit funding has now been combined with "transportation" (potholes) funding.  There are two proposals right now that will be discussed further tomorrow.  (Didn't we just pass a billion dollars for street maintenance a couple years ago?)

Option 1: A blended total amount of $63 mil for transportation and transit, or

Option 2: a dedicated split between potholes ($48 mil) and transit ($15 mil).

One concern for blending the two is that transit will be screwed every year. It would be at the whim of the mayor and the annual budget allocations. And people with cars have more political swing that transit users.

The Center of the Universe transit station appears to be completely absent.

It's also interesting that we now have $30 mil going to the fairgrounds, which is owned by the county.  Ewing and Henderson argued to eliminate this and return those dollars to Tulsa city projects.  All the other councilors voted to keep the $30 mil handout to the county.  (They fear that if the county makes a bigger ask on their ballot item, it will impact the public's perception of the COT ballot items. This is considered a way to appease the county, so they will keep their ballot initiative at current levels.  Or something like that.)

If anyone wants to write some emails to the various city councilors, I've been told to keep them short.  Apparently, not all councilors take the time to read long emails.  So a few succinct sentences might be good.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on January 27, 2016, 05:42:55 pm
I think the election(s) should be delayed until after the issues are hashed out, and I don't think the Council and the public are capable of ironing out the wrinkles by Feb 4.

New low-water dams are a bad idea, in my opinion.  If new dams are combined with anything else on any ballot, I'll vote NO.

A term even shorter than eight years would be better.

So much of the issue was centered around public safety operations that they didnt realize they had left out most of the funding that V2025 was intended for in the first place.  This may take more than one election cycle...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 05:45:27 pm
If anyone wants to watch the painful sausage being made... You can watch the whole debate on TGov. (Doesn't work on all browsers, but does work on Internet Explorer.)

Here's my very incomplete summary of what happened at the meeting with timestamps if you want to view online.  I didn't capture everything everyone said.  The notes below reflect my bias and interests.  

Here’s the first half:
http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3110 (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3110)
3:00 - Intro - GT tries to summarize what's happened and changed.  "A number of us have been working on this."  (If you keep watching, you'll understand that not everyone was included in all of these discussions.)
7:38 - Jack Blair - further explanation / overview
16:00 - begin various councilors sharing opinions and thoughts on projects
37:40 - Bartlett talks about Fire Dept / public safety funding
46:00 - Blake asks for thoughtful approach: "Do we look into the future and see that our investment truly made a difference in our community?"
49:00 – Why the $40 million additional funds for public safety more than original proposal? What outcome are we hoping to achieve?
52:00 – Bartlett – we’ve spent a tremendous amount of time on coming up with these proposals. Blah, blah, blah…
54:00 – more councilors talking about what they care about.
1h:31 – Bartlett justifies keeping $30 mil for county/fairgrounds without offering any reasons why.
1h:32 – Blake: we’re essentially paying the county $30 million to prevent them from going for .1 in their own measure.  We shouldn’t sacrifice Tulsa projects to pay county.
1h:35 – Lakin – it actually frees up $90 million if we take that off the table, because the half a tenth comes off the table as well.
1h:35 – Lakin talks about his recommendations for the contingency list if south Tulsa low water dam doesn’t get approved by all 3 funding partners (Tulsa, Jenks and Creek Nation).
1h:38 – GT re: contingencies - Zink dam is entirely within COT.  Costs for the south dam will be shared by Tulsa, Jenks and Creek Nation.  Wording should be that if one of those partners fails to allocate funds, the dam does not get built.
1h:41 – Henderson re: $30 mil for fairgrounds: We shouldn't take things off our list to please the county.
1h:45 – Blake re: public safety / fire dept ask – need to talk in terms of desired outcomes, not manpower. Having more guys on a truck should not be the goal.  What is the desired goal/outcome?  Nobody has an answer to this question.
1h:50 – 2h:24 – Fire department discussion – arguments pro/con related 3 vs. 4 man trucks.
2h:24 -  Good viewing if you want to learn about which councilors want to go home because they’re tired of debating issues.  Also provides clues to who was/wasn’t involved in little small group non-public meetings over the weekend and earlier in the week.
2h:31 – 2h:35  Go Blake! (Some of this was shown on TV news.  Watch the whole thing.)
2h:37:30 – GT – it’s important that we take our time. – “Let’s legislate this thing.”  
2h:39:45 – Bartlett – talks about the little meetings that went on all day with some of the councilors.  “We can’t have everyone in the same room at the same time because of open meeting laws.” (Uh… there may be a reason for that…)

Here's the second half:
http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3111 (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3111)
4:08 – Lakin recommends reducing fire depart from 82.5 million to 70 million. – Reallocate 12.5 million to economic dev
12:00 – Council votes to approve this recommendation.
13:24 – Discussions begin on economic development – motion to accept Econ Dev draft list with additional $12.5 million added from public safety.
16:22 – Blake – Summarizes how transit funding has been screwed.  City needs dedicated transit funding.  Today, we’ve lost $35 million of transit funding.
20:00 ish – Mayor – talking about airport needs. Wants some of the money from $12.5 mil public safety savings for airport.  But didn’t get much traction.
23:37 – More discussion of transit topics
24:50: - Lakin – “Why did we combine transit and transportation?”
25:10 – Jack Blair: “This was suggested in a draft I received this morning.  I was not part of the discussions.”
26:00 – If we break transit back out, we may need another ballot title.
26:30 – Blake on transit:  “I’ll take my chances with a dedicated transit fund… I worry that without dedicated transit earmark, those funds will be used for something else.”  “The public should be able to count on the reliability of a transit service, the same way that they count on Yale Ave being there next year and the year after.”  Transit operations shouldn’t be competing with pothole funding for the same dollars.
30:00  - Blake: Summary of how transit was decimated for street maintenance.
37:00 – Question of what to do with county dollars ($30 million for Fairgrounds) Do we have access to those dollars or not?
Blake moved to remove the $30 for the fairgrounds.  His motion didn’t pass.
1h:02 – 1h:08 – more transportation/transit discussion.
1h:10 – Lakin recommends giving time to consider transit / transportation options, and come back on Thurs.
Bartlett says we must have $48 million for potholes.
1h:13 – Blake reiterates: in the course of a couple days, we went from $60 to $15 million for transit.  

The votes that occurred during this meeting were for the legal department to move forward with drafting documents using the numbers on the council's spreadsheet.  It was not the final approval of items/numbers to appear on the ballot.  Sounds like that will happen on Thursday.  

Still some wiggle room, but any recommendation will need to come with a recommendation of what you would cut to provide for it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 07:38:59 pm
Was Blake referring to other councilors as “clowns” or who was that?

Some thoughts:

We don’t need to collect tax for the county- they can come up with their own initiative, if it’s got value to the taxpayer, they will pay it.  Dewey failing to coherently justify why we need to do this is a dereliction of duty.

I’m glad to see there is a contingency if Jenks or the Creeks have no interest in funding the Jenks dam.  I hate that a west bank trail from Turkey Mountain to Jenks has been axed entirely.  This has been needed for some time.  I was rather shocked at the allocation for it, I believe $8.5M was the number.  That’s a lot of money for 2 or 3 miles of trail, maybe Kirby can chime in on cost breakdown for trails. 

I get Blake’s frustration with the total crap on transit.  I also thought fixing pot holes was a part of that billion dollar package we were sold in 2008 for the streets package.

I do applaud the council for all the sacrifice in time they’ve had to take away from their families throughout this process.  But, I pity the poor people who have to polish this and sell it to the voters.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 27, 2016, 08:59:56 pm
The clown comment was expressing frustration at all these little meetings that were happening with a few councillors at a time and the mayor. Lots of horse trading appears to have occurred, but not all councillors appear to have been included in those discussions. Makes you wonder who was, and why others weren't. But it sounds like Blake wasn't there and in a matter of hours, transit got axed. Coincidence? Doubtful.

One of the frustrating things is that Blake is the only one who understands the value and economic benefit of transit. It's a social equity issue. It's a jobs issue. It's a proven economic stimulus because it allows people without cars to get and keep jobs. And it also creates jobs in the operation of transit. (Roads just create jobs while they're being built.)

So all these councillors, whose constituents are far more dependent on transit than Dist 4 aren't speaking up. Blake's the only one. Has to be frustrating.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 28, 2016, 08:25:20 am
Thank you for the wonderful summary!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 28, 2016, 09:55:37 am
A few thoughts from an outsider.

Who in the electorate has time to do the research and follow the proceedings like those involved here or in political/development circles? Few. This is coming off to the voters as complicated, expensive and likely viewed negatively in general.

It still is a basic tax grab by police, fire, streets, county. Nothing new there except more people seem to realize this is less about economic development than it is about nest feathering. Siphoning off project funding to accomplish safety and maintenance, tasks that should already be funded.

Blake looks like a good mayoral candidate but GT is playing the game.

Dewey is playing old school politics. Even gray hairs are pissed about that.

Naysayers about the original Vision project becoming more or less permanent taxation....may have been more visionary than I thought.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on January 28, 2016, 09:59:41 am
They need to pull the river...I think it's a waste of time at this point. River vote is going to fail.
Agreed on the Fairgrounds...what is left to fix there? Why would we allocate city funds to the county?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 28, 2016, 10:12:38 am
The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 28, 2016, 10:20:28 am
I agree with most of that. A few strong willed leaders have failed to grasp a common policy the military is famous for. KISS. Keep it simple stupid.

The river improvements, especially the Zink Lake portion, could have been a springboard for further development up and downstream. Combined with a few simple, innovative proposals with at least some provable ROI would mean pass.

The smorgasbord concept, not so much.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 28, 2016, 10:26:59 am
Gawd.  I don't even know where to begin with this list of stuff.  There is so much crap mixed in with some things I believe are very important. It looks like our only hope for a (now paltry) dedicated transit fund is to approve a permanent pothole fund that is 3X the transit allocation.

I really don't want to dedicate a dollar more to roads, when we've already approved nearly $1 billion for road maintenance with Improve Our Tulsa.  I'm opposed to widening 2 miles of Mingo at the expense of sidewalks, bike lanes and transit for the entire city.  Same goes for the sudden addition of $70 million for the Fire Department, some of which is to add extra guys to trucks that mostly respond to EMT calls, and the rest to build an "east side station" to support our thoughtless sprawl.  

The roads I bike on are terrible and not getting better.  The lesson here: raising taxes for roads doesn't fix roads.  Improving quality of life that attracts people and investors, while facilitating smart infill development and investing in projects that have proven economic returns will allow us to pay for necessary services.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on January 28, 2016, 10:27:21 am
The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

Except that the proposed dams don't give us any of these things.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 28, 2016, 10:30:03 am
The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

Zink Lake has been considered good enough for 35 years.  A rehab of that dam to permit year-round recreation on the lake along with a new pedestrian bridge to go along with The Gathering Place would be more than enough for Tulsa to make a name for itself.  The Jenks bridge is more of a footnote to this.  Unless visitors staying downtown want to go gamble, I doubt they’d venture much further south than The Gathering Place. 

If someone wanted to rent a bike and ride out south or all the way to NSU, I seriously doubt their impression of the city would be of a semi dry desert river down south.  Instead, they would left with the impression of the great trail system Tulsa has.

Zink Lake is accessible and viewable from our urban core.  I’d argue that visitors to Margaritaville/River Spirit could probably care less about water in the river, but let Jenks and the Creeks decide whether or not it’s worth it to them to pay for that structure.  I’d still be all for the city extending the west bank trail system from 71st to Jenks and paying for more trails on the east side down south and the Vensel Creek dock and amenities.  Everyone benefits from additional trails out south but get the two entities who would benefit the most aesthetically from water in the river to pay for the south dam, not Tulsa tax payers.  At this point, really the Creeks gain the most with their casino development and their retail development they now own on the banks in Jenks.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 28, 2016, 11:31:17 am
This morning's meeting is on TGov (works on Internet Explorer):

http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3112 (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3112)

[Edited] So far, this is much more interesting and helpful than last Tues night's meeting.  Feels much more productive.

Good ideas about dedicated transit funding, as well as a discussion about up-front bonding needs to jump start these projects... rather than waiting 10-15 years for some projects to be funded.  Nice explanation of of what the Center of the Universe transit project is/does.

More to come this afternoon.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on January 28, 2016, 11:51:49 am
When I worked on Capitol Hill, there was a saying about a bill that was enmeshed in the horse trading of a conference committee - “The first thing to go is the policy.”  This means that when all the meetings and deals are getting made to create a “passable” bill, the original purpose and intent of the bill was usually forgotten and lost.

As I watch this messy process unfold, it appears to me that the original policy and purpose of Vision 2025 has been completely lost and it has become a grab bag of pet projects of the mayor, councilors and various plugged-in constituencies (i.e. fire and police unions, zoo, Gilcrease Museum, etc.).

What is the “vision” expressed by this current package of disjointed projects and services?  Fixing potholes? More firemen?  More policemen?  All potentially good needs that maybe we should fund, but not under the banner of short-term targeted public expenditures on visionary projects intended to spur private investment and economic development.

The only significant component left in this package that can be remotely described as “visionary” is putting water in the river.  Agree or not with the premise, the dams are at least a concept with a potentially big impact that supporters say will spur private investment, development and an improved quality of life.  But even the dams have drifted so far hither and yon with amorphous pie-in-the-sky promises of development never backed up by real or reasonable evidence that it all has come to feel more wishfully aspirational than grounded in any reality or facts.

What we are now left with is a complete mess:  too many projects, a tax lasting too long, a city/county confrontation, no focus on the original policy of the Vision 2025 concept, and a growing perception that it is simply the product of city/county/insider deal making to protect the self-interests of politicians’ and a select few.  Doesn’t matter if that is right or wrong (although all the recent small group meetings suggest public input was a charade), the people have the final say and the growing perception of a self-dealing debacle is likely to kill off this project and poison the well for any future packages for a long time to come.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 28, 2016, 02:37:12 pm
The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer. . . .  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

I'm a big fan of the river. I go boating at Keystone. I go fishing downstream. I canoe on Zink Lake. I drink and stare at the river from Blue Rose or Elwoods. I literally ride circles around the river using rivertrails. I go out on sand bars with my dogs and my kid and kick rocks, dig streams, and mess around.  When they brought the river raft race back, I watched that too.

And I agree that aesthetics are a big deal (and that a regressive tax for public safety i dumb).

BUT - I disagree with the rest. 

First, there will be no power boating on any of the proposed lakes, and a sail boat bigger than a paddle board or kayak sail can't float there either. Furthermore, without the ability to transit up and down the river, any vessel on the river is limited to a ~2 mile stretch of water (unless it is an air boat). That won't change with the proposed dams. Boating other than rowing is pretty much out.

Second, fishing is a separate and unrelated issue. Currently the river is under qualified from an environmental aspect, and groups are trying to get it rated higher than it is. But as it stands, plenty of people fish the river everyday. More dams are not going to make that better (and may make it worse).

Finally, it is a prairie river. This is not the Mississippi. It is not the Ohio. It is not the East River. We can dam it all we want, but we are making the natural asset into an un-natural one.  Which I am not necessarily opposed to, but recognize what we are doing. If we want to make un-natural assets to try and show off our city, we can spend the money better (we could build an artificial indoor ski mountain for a couple hundred million! Denver has Mountains, why not Tulsa? or put a dome over downtown and plant palm trees).

What you described is what we already have in Zink dam. A prairie river turned into a small lake, surrounded by activity, with some boating on it, some fishing, and a cool urban landscape behind it.  Not sure how adding a dam out in Jenks adds to that in any way.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 28, 2016, 02:51:34 pm
If we build a south dam, maybe someone will build a casino on Creek Nation lands that will not contribute sales tax dollars to Tulsa.... oh, wait...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 28, 2016, 04:08:06 pm
Boating other than rowing is pretty much out.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsG/35960-9838.gif)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-69BakIIGfrI/T2uegjjm_iI/AAAAAAAAETs/fCGo1KqsMNw/s1600/Jaws-1+man+in+the+pond+jaws+underwater+1975.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n6otTEqwEqY/TEQWUVySMvI/AAAAAAAAAC4/DWyEblmjHPU/s1600/jaws+rowboat+guy+shark.jpg)

Pass


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 28, 2016, 09:54:20 pm
Council passes final draft 9-0


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on January 29, 2016, 08:26:14 am
Final draft: http://tulsacouncil.org/media/115206/Vision_Proposal_Summary_(FINAL_1-28-16).pdf


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 29, 2016, 09:11:22 am

I'm opposed to widening 2 miles of Mingo at the expense of sidewalks, bike lanes and transit for the entire city.  

Yeah. Screw those south Tulsa people. Never mind that the city approved 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a f'ing two lane country road.

More people go through that intersection than 41st and Peoria. Or 21st and Yale. or 31st and Lewis.

Who cares? Midtowners sure don't.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 29, 2016, 09:29:16 am
So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 29, 2016, 10:15:39 am
So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"

I would hope the next transportation package is more focused on transit specifically the downtown hub and a starter streetcar line from downtown to TU. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 29, 2016, 10:46:41 am
The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.


I mentioned Wichita back a ways...they have a nice little river thing going - and for a small part of the year, it too has water in it - the rest of the time it is a sandbar!   Certainly doesn't stop anyone from enjoying what they do have, any more than the Tulsa version of the same thing (on the same river!) doesn't stop people from enjoying all that is on the Tulsa portion.

The biggest missing component for Tulsa is NOT whether there is water for another 3 or 4 months a year, but the much grander, statewide issue of what Failin' and the Clown Show are doing to Oklahoma internally and visibly to the rest of the world!  When we cut $200 million from education....then cut another $60 million from education...then in the last few weeks cut another $45 million from education....  THAT is the big outside view of this state that counts.  Along with all the other Clown Show idiocies that get us into the national headlines in a bad way several times a year.

Outside visitors to Wichita may be giggling about their river a little bit, too, but that is NOT what is making any big impact on their development!  There is SOOO much more than just water in the Arkansas that is holding Oklahoma in general back...

As for comparing to OKC and Dallas...well, ya haven't spent much time there, have ya?  Or there would not be any "losing out" words.

Now, if you were comparing to Ft Worth...then you might make a small case.  But not much of one...


Just like with rebuilding the state Capital building - if we are gonna spend that kind of money, we could have a Burj Kalifa as an attraction...and have a REAL draw to the town.  If it weren't for all the earthquakes that would bring it down!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 29, 2016, 10:50:11 am

I mentioned Wichita back a ways...they have a nice little river thing going - and for a small part of the year, it too has water in it - the rest of the time it is a sandbar!   Certainly doesn't stop anyone from enjoying what they do have, any more than the Tulsa version of the same thing (on the same river!) doesn't stop people from enjoying all that is on the Tulsa portion.


Wichita also has the “Little Arkansas” which is a canal that meanders along the west side of their downtown area.  Much like we could have done by uncovering Elm Creek.

I would hope the next transportation package is more focused on transit specifically the downtown hub and a starter streetcar line from downtown to TU.  

Punted for another 15 years if this passes.  It’s a shame that any of the innovative ideas left on the cutting room floor are basically not going to happen for 15 years.

Same old Tulsa.  I’d love to see what would have happened with a mayor who is much more progressive in terms of development and not a dim-wit from the GOB network.  My honest feeling is he mortgaged the tax payers for $272M to get the endorsements of the FOP and fire fighters for this next election because he was too afraid of a perceived tax increase.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 29, 2016, 11:01:44 am
Wichita also has the “Little Arkansas” which is a canal that meanders along the west side of their downtown area.  Much like we could have done by uncovering Elm Creek.



That's the part I am talking about - it is very nice.  And of the half dozen times I have been there in the last couple of  years, only once did it have water enough to be considered "full".  Even with sand, it is a nice area and we always make it a point to walk over to Gander Mountain if it isn't too cold.  Then we drive....

Also, always interesting to see the Tesla charging station on I-35.  I heard the rumor that it was located specifically for one of the granddaughters of the founder of Charles Machine Works (Ditch Witch) to keep her Tesla charged!


I have talked about canals before - I REALLY wish we would get off this river nonsense and make a system of canals!!  Would be better than Venice, CA and might even get some semblance of Venice, IT.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 29, 2016, 11:06:15 am
That's the part I am talking about - it is very nice.  And of the half dozen times I have been there in the last couple of  years, only once did it have water enough to be considered "full".  Even with sand, it is a nice area and we always make it a point to walk over to Gander Mountain if it isn't too cold.  Then we drive....

Also, always interesting to see the Tesla charging station on I-35.  I heard the rumor that it was located specifically for one of the granddaughters of the founder of Charles Machine Works (Ditch Witch) to keep her Tesla charged!


I have talked about canals before - I REALLY wish we would get off this river nonsense and make a system of canals!!  Would be better than Venice, CA and might even get some semblance of Venice, IT.



Any time I’ve been there, it had sufficient water for a rowing regatta which is held the first weekend of November every year.  No idea if they have gates to make sure there is water then or not, but there weren’t sand bars we had to avoid.  Perhaps the sand bars are further downstream.  Typically, that is not high rainy season and all the snow run-off from the previous winter is long gone.  I believe the Wichita Rowing Club uses that waterway for practice.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 29, 2016, 11:07:09 am
So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"

It wasn't removed, it was moved.  Look up at the top of the page.  The final draft includes a dedicated tax that is expected to generate $57 million for transit over the next 15 years.  This is huge.  We've been talking about the need for a dedicated funding source for transit for years.  This dedicated funding can be used for both capital and operations.  So, I'm not sure exactly how this will break out, but it sure opens a lot of doors.  

Thank Blake for his passionate and effective support for transit.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 29, 2016, 11:12:36 am
It wasn't removed, it was moved.  Look up at the top of the page.  The final draft includes a dedicated tax that is expected to generate $57 million for transit over the next 15 years.  This is huge.  We've been talking about the need for a dedicated funding source for transit for years.  This dedicated funding can be used for both capital and operations.  So, I'm not sure exactly how this will break out, but it sure opens a lot of doors.  

Thank Blake for his passionate and effective support for transit.

Thanks, I feel better now.  I really hope it includes the East-West rapid transit line.  It could be a game changer if implemented as it's been described to me.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 29, 2016, 11:20:51 am
Thanks, I feel better now.  I really hope it includes the East-West rapid transit line.  It could be a game changer if implemented as it's been described to me.

It would be really nice if cities could levy a gas tax. 3 cents to streets and 1 cent to transit.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 29, 2016, 11:22:45 am
Yeah. Screw those south Tulsa people. Never mind that the city approved 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a f'ing two lane country road.
I agree that this sucks.  I would not have approved those developments without a transportation/mobility plan and a Vehicle Miles Traveled assessment.  Unfortunately, Tulsa doesn't plan, we build. And then we say "Oh crap.  Congestion." And then we build more stuff we can't afford.  And then we say "Oh crap, the roads suck."  And then we allocate a billion dollars for road maintenance and improvements.  And then a few years later, it's not enough.

Guess what?  None of those 3,000 apartments generates sales tax... which, sadly, is the golden egg that pays for the roads that the residents depend on... because driving is our only option.  And we have a long tradition of separating residential from commercial, and designing everything for cars.  So every resident has to drive to do everything.  Yes.  This sucks.

This is why it's critical that land use planning and transportation planning work hand in hand.  ("Plan" is an important word. We don't do it.)  This is why mixed-use, walkable development needs to become our standard.  This is why transit connectivity matters so damn much.  If people can live in a walkable, mixed use-area where they can meet their daily needs on foot, you can take a crap-load of cars off the street.  Then if you can connect major employment centers with these walkable pods via transit and bike lanes, you can take even more cars off the street.

We are so far behind the curve on this that Tulsans think it's science fiction.  It's not. It' happening all over the country in cities big and small.  Conservative and liberal. It's been happening for the past 20 years... everywhere but here.

We need to catch up.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 29, 2016, 11:30:51 am
Any time I’ve been there, it had sufficient water for a rowing regatta which is held the first weekend of November every year.  No idea if they have gates to make sure there is water then or not, but there weren’t sand bars we had to avoid.  Perhaps the sand bars are further downstream.  Typically, that is not high rainy season and all the snow run-off from the previous winter is long gone.  I believe the Wichita Rowing Club uses that waterway for practice.


This last year was particularly wet...I probably got the sand/water count off for 2015 - I think there were two trips (out of 3 total) before Sep where there was water in the river - haven't been since, so Nov should still be pretty wet, since there has been a lot of rain.  The other visits were going back 3 years or so.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: dsjeffries on January 29, 2016, 11:56:06 am
So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"

The final package includes $57,000,000 for transit, which will fund the Peoria BRT, Route 66 (11th St) BRT, Councilor Ewing's Center of the Universe transit hub in downtown, and the downtown/midtown circulator. It will also increase frequency on existing routes by 50%, extend evening service, improve Saturday service and introduce Sunday service for the first time in Tulsa Transit's history. It's a huge watershed moment for transit in Tulsa. It's the proposal most likely to truly transform Tulsa, from the way we get around, access to jobs, and the way our city is built. It also creates new opportunities for revitalization and infill development in neighborhoods near the new BRT lines.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on January 29, 2016, 12:06:33 pm
If only the public safety portion passes, how long until a new plan can be brought forward?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 29, 2016, 12:29:52 pm
If only the public safety portion passes, how long until a new plan can be brought forward?

I would think they would have time to get it on the November ballot.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on January 29, 2016, 12:47:37 pm
The final package includes $57,000,000 for transit, which will fund the Peoria BRT, Route 66 (11th St) BRT, Councilor Ewing's Center of the Universe transit hub in downtown, and the downtown/midtown circulator. It will also increase frequency on existing routes by 50%, extend evening service, improve Saturday service and introduce Sunday service for the first time in Tulsa Transit's history. It's a huge watershed moment for transit in Tulsa. It's the proposal most likely to truly transform Tulsa, from the way we get around, access to jobs, and the way our city is built. It also creates new opportunities for revitalization and infill development in neighborhoods near the new BRT lines.

Great!  Hope it ushers in some changes on how we operate as a city transportation wise.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 29, 2016, 02:27:15 pm
The final package includes $57,000,000 for transit, which will fund the Peoria BRT, Route 66 (11th St) BRT, Councilor Ewing's Center of the Universe transit hub in downtown, and the downtown/midtown circulator. It will also increase frequency on existing routes by 50%, extend evening service, improve Saturday service and introduce Sunday service for the first time in Tulsa Transit's history. It's a huge watershed moment for transit in Tulsa. It's the proposal most likely to truly transform Tulsa, from the way we get around, access to jobs, and the way our city is built. It also creates new opportunities for revitalization and infill development in neighborhoods near the new BRT lines.

I’m less upset with it knowing this is still in there.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Hoss on January 29, 2016, 03:42:33 pm
That's the part I am talking about - it is very nice.  And of the half dozen times I have been there in the last couple of  years, only once did it have water enough to be considered "full".  Even with sand, it is a nice area and we always make it a point to walk over to Gander Mountain if it isn't too cold.  Then we drive....

Also, always interesting to see the Tesla charging station on I-35.  I heard the rumor that it was located specifically for one of the granddaughters of the founder of Charles Machine Works (Ditch Witch) to keep her Tesla charged!


I have talked about canals before - I REALLY wish we would get off this river nonsense and make a system of canals!!  Would be better than Venice, CA and might even get some semblance of Venice, IT.



I should have taken a picture of this last weekend, but I went on a weekend 'getaway' to KC.  Our first stop consisted of the free Boulevard Brewery tour.  I was surprised to see in the back parking lot a bunch of charging stations ( I remember seeing 'EC' painted on the ground and the terminals ).  I thought 'wow, MO isn't exactly California, so I was kind of surprised.

I've always said that if work took me away to a different location, Kansas City would be OK with me.  I did hard time in Texas (3 years in Houston) but the times I've visited KC I've thoroughly enjoyed.  If I had to transfer for a job, and had that option, I'd take it in a minute.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vashta Nerada on January 29, 2016, 07:13:10 pm
Quote
Sergeant Clay Ballenger with The Tulsa FOP said, "We've had to make a lot of cutbacks over the years...from amount of patrol to closing police stations, not being open 24/7, on and on and on. Cutting back detective units and investigations, cutting back on patrol officers, not being able to patrol neighborhoods like we would like because we just go from call to call; all of those things are going to be fixed."

When was it ever not like that?  Robbing the "Vision" to cover fiscal irresponsibility is not what this should be about. 

(http://www.lessingflynn.com/media/cms/fail28.jpg)


 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on January 29, 2016, 11:40:15 pm
Yeah. Screw those south Tulsa people. Never mind that the city approved 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a f'ing two lane country road.

More people go through that intersection than 41st and Peoria. Or 21st and Yale. or 31st and Lewis.

Who cares? Midtowners sure don't.

Yes perhaps the city shouldn't have approved that there.  And the city should have approved allowing more dense development and mixed use development zoning, and got rid of minimum parking requirements, etc in the rest of the city a LONG time ago to help alleviate sprawl and promote infill and transit use.  There are over 300 new homes and several hotels and many new businesses going in within merely a couple of blocks of my business (and lots more in other areas of downtown) and guess what.... no new roads, arterial, neighborhood, or otherwise were needed, no new intersections needed to be widened or roads widened, or plowed or patched, etc.

One other note, in the older parts of town there are "half mile" streets and grid streets which help alleviate traffic from the one mile arterial ones.

And, I find it interesting that we are still sprawling and wanting more "road miles" within the city even though our population is not growing and may very likely be in decline? That doesn't sound good.  Perhaps some areas of town are growing less dense or are emptying out and moving to other new areas which seems to me that would imply there are still roads in the old areas, but now we need more in the new areas which equals at best, about the same amount of people or less paying for more and more roads, more areas to police, etc.  And statistically we already have way more "lane miles" per the population than many of our peer cities.  And we are a comparatively poor city.  Then we wonder why we can't afford to keep our roads in shape or why we would have to pay so much?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 30, 2016, 08:55:59 am
I want to be excited about the package as a whole and the transit particularly. Instead, I worry about the timing of the thing and the results of our derelict state leadership. Within the next three months the reality of our state budget shortfall is going to manifest itself with more bloodletting. I believe we are some $750 million short and counting. That's damn near a billion dollars short.

The leadership is resolute in their political belief (religion) that taxes are the work of the devil, that is to say, liberals and democrats. Since the city, and the state, are in population stasis, we have no other means of revenue growth to pay our bills. Not excessive, bloated government bills either. We aren't going to be able to adequately fund basic requirements of road maintenance, infrastructure, health, education, environmental etc. Instead of dealing with that failure to legislate responsibly, the first dozen or so bills in the state house are from the Sally Kern cult dealing with gay marriage, unisex bathrooms, etc   Move over Mississippi!

The same governor that made sure the state's more progressive cities could not increase the minimum wage, that cut education funding while our teachers drove over our state borders to make more money, that failed to increase Medicare because it was related to the ACA, now says that Boren's plan to raise money for funding education, wait for it...."EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM". How? Why? Unless she means, she is the problem.

Dewey is a big part of our problem locally. But its not his personality, its what he represents. Inherited power and wealth. That is Tulsa. Look around your city. I drive about 200 miles a day all over this city. Large amounts of downed light poles that weren't lit anyway. I saw a car knock one over on Tisdale during a snow storm two years ago. Its still down and still laying on the ground. Pine and Apache east of Lewis might as well be gravel roads. A minor mishap on an expressway causes miles of backup with few alternatives for escape. Pot holes, washboard surfaces, busted curbs, rusting traffic signals and an increasing lack of courtesy by drivers. My favorite sign of a diminishing community is, ironically, push in signs. They are popping up all over as small businesses ignore the law because there is so little enforcement. And that attitude permeates a community. I do understand why he wants to fund more police and fire (besides courting their favor). He will need them to curtail the possible surge in crime when people start losing their jobs.

We need young wage earners at all levels of education and training to grow, yet we are well known across the region as a "low pay" city in a low pay state with very little labor protection and few opportunities for culture and entertainment. A bedroom city/state if you will. This proposal gives some incentive to stay and suffer through this terrible leadership. Without that growth we're just fighting gravity.

It is in this context that the Vision plan is presented to voters. That is why they wanted it out so quickly before the population feels the burn. And that is why it will likely fail. In business you are not judged so much by your failures or your successes but more by your failure to recognize and seize opportunity. I applaud the council's work at listening to us and I will vote for it but I am disappointed in my state.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Markk on January 30, 2016, 09:57:36 am
I am still a bit confused. Is the 7.8 million proposed for Vensel Park and Vensel Boat Docks part of GO bonds or the V2025? Vensel is at 111th and Delaware. No need for a boat dock if the dams aren't approved is there?

Does anyone here know what the final number was for the Mohawk soccer complex, and what that funding will actually buy?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on January 30, 2016, 09:58:24 am
If you have a few minutes, there's s nice podcast by the Frontier talking to GT about the Vision package. It highlights some of the big components and explains the logic behind some of the needs/choices. Mostly it's an example of why GT will be a good mayor. He's able to speak clearly and rationally, he's gracious about compromises that have occurred, he's respectful and understanding of the different opinions (and the different life experiences) of the citizens of Tulsa...

It's worth a listen:
https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/listen-frontier-talking-vision-2025-with-g-t-bynum/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/listen-frontier-talking-vision-2025-with-g-t-bynum/)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on January 30, 2016, 11:37:38 am
That was well done. Answered a lot of my questions. He was calm (obviously from his involvement), and respectful. He needs to be the front man for this not the county or the mayors office. I don't think the public had the input I would have liked to have seen but considering how small election turnouts are anyway that may be all that could be expected.

His remarks about the history or return on investment for the dams wasn't as strong as it could have been but the river investment will undoubtedly result in more attention to the river area. With insightful management that will payoff.

For Tulsa's future, I hope this plays out.

note: Is Tulsa really that dangerous? I wasn't aware we had such a violent crime rate.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on January 30, 2016, 06:51:00 pm
Does anyone here know what the final number was for the Mohawk soccer complex, and what that funding will actually buy?

$3.5 million made it in and the rest is a top listed contingency.

Better access and parking are first and some new lights for more fields is first.

I lobbied for this and am glad it made it in.

Here is the list:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2U63fXBlFo


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2016, 10:44:40 am
Gawd...  There is so much crap mixed in with some things I believe are very important.

Something everyone can agree with.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2016, 11:02:13 am
Denver has Mountains, why not Tulsa?

Do you not remember "Ski the Tulsa Mountains" from John Erling on KRMG?





Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 03, 2016, 09:10:16 am
Vision project aims to save Turkey Mountain land once targeted for outlet mall

Quote
The Vision tax renewal going before voters April 5 targets land near Turkey Mountain that was the focus of public outcry last year.
The $7.6 million set aside for Turkey Mountain would purchase land that has been set aside for the River Parks Authority to take ownership, contingent on approval from voters.
Councilor G.T. Bynum, who orchestrated the river-infrastructure portion of Vision renewal, said the plan to purchase the land with Vision dollars came from a combination of citizen and River Parks proposals.
“It does both land acquisition and trail improvements, as well as campsites that people can utilize to make it even more of an outdoor recreational attraction than it is now,” Bynum said. “They (Turkey Mountain amenities) draw a tremendous crowd during the daytime now, and this would really improve what’s there.”
The project, in part, was a response to opposition of a proposed outlet mall at the site. Plans for the mall have since shifted to Jenks.
“The old saying, ‘You don’t appreciate what you have until you almost lose it,’ probably applies here,” Bynum said. “The developers galvanized the people who love it and use it a lot, but it forced people to be more creative about it.”
The addition would expand Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness by about 50 acres after about $6 million goes to acquiring the land for River Parks with the remainder going to amenities.
The project is just one of many Arkansas River corridor infrastructure projects that came out of Bynum’s river-infrastructure task force, including two low-water dams to create lakes, trails, levee rehabilitation and parks near the river.
The low-water dams planned in the proposal are for a south Tulsa/Jenks dam to be built just south of the Creek Turnpike and a complete rebuild of Zink Dam north of 31st Street.
In total, Vision is designed to put about $144 million toward the projects.
“What we’re trying to do with the river is not just have this disjointed lake-here-and-lake-there approach,” Bynum said. “We’re trying to look at it as a corridor that has been underutilized and under appreciated for half a century.”
Bynum has previously said the river, as it exists today through Tulsa, is the result of damming Keystone Lake west of Sand Springs in the 1960s and is in need of an upgrade.
“When Zink Lake is at its capacity and operating correctly, you’ll be able to take a kayak down the white-water flume and down channels in the natural river all the way to Turkey Mountain,” Bynum said. “That is a tremendous opportunity that people haven’t had since the 1960s.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/vision-project-aims-to-save-turkey-mountain-land-once-targeted/article_73bc6489-fe14-561e-80af-ce80b98ea10a.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/vision-project-aims-to-save-turkey-mountain-land-once-targeted/article_73bc6489-fe14-561e-80af-ce80b98ea10a.html)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2016, 09:44:36 am
If you have a few minutes, there's s nice podcast by the Frontier talking to GT about the Vision package. It highlights some of the big components and explains the logic behind some of the needs/choices. Mostly it's an example of why GT will be a good mayor. He's able to speak clearly and rationally, he's gracious about compromises that have occurred, he's respectful and understanding of the different opinions (and the different life experiences) of the citizens of Tulsa...

It's worth a listen:
https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/listen-frontier-talking-vision-2025-with-g-t-bynum/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/listen-frontier-talking-vision-2025-with-g-t-bynum/)


6/10ths of a cent on $1,000 should be $6.00.  At about 3 minutes, he says 6 cents....maybe he needs some help with the math...


Recruitment and retention!!  Good sound bite phrase for what I have been b$tching about for years - the fact that all but 1 of the kids has had to move out of state to get not just jobs, but true careers!  Get their kids (my grand and great grand kids) properly educated.  Get actual help for a couple of mild autistics (while Oklahoma focuses on getting old white guys their jollies with coverage for Viagra!)


Now, if we could just get past the idea that old people aren't valuable employees....


I am still skeptical about lakes on the river, but he does make a smooth case for it.  Then he advances casino as a benefit to the city...well, ya can't be right about everything.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2016, 10:02:23 am
I should have taken a picture of this last weekend, but I went on a weekend 'getaway' to KC.  Our first stop consisted of the free Boulevard Brewery tour.  I was surprised to see in the back parking lot a bunch of charging stations ( I remember seeing 'EC' painted on the ground and the terminals ).  I thought 'wow, MO isn't exactly California, so I was kind of surprised.

I've always said that if work took me away to a different location, Kansas City would be OK with me.  I did hard time in Texas (3 years in Houston) but the times I've visited KC I've thoroughly enjoyed.  If I had to transfer for a job, and had that option, I'd take it in a minute.


KC is an interesting city - MO and KS.  Haven't been there for quite a while, but big piece of the family is from there and many are still there - the ones that are still alive!  I spent quite a bit of time there when a kid, and into my 20's/30's.  KC, KS is kind of run down - the gloss is worn off.  MO seems to have the critical mass in the area....

Only thing keeping me away - and Olathe has a lot of Electrical/Electronics stuff going on - is the winter.  Even with 'global warming' it is just too bloody cold for me to move there!  Even Tulsa gets too cold!!  Am working to get on a program where spend spring/fall here, then winter where warmer and summer where cooler.



And while we are at it, just thought I would throw in this little diversion for everyone's listening enjoyment....  I think I may like this version better than the original....

Disturbed.   Sound of Silence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dg-g7t2l4

And if you get through that - should be easy...it's good listening - ya might appreciate;

The Greatest Hit of Disturbed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66gSvNeqevg


Enjoy!  Have a good day!!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 03, 2016, 10:32:09 am

6/10ths of a cent on $1,000 should be $6.00.  At about 3 minutes, he says 6 cents....maybe he needs some help with the math...


Recruitment and retention!!  Good sound bite phrase for what I have been b$tching about for years - the fact that all but 1 of the kids has had to move out of state to get not just jobs, but true careers!  Get their kids (my grand and great grand kids) properly educated.  Get actual help for a couple of mild autistics (while Oklahoma focuses on getting old white guys their jollies with coverage for Viagra!)


Now, if we could just get past the idea that old people aren't valuable employees....


I am still skeptical about lakes on the river, but he does make a smooth case for it.  Then he advances casino as a benefit to the city...well, ya can't be right about everything.



He did smooth the penetration a bit. Of course you could always travel by kayak from the dam to Turkey mountain when the water was high enough to fill Zink lake. You simply had to portage around the low water dam. Even before the Keystone dam I had a friend who as an Eagle Scout floated the entire length from Sand Springs to Bixby with nothing more than a canoe and some beer.

The real problem in OK is as you described. Too willing to sell off our future for morality today and too few well paying jobs. Throw in the disposal of older learned labor and you have the lower tier states. Politics is all they have left.

There is a lot I don't like about the proposals but enough I do to make it seem worthwhile. Compromise is such a b*tch.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2016, 11:03:44 am

The real problem in OK is as you described. Too willing to sell off our future for morality today and too few well paying jobs. Throw in the disposal of older learned labor and you have the lower tier states. Politics is all they have left.
 


Three local companies have jobs currently advertised - one of them for over 2 years, one for over a year - whose descriptions are written as if it were addressed, "Dear Heiron..."  Background, expertise, training, patents in the field.... Actually got an interview with one of them not long ago and have talked more than once on the phone to the others.  (And no, I am nowhere as "prickly" in real life as I get here from time to time - I can almost be personable!)  Absolutely no doubt that have not been hired because too old and they want someone at half price.

One other had a headhunter involved and he called to 'verify' my desired salary range - "Didn't you tell me you wanted 55% of what we were talking about last week...?"  They found a kid 1 year out of school at 55%....

Oh, well...guess they won't be getting any good new products or patents for the portfolio...  Ironic thing - one of them is getting "beat up" by corporate because there have been insufficient (none) new products coming out of Engineering for about 5 years now - just some light tweeking of existing products.... I could apparently help them with their R & D department management, too!





Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 03, 2016, 11:24:32 am
The more GT gets to speak about the package, the better it starts to sound.  It also is beginning to sound like Tulsa has a silent benefactor who is willing to invest even more $$ in Tulsa, including the maintenance and operations reserve fund for the dams.

There are still some items I don’t care as much about and some I wish had made it to the ED package, but overall, there’s some great potential in here.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on February 03, 2016, 12:19:53 pm
The more GT gets to speak about the package, the better it starts to sound.  It also is beginning to sound like Tulsa has a silent benefactor who is willing to invest even more $$ in Tulsa, including the maintenance and operations reserve fund for the dams.

There are still some items I don’t care as much about and some I wish had made it to the ED package, but overall, there’s some great potential in here.

I think those benefactors are going to be the city of Jenks' TIF on the outlet mall site (which already exists) and the Creek Nation with the new Chief.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 03, 2016, 01:33:39 pm
The more GT gets to speak about the package, the better it starts to sound.  It also is beginning to sound like Tulsa has a silent benefactor who is willing to invest even more $$ in Tulsa, including the maintenance and operations reserve fund for the dams.

There are still some items I don’t care as much about and some I wish had made it to the ED package, but overall, there’s some great potential in here.

After mulling it over for a while, I feel this is about as good of a package as we were going to get. The south dam being contingent on outside sources is a big sell to me as that was one of my primary concerns (Tulsans paying for Jenks' and Riverspirit's dam).

I would prefer if they separated the safety tax into another package, but regardless, we do need to increase the police force badly as crime is ridiculously high. Perhaps this package could bring in more jobs (even if mostly temporary construction) and thus reduce crime somewhat and be an economic boost at a time when the oil business is so far down. The Rapid Transit and downtown hub are the parts I like the best. The river really will be nice, even if I am skeptical about the ROI.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 03, 2016, 01:35:12 pm
While I am disappointed most of the truly visionary projects were left out (Art Deco Museum, Raw Space, Sports Multiplex south of TCC), it will be great for Gilcrease. When I found out TU is matching funds (or at least $50 million), that made that project much more attractive. TU does well developing things and Gilcrease deserves to be a top-notch destination as they have a massive unused reserve of art and artifacts. Adding 100,000 square feet (so 247,000 square feet total) and the other plans could make it a place many Tulsans want to go frequently and even more of a must-see for visitors. It will be a bit like Tulsa's version of the Getty Museum.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 03, 2016, 02:12:43 pm
One of the arguments for Gilcrease is that they have a collection worth $2 billion, but can only display 2% of their collection at any one time.

A fun fact that GT mentioned is that the top 10 items at Gilcrease are worth more than the entire collection at Crystal Bridges.  We have the single greatest collection of Native American and western art/artifacts in the world, and nobody really thinks about it.

That sort of puts things in perspective.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 03, 2016, 02:29:27 pm
One of the arguments for Gilcrease is that they have a collection worth $2 billion, but can only display 2% of their collection at any one time.

A fun fact that GT mentioned is that the top 10 items at Gilcrease are worth more than the entire collection at Crystal Bridges.  We have the single greatest collection of Native American artifacts in the world, and nobody really thinks about it.

That sort of puts things in perspective.

If there eventually is connectivity to the trail system from Gilcrease to The Gathering Place, Gilcrease would truly be on even ground with Crystal Bridges.  This was either in the proposal they presented or it was subsequently mentioned as a possibility. 

Both times we’ve visited Crystal Bridges, we’ve taken bikes.  The paved and unpaved trails in the vicinity of CB are truly something to behold.

The view from Gilcrease is amazing and I do see huge potential there.  Would I like to see this much money spread around to various smaller projects which would directly relate to job creation?  Yes.  Can you really sneeze at a matched funding commitment?  Not in this case.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 03, 2016, 03:21:34 pm
One of the arguments for Gilcrease is that they have a collection worth $2 billion, but can only display 2% of their collection at any one time.

A fun fact that GT mentioned is that the top 10 items at Gilcrease are worth more than the entire collection at Crystal Bridges.  We have the single greatest collection of Native American artifacts in the world, and nobody really thinks about it.

That sort of puts things in perspective.

I agree. It would be amazing to see more of it. I've been several times and it is nice to see the rotating displays and revisit what is there, but it would be great to have an expanse to explore and see much more of the collection.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on February 03, 2016, 05:49:40 pm

(while Oklahoma focuses on getting old white guys their jollies with coverage for Viagra!)


Thats a problem?


 ;D but honestly, is this a sincere product of soul-searching or just the smoke and mirrors to distract from new more-or-less permanent taxes for department operations?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 04, 2016, 07:32:34 am
It is a product of the leadership Tulsa now has which represents who we are as a city. So yes it is deception but deception of our own device.

added: I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean that for once during my lifetime in Tulsa we have government that pretty much represents its constituents in values, beliefs, politics. The council form is working. Each area of town has a voice. Whether that's good or not remains to be proved.  The mayor represents the old guard of wealth, power, family and conservative family values (fwiw). So, we couldn't have expected anything different than what we ended up with.

Unfortunately there are many progressive, erudite, independent, innovative, sophisticated, big city, west coast, east coast, European, Scandinavian, Fascist, Socialist (shall I go on?) viewpoints that are simply not a dominant part of our demographic makeup. And that's where new and different comes from.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2016, 09:44:04 am
Thats a problem?


 ;D but honestly, is this a sincere product of soul-searching or just the smoke and mirrors to distract from new more-or-less permanent taxes for department operations?


No.  If accompanied by addressing real, serious, health issues of younger people too.  After all, the old ones are going away soon, either dying or moving to Sun City - they should be focusing on their walkers and not being such a huge drain on resources and really...sex??  Come on...get real!!  And that starts at about 45 to 50.

The future depends on the new ones...

Old and Busted versus New Hotness....



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2016, 09:50:26 am
One of the arguments for Gilcrease is that they have a collection worth $2 billion, but can only display 2% of their collection at any one time.

A fun fact that GT mentioned is that the top 10 items at Gilcrease are worth more than the entire collection at Crystal Bridges.  We have the single greatest collection of Native American and western art/artifacts in the world, and nobody really thinks about it.

That sort of puts things in perspective.


I wonder if part of the problem of relative awareness between Gilcrease and CB is just a propaganda issue?  I hear about CB from time to time - people talking - can't even remember when and where exactly (not TV) but I don't ever hear anyone talk about Gilcrease (except me, talking to anyone/everyone who will listen in family/friends/acquaintances group).

I have really liked Gilcrease and Philbrook since I was a kid, and chat them up every chance I get.  And Woolaroc.  Don't ever hear anyone talk about any of them - within my hearing range, anyway.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 04, 2016, 10:20:11 am

I wonder if part of the problem of relative awareness between Gilcrease and CB is just a propaganda issue?  I hear about CB from time to time - people talking - can't even remember when and where exactly (not TV) but I don't ever hear anyone talk about Gilcrease (except me, talking to anyone/everyone who will listen in family/friends/acquaintances group).

I have really liked Gilcrease and Philbrook since I was a kid, and chat them up every chance I get.  And Woolaroc.  Don't ever hear anyone talk about any of them - within my hearing range, anyway.


It’s the myopia of living close to things.  People don’t think about the gems in their own backyard near as much as what someone else has.  Traveling to an attraction adds to the cool factor I’d guess.  This is my perception anyhow- I don’t think Gilcrease does as great a job at marketing and programming as Philbrook does.  My wife and I make time to go to Festival of Trees every year.  We’ve done that since the year we started dating.  I’ve taken my mother to the restaurant at Philbrook for Mother’s Day brunch in the past.

Philbrook for some reason has more awareness in my conscience than Gilcrease or Woolaroc and I don’t think Woolaroc is under-promoted by any means.  I’m only vaguely aware there is a restaurant at Gilcrease.  I have no idea what they have on exhibit at the moment.  The last time I was there was either for a park board meeting or to look at replacing a boiler.  I really don’t recall.  For being a more-or-less private entity, I’d think Gilcrease would do a better job at advertising and marketing not just to people on an email or donor list.  I’m on neither with Philbrook, yet I somehow know when there’s a new exhibit.

Apple V. orange, but it’s kind of like how you never knew any Tulsans who ate at Casa Bonita.  It was always the in-laws from Arkansas who wanted to eat there when in town.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 04, 2016, 10:51:12 am


note: Is Tulsa really that dangerous? I wasn't aware we had such a violent crime rate.



Well, we don't actually in spite of our Mayor's belief to the contrary. We didn't make the top 100 ranked by violent crimes per 1000 population in cities over 25000. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/#
However, fear Ardmore and Lawton.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2016, 11:36:59 am
It’s the myopia of living close to things.  People don’t think about the gems in their own backyard near as much as what someone else has.  Traveling to an attraction adds to the cool factor I’d guess.  This is my perception anyhow- I don’t think Gilcrease does as great a job at marketing and programming as Philbrook does.  My wife and I make time to go to Festival of Trees every year.  We’ve done that since the year we started dating.  I’ve taken my mother to the restaurant at Philbrook for Mother’s Day brunch in the past.

Philbrook for some reason has more awareness in my conscience than Gilcrease or Woolaroc and I don’t think Woolaroc is under-promoted by any means.  I’m only vaguely aware there is a restaurant at Gilcrease.  I have no idea what they have on exhibit at the moment.  The last time I was there was either for a park board meeting or to look at replacing a boiler.  I really don’t recall.  For being a more-or-less private entity, I’d think Gilcrease would do a better job at advertising and marketing not just to people on an email or donor list.  I’m on neither with Philbrook, yet I somehow know when there’s a new exhibit.

Apple V. orange, but it’s kind of like how you never knew any Tulsans who ate at Casa Bonita.  It was always the in-laws from Arkansas who wanted to eat there when in town.


I ate at Casa Bonita when a kid a LOT.  Only place could get filled up!  Always started out at Sandy's Hamburgers (21st, west of Sheridan) after school - 8 cheeseburgers for $1.00 - then go home for dinner.  After that, always needed a snack, so would go to CB for two or three plates, then a dozen tacos or so...  Cannot imagine HOW the parents could afford to feed me...

And only weighed 155 lbs.  Guess I was that active...




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: rebound on February 04, 2016, 11:48:03 am
It is a product of the leadership Tulsa now has which represents who we are as a city. So yes it is deception but deception of our own device.

"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device..."

Got me thinking that "Hotel Oklahoma" would be even more more sad and despairing than the original.   "... the last thing I remember, I was running for the door"  said the majority of our young professionals.    I see glimmers of hope, and I'll push and prod and help as I can, but I'm still a pessimist at heart as far as seeing OK, or Tulsa, making any fundamental changes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 04, 2016, 11:59:54 am
I hoped someone would catch that reference. Love the lyrics and to think about their relevance to OK is fun. But, remember, the pendulum swings. Bernie was 40 points behind. Obama was an empty suit. Oklahoma was once a progressive state whose constitution was written to protect the little guy.
Oh, and yes, Trump went from unbelievable, to unbeatable to a loser within a few months!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on February 04, 2016, 12:20:14 pm
(https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/hero_vision_1440x450_1-1140x356.jpg)

Vision Presentation:

https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vision-Presentation_final4.pdf (https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vision-Presentation_final4.pdf)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on February 04, 2016, 12:44:29 pm
(https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/hero_vision_1440x450_1-1140x356.jpg)

Vision Presentation:

https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vision-Presentation_final4.pdf (https://gilcrease.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Vision-Presentation_final4.pdf)

I had no idea it was that big a project. Gilcrease really needs it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 04, 2016, 02:33:39 pm
Who knew Gilcrease sits on 460 acres?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 04, 2016, 02:56:40 pm
Hopefully all those windows will have UV protection... or we're going to have a large collection of sun-faded art!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AdamsHall on February 04, 2016, 07:03:05 pm
Old and Busted versus New Hotness....

I recognize that one.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: sooneralum2012 on February 04, 2016, 08:08:45 pm
If anyone wants to watch the painful sausage being made... You can watch the whole debate on TGov. (Doesn't work on all browsers, but does work on Internet Explorer.)

Here's my very incomplete summary of what happened at the meeting with timestamps if you want to view online.  I didn't capture everything everyone said.  The notes below reflect my bias and interests.  

Here’s the first half:

2h:39:45 – Bartlett – talks about the little meetings that went on all day with some of the councilors.  “We can’t have everyone in the same room at the same time because of open meeting laws.” (Uh… there may be a reason for that…)


not sure if this has recieved the heat that it should but Dear LORD.  What a scum bag.  Here is the exact quote.

"we obviously cannot have all you in the same room at the same time because of open meeting laws".

Having moved here from OKC less than two years ago I never expected my mayor to actively & openly admit to dodging public accountability, especially when it comes to something as important as this vote.  It is becoming clear to me though how lucky OKC is to have Cornett and just how much Dewey is holding Tulsa back.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2016, 08:26:40 pm
I recognize that one.


Was hoping someone would pick up on that.  It was buried pretty deep at the end of that post....



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: sooneralum2012 on February 04, 2016, 08:27:38 pm
The final package includes $57,000,000 for transit, which will fund the Peoria BRT, Route 66 (11th St) BRT, Councilor Ewing's Center of the Universe transit hub in downtown, and the downtown/midtown circulator. It will also increase frequency on existing routes by 50%, extend evening service, improve Saturday service and introduce Sunday service for the first time in Tulsa Transit's history. It's a huge watershed moment for transit in Tulsa. It's the proposal most likely to truly transform Tulsa, from the way we get around, access to jobs, and the way our city is built. It also creates new opportunities for revitalization and infill development in neighborhoods near the new BRT lines.

do we have renderings or any idea about how "rapid" this system will be?  Curious as to if the buses will have the right of way, their own segregated lane, etc.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 04, 2016, 08:53:41 pm
do we have renderings or any idea about how "rapid" this system will be?  Curious as to if the buses will have the right of way, their own segregated lane, etc.

“segregation” and “buses” in the same sentence is sort of a touchy subject.... ;D


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: sooneralum2012 on February 04, 2016, 09:07:46 pm
“segregation” and “buses” in the same sentence is sort of a touchy subject.... ;D

ha...SEPERATED. lets use that word.

But this is what im talking about

Ideal:
(http://na.steerdaviesgleave.com/sites/default/files/casestudies/transmileneo-01.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1AoAy8Ruwv0/maxresdefault.jpg)


More realistic:
(https://cagayandeorodev.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/brt-718460.jpg)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Hoss on February 04, 2016, 10:10:26 pm

Was hoping someone would pick up on that.  It was buried pretty deep at the end of that post....



I recognized it too.  If the youtube embed function wasn't disabled, I was going to post the relevant scene.  :)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on February 05, 2016, 09:58:55 am
do we have renderings or any idea about how "rapid" this system will be?  Curious as to if the buses will have the right of way, their own segregated lane, etc.

I think it just means more frequent service and buses dedicated to those streets.  Traffic on 11th and on Peoria isn't bad enough, in my opinion, to need a separate lane for the bus to improve efficiency.  If they just operate more often it'll be a huge deal because a main reason many (including myself) don't use the bus is the long wait time between service.  Much faster to just use the car.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on February 05, 2016, 10:10:55 am
Bus Rapid Transit details. Not sure if this flyer is out of date, but it lists details, including:

15 minute frequency during peak hours
New stations with real-time arrival screens
Traffic signal priority to allow the bus to remain on schedule

http://tulsatransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TulsaBRTFactSheet.pdf


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: dsjeffries on February 05, 2016, 10:34:49 am
do we have renderings or any idea about how "rapid" this system will be?  Curious as to if the buses will have the right of way, their own segregated lane, etc.

Here is a map displaying both BRT lines. The Peoria BRT will not have its own dedicated lanes, but 11th Street is probably wide enough to accommodate that. They will have stops every half-mile, and control the traffic lights as they approach them. I'm really, really excited about this. Within one-half mile of these two BRT routes, there are 72,000 jobs and 86,000 residents. 3,758 households along the routes have no vehicle. 46.6% of households served by the BRT routes only have one vehicle available. That's 17,000 households that will suddenly have access to rapid, reliable transportation. This is huge.

(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Vision_Transit_Maps-3.jpg)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 05, 2016, 03:52:42 pm
Here is a map displaying both BRT lines. The Peoria BRT will not have its own dedicated lanes, but 11th Street is probably wide enough to accommodate that. They will have stops every half-mile, and control the traffic lights as they approach them. I'm really, really excited about this. Within one-half mile of these two BRT routes, there are 72,000 jobs and 86,000 residents. 3,758 households along the routes have no vehicle. 46.6% of households served by the BRT routes only have one vehicle available. That's 17,000 households that will suddenly have access to rapid, reliable transportation. This is huge.

(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Vision_Transit_Maps-3.jpg)

That looks and sounds great! I would definitely take the bus from time to time if I could rely on it being quicker and in shorter intervals. It would be nice for the walkability of any places along those routes and would definitely put them a shoe-up on suburbs, especially for anyone wanting to be in an urban area and for those who can't or don't want to drive.

Also, I can't wait to see the bus stop-light showdowns that are bound to occur at 11th and Peoria! :P


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: johrasephoenix on February 06, 2016, 02:32:44 pm
The BRT looks freaking awesome.  I'm really hoping that the BRT buses include bike racks out front so I can bike to the stop then hop on the bus.

Also - they did something like this in Austin.  The streets it ran on are much, much more congested than Peoria so the lack of dedicated right of way was an obvious drawback. 

BUT - in cities like Austin and Tulsa the cityscape along most of Peoria (or Lamar in Austin) is meant for cars.  As part of this they should strongly encourage much denser development along Peoria...  Apartments/commercial space should be oriented towards the street and front it. 

Pretty awesome. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on February 08, 2016, 08:15:09 am
What is the proposed interval between buses? I can't seem to locate that.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: dsjeffries on February 08, 2016, 08:26:53 am
What is the proposed interval between buses? I can't seem to locate that.

I read somewhere they're planning for 15 minute intervals on the Peoria BRT.


...BUT - in cities like Austin and Tulsa the cityscape along most of Peoria (or Lamar in Austin) is meant for cars.  As part of this they should strongly encourage much denser development along Peoria...  Apartments/commercial space should be oriented towards the street and front it.

That's one of my hopes along both corridors - quality, denser, mixed-use developments. This project is one of the most transformative of the entire Vision package.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Stanley1 on February 08, 2016, 10:58:57 am
ha...SEPERATED. lets use that word.

But this is what im talking about

Ideal:
(http://na.steerdaviesgleave.com/sites/default/files/casestudies/transmileneo-01.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1AoAy8Ruwv0/maxresdefault.jpg)


More realistic:
(https://cagayandeorodev.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/brt-718460.jpg)


Tulsa doesn't need that.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 08, 2016, 02:44:22 pm
You couldn't put that on Brookside or Cherry Street without wiping out half the buildings. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on February 08, 2016, 03:13:21 pm
You couldn't put that on Brookside or Cherry Street without wiping out half the buildings. 

Well it's not planned to go down Cherry Street but it is supposed to pass through Brookside. You're correct that it's much too narrow through there. But the point is moot anyway because they've already said they're not doing dedicated lanes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 08, 2016, 04:25:52 pm
Tulsa doesn't need that.
Yeah, Tulsa doesn't need to improve our transportation options. Single car, single driver is great for everyone . The most inefficient, most expensive, most damaging to the environment, most reliant on foreign oil, and most unhealthy transportation choice is best for all of us. It's also great if we continue to waste half our land on parking lots, because that really generates money for schools... </end sarcasm>

Tulsa needs the BRT, buses, bike lanes, and sidewalks ...and smart land use policies if we ever want to live up to our potential as a city. Multi modal transportation options create opportunity, equality, flexibility and resilience. Car-only transportation means we can never be more than we are today. Is that good enough? I sure hope not.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 08, 2016, 08:08:55 pm
Tulsa doesn't need that.

Are you saying we don't need public transit improvements?

Are you saying we don't need grade separated or dedicated lanes?

I think when Tulsa is ready for grade separated or dedicated lanes, we might as well invest in fixed rail.  Actually, I'd like to see fixed rail even in the street but I understand the reluctance to spend the up-front money.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 08, 2016, 08:27:46 pm
But this is what im talking about

Ideal:
(http://na.steerdaviesgleave.com/sites/default/files/casestudies/transmileneo-01.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1AoAy8Ruwv0/maxresdefault.jpg)

Replace the rubber tired buses with steel wheel trolleys on fixed rails and I'll agree.

"BRT" is more within our reach due to the initial investment.  Fixed rail can be less expensive over the life of the system.  I put "BRT" in quotes because without grade separated right-of-way, it's really just a fancy bus.  To be fair, trolleys running in the street wouldn't be much faster.  Fixed rail can have bigger passenger draw and more Transit Oriented Development since the route is more difficult to change than with buses of any kind.

All sorts of info (biased toward rail of course) here:
http://www.lightrailnow.org

This is how to get to Philadelphia from where I grew up.
https://goo.gl/maps/RuPMkFaNEAr




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: johrasephoenix on February 08, 2016, 11:06:38 pm
Its also a concentrated transit investment.  Get transit it working in one part of the city really well rather than trying to spread the love everywhere (an important but ultimately longer term goal).


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2016, 08:34:23 am
Tulsa doesn't need that.

If you've ever waited for a bus in this town (about an hour) you would take a different stance. Check out some of the bus stops at rush hour and see how packed some of them are.

Other cities recognize the need to get people around without their cars, even car loving places like Dallas and Denver. At this point Tulsa is so far behind I'm not sure we can catch up, and we sure can't make any headway with our current mayor and his love of sprawl and highways.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 09, 2016, 08:46:40 am
You couldn't put that on Brookside or Cherry Street without wiping out half the buildings.  


Close Brookside and Cherry Streets to auto traffic.  Dedicated BRT roads only.

We've done it with Main street repeatedly...  we have made this type of change before - all the interstates through town have closed roads.





Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on February 09, 2016, 09:15:05 am
If you've ever waited for a bus in this town (about an hour) you would take a different stance. Check out some of the bus stops at rush hour and see how packed some of them are.

Other cities recognize the need to get people around without their cars, even car loving places like Dallas and Denver. At this point Tulsa is so far behind I'm not sure we can catch up, and we sure can't make any headway with our current mayor and his love of sprawl and highways.

Tulsa doesn't have the population growth of those cities.  We need young people to come here if there is ever going to be a change in how the voters advocate for transportation.  The old guard, who still dominates this city, don't care about transit.  They love their cars and wouldn't use transit if it stopped right in front of their house.  We also don't have the kind of traffic problems as Dallas and Houston that is forcing them to rethink highways and transportation.  When a 10 mile commute takes 30-45 minutes, you don't really have a choice.  We don't have that problem in Tulsa and with population stagnant, we won't for the foreseeable future.  Young people are leaving more than they're coming in it seems (it's at least somewhere even).  If that doesn't change, this conversation is meaningless.  This isn't the place to discuss why I think we're in this position because it gets very political. Nevertheless, here's an interesting read about Dallas and its transportation problems that is forcing it to rethink some things.  They aren't as progressive on the issue as you might think.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/dallas-deck-parks-may-be-the-new-thing-but-expanded-highways-will-keep-coming.html/


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on February 09, 2016, 09:22:56 am
Young people are moving to places with better transit choices, better urban housing choices and better core density where everything they need is right outside their door.

If Tulsa wants to compete then we need to change the old guard way of thinking. The current mayor is the majordomo of that guard.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 09, 2016, 09:51:05 am
Tulsa doesn't have the population growth of those cities.  We need young people to come here if there is ever going to be a change in how the voters advocate for transportation.  The old guard, who still dominates this city, don't care about transit.  They love their cars and wouldn't use transit if it stopped right in front of their house.  We also don't have the kind of traffic problems as Dallas and Houston that is forcing them to rethink highways and transportation.  When a 10 mile commute takes 30-45 minutes, you don't really have a choice.  We don't have that problem in Tulsa and with population stagnant, we won't for the foreseeable future.  Young people are leaving more than they're coming in it seems (it's at least somewhere even).  If that doesn't change, this conversation is meaningless.  This isn't the place to discuss why I think we're in this position because it gets very political. Nevertheless, here's an interesting read about Dallas and its transportation problems that is forcing it to rethink some things.  They aren't as progressive on the issue as you might think.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/dallas-deck-parks-may-be-the-new-thing-but-expanded-highways-will-keep-coming.html/



Not just young people...that's an ageist statement!!   I would love to have access to reasonable transit of ALL kinds - city, state, national.  And would use it most of the time if available.  Have a few particular routes that I follow that would be ideal for this, here and in OKC.  The BRT would cater to a huge amount - 75% or more - of my Tulsa travel.  Get to go to BA regularly, so a route down that way would be nice, too.  (The other 25% or so...)  

OKC I-35 corridor from downtown to Norman would be great!  The Heartland Flyer route is very good, but something exactly on the I-35 corridor would be ideal.  For me and about 60,000 a day who come in from the south.  And if extended it to Edmond - same I-35 corridor - could accommodate another 60k.

I-44 from Tulsa to OKC - connecting to BRT at both ends -  Heaven for transportation!!  I would essentially never drive a car during the work week!  

And I'm OLD... I have voted against that old guard every step of the way.  People complain perpetually about their nonsense.   And yet, somehow, they just keep getting elected.  Nothing is gonna happen when we keep electing the Dewey types - both here in Tulsa and statewide.  And nationally for that matter....


If ya want progress...ya gotta vote for a Progressive... it ain't gonna happen any other way!  Everything else is regressive.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 09, 2016, 10:35:46 am
I’m surprised a park and ride from BA to the IDL has never caught on.  The old Ford Glass Plant site would be ideal for just such a thing for east siders and BA residents.  That has the potential to take a lot of traffic off the BA. 

The main reason I drive commute rather than ride a bike is the need for a car in my job duties during the day.  If it weren’t for that, I’d be looking at a transit or bike commute every day.  If I lived in BA, worked in downtown Tulsa and didn’t need my car during the day I’d definitely take a park and ride bus rather than deal with the traffic on the BA and the daily accidents.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on February 09, 2016, 10:56:26 am
I’m surprised a park and ride from BA to the IDL has never caught on.  The old Ford Glass Plant site would be ideal for just such a thing for east siders and BA residents.  That has the potential to take a lot of traffic off the BA.  

The main reason I drive commute rather than ride a bike is the need for a car in my job duties during the day.  If it weren’t for that, I’d be looking at a transit or bike commute every day.  If I lived in BA, worked in downtown Tulsa and didn’t need my car during the day I’d definitely take a park and ride bus rather than deal with the traffic on the BA and the daily accidents.

Broken Arrow suburbanites are used to their cars and made that decision knowing about the drive.  And the commute is nothing compared to what that distance would be in Dallas or Houston.  We're nowhere close to having the kind of traffic problems that change peoples' minds about transit.  Young people are more of a mindset like yours that if you can get away from needing a car, great.  The old guard is stuck in the car mindset and it won't change without severe traffic problems or extraordinarily high gas prices, which would have to be drastic, like $20 a gallon, to really make them change.  People are so addicted to their cars that demand for gas is extraordinarily inelastic.  We saw that with $4 gas making no noticeable change in the volume of commuter traffic or housing patterns.  Suburbs were still growing faster than the city and cars were still filling the highways.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 09, 2016, 11:33:48 am
Broken Arrow suburbanites are used to their cars and made that decision knowing about the drive.  And the commute is nothing compared to what that distance would be in Dallas or Houston.  We're nowhere close to having the kind of traffic problems that change peoples' minds about transit.  Young people are more of a mindset like yours that if you can get away from needing a car, great.  The old guard is stuck in the car mindset and it won't change without severe traffic problems or extraordinarily high gas prices, which would have to be drastic, like $20 a gallon, to really make them change.  People are so addicted to their cars that demand for gas is extraordinarily inelastic.  We saw that with $4 gas making no noticeable change in the volume of commuter traffic or housing patterns.  Suburbs were still growing faster than the city and cars were still filling the highways.

The only difference I saw when gas was high here in Tulsa was a rise in Scooter sales at the scooter place on 15th St. more new small cars on the road and maybe a few more people choosing to bike.

I was largely dependent on the city bus when I was younger.  My mother worked out near St. Francis and we lived at 26th & Delaware.  There was a bus line that ran down 26th between Harvard & Lewis.  On nice days, I rode my bike or walked to Barnard Elementary at 17th & Lewis.  On rainy or really cold days, I could catch the MTTA just a few doors down from my house.

I also regularly took the bus downtown after school to the central library and would ride it back to just down the block from my house.  All this when I was between 10 & 11 years old.  You’d never dream of allowing a child to do that these days.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 09, 2016, 12:40:18 pm
I think our parents were braver than we have been. Or they were less patient with having us around.

I remember refusing to look at gas pumps when the price hit $4 gal. There was simply a certain amount of driving I had to do to make ends meet and if that meant fuel gouging out a larger % of the budget then grit your teeth and go.

My youngest son is not that way. Bike, walk, bus or share are all equal choices to him. Nice to be young.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 09, 2016, 02:15:25 pm
Young people are moving to places with better transit choices, better urban housing choices and better core density where everything they need is right outside their door.

If Tulsa wants to compete then we need to change the old guard way of thinking.

Retirement age people are also moving to those locations.  The reason?  They want to live independently as they age. Real transit means you can remain active in your community, even if you lose the ability to drive.  All sorts of statistics prove that people live longer if they can continue to function independently as they age.  In Tulsa, you better have a chauffeur or a lot of money for Uber, if you want to avoid becoming a shut-in when you can no longer drive. (Yes, The Lift system works for folks who need it, but it often has very long wait times, and riders are at the mercy of when the Lift shows up.  It's also incredibly expensive to provide.  A better option is fast, efficient, reliable transit for all people.)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 09, 2016, 05:28:47 pm
Your post hits home. I was reminding my 86 year old mother that her inlaws were living in downtown Tulsa in their 80's in a lovely old 4 story converted hotel with lots of other old people. As kids we loved to visit them. The lobbies on each floor were like movie sets with grandfather clocks, easy chairs, pipe smoking geezers and even spittoons!  Besides the social network, they merely took the elevator down to street level and everything they needed was within a few blocks. Movie theaters, bars, restaurants, department stores and services. When I told her it would soon be like that again and maybe she should consider maintaining her independence by moving there she only lamented that there was no back yard.

Yes, mom and no mowing, either.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 09, 2016, 06:08:54 pm
Yes, mom and no mowing, either.

You make your mother mow her own backyard?
 
 ;D




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 09, 2016, 06:13:25 pm
On rainy or really cold days, I could catch the MTTA just a few doors down from my house.

I took the trolley the 1-1/2 miles to Jr. High or later the 1 mile to High School in bad weather.  Catholic school kids took the trolley in the other direction every day since it was too far to walk.  Student discount tickets were 11¢ when you bought a book of tickets or a batch of 4 from the motorman.

Edit: about 3.4 miles each way to the Catholic High Schools.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Bamboo World on February 09, 2016, 06:44:25 pm
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Vision_Transit_Maps-3.jpg)
[/quote]
That looks and sounds great!

It (the map) would look better if "University of Tulsa" had been spelled correctly.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 09, 2016, 07:27:27 pm
You make your mother mow her own backyard?
 
 ;D




She did up until a few years ago. Neighborhood kids now. I did my time, thank you.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 09, 2016, 07:30:52 pm
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Vision_Transit_Maps-3.jpg)

It (the map) would look better if "University of Tulsa" had been spelled correctly.

And it would be a good idea to add "the Gathering Place" since its within a half mile of Peoria.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 10, 2016, 09:49:26 am
Your post hits home. I was reminding my 86 year old mother that her inlaws were living in downtown Tulsa in their 80's in a lovely old 4 story converted hotel with lots of other old people. As kids we loved to visit them. The lobbies on each floor were like movie sets with grandfather clocks, easy chairs, pipe smoking geezers and even spittoons!  Besides the social network, they merely took the elevator down to street level and everything they needed was within a few blocks. Movie theaters, bars, restaurants, department stores and services. When I told her it would soon be like that again and maybe she should consider maintaining her independence by moving there she only lamented that there was no back yard.

Yes, mom and no mowing, either.

As my mother’s mobility declines, this is a concern of mine as well.  Mom has lived alone near Southern Hills for 25+ years and enjoys it.  That’s an area with pretty much zilch in the way of pedestrian friendliness.  I sense I won’t be able to talk her into assisted living any time soon, nor moving anywhere she would no longer need her car.  She’s one of the most independent people I’ve known and comes from a long line of them.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Hoss on February 10, 2016, 10:24:28 am
As my mother’s mobility declines, this is a concern of mine as well.  Mom has lived alone near Southern Hills for 25+ years and enjoys it.  That’s an area with pretty much zilch in the way of pedestrian friendliness.  I sense I won’t be able to talk her into assisted living any time soon, nor moving anywhere she would no longer need her car.  She’s one of the most independent people I’ve known and comes from a long line of them.

My mom was the same way, even in her condition.  I had to help her with some stuff, but she hated that I had to.  Strongest willed person I ever knew.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Stanley1 on February 12, 2016, 11:41:38 am
Tulsa doesn't have the population growth of those cities.  We need young people to come here if there is ever going to be a change in how the voters advocate for transportation.  The old guard, who still dominates this city, don't care about transit.  They love their cars and wouldn't use transit if it stopped right in front of their house.  We also don't have the kind of traffic problems as Dallas and Houston that is forcing them to rethink highways and transportation.  When a 10 mile commute takes 30-45 minutes, you don't really have a choice.  We don't have that problem in Tulsa and with population stagnant, we won't for the foreseeable future.  Young people are leaving more than they're coming in it seems (it's at least somewhere even).  If that doesn't change, this conversation is meaningless.  This isn't the place to discuss why I think we're in this position because it gets very political. Nevertheless, here's an interesting read about Dallas and its transportation problems that is forcing it to rethink some things.  They aren't as progressive on the issue as you might think.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/dallas-deck-parks-may-be-the-new-thing-but-expanded-highways-will-keep-coming.html/


This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 12, 2016, 12:08:38 pm
This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?

If you really agree x 1000 times you don’t seem to realize how myopic our current leadership is/was in trying to promote the REI and Turkey Mountain developments.  

Why would anyone think having a busy shopping center adjacent to an outdoor recreation area which is only growing in popularity amongst YP’s (actually all age groups) is a good idea?

Why would anyone think cheap-selling park land and subsidizing the construction for an REI plus other innocuous tenants is a boon for luring or retaining YP’s to Tulsa?  Guess who I usually see on the volleyball courts here?  Mostly under 40 people with all courts full when they are playing.

Those are both projects which would add incredibly little to our city coffers due to all the “gimme’s” the developers want to make them happen and mean nothing to young professionals who would either stay here or be attracted here.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 12, 2016, 02:15:20 pm
Transit's not about solving traffic problems. It's about social equity (everyone should benefit from the public right of way, whether or not they drive a car), and it's about the ability to create great places for people that aren't dominated by enormous parking lots.  When you build for people and transit, you get better, healthier, more resilient places that return greater economic value to the city on a per acre basis.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 12, 2016, 11:03:22 pm
This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?

I don't want transit because we have some sort of traffic problems or congestion that could be helped with transit.  I want transit because  want to live an urban lifestyle and currently you can't do that in Tulsa.  We once had it way back when but with the last zoning code only suburban style (auto centric) development was legal and promoted while urban, transit oriented development was pretty much illegal and made difficult to implement. 

I think Tulsa as a city should be able to offer both urban and suburban lifestyle options.  I think that would allow us more options for growth (capture those people who want that urban lifestyle but leave or do not move here because we can't offer it).   

Also, we will not be able to have good, cost effective, competitive, pedestrian friendly,  urban development if we do not begin to implement transit so that developers for instance will have more leeway in not having to build as much parking (also known as expense) and can add more density to areas including neighborhoods. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2016, 12:16:18 pm
I am willing to pay for your transit. But why are you guys not willing to pay for my roads?

I live in southeast Tulsa about nine blocks to the closest bus I can catch at 51st and Sheridan. To catch it to day I have to walk that far, cross two busy intersections and wait because the bus today that goes to that spot only runs every 2 hours and fifteen minutes. I better not miss it.

The vision package has an impressive program for transit including the first in the state permanent funding for transit. It is a solid plan to really makes bus service work on two major streets, Peoria and 11th. The vote will be to spend millions of dollars building a system that won't get within 4 miles of my home.

All that being said, I am voting yes. I am willing to completely subsidize for someone to ride the bus that I will probably never ride and you guys make great arguments that convince me that it will be good for all of us.

But I also hear many of you pissed off that there is some street widening money also on the ballot. It is for roads that many of you may never drive on, but it is still Tulsa and still taxpayers who just choose to live differently than you. All I ask today is that you just accept that roads and widening is still needed in Tulsa and that we support things for you and expect you to support things we want.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on February 13, 2016, 01:23:04 pm
Let's add up all the money Tulsa has spent on roads in the past 25 years and then compare it to the amount we've spent on transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

I bet it works out to be 1,000 to 1 in favor of roads over everything else. (In the $900 million for streets we just approved a couple years ago. I think there was $4 million for the GoPlan...and that was a big deal bc we'd never done it before.)

I don't mind paying for roads...as long as we also pay for other modes of transportation. We've done nothing but build, widen and continuously repair roads in my lifetime. It's time we branch out and work to provide more and better options.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2016, 11:32:07 pm

I really don't want to dedicate a dollar more to roads...

Which is it?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 13, 2016, 11:44:53 pm
I am willing to pay for your transit. But why are you guys not willing to pay for my roads?

I live in southeast Tulsa about nine blocks to the closest bus I can catch at 51st and Sheridan. To catch it to day I have to walk that far, cross two busy intersections and wait because the bus today that goes to that spot only runs every 2 hours and fifteen minutes. I better not miss it.

The vision package has an impressive program for transit including the first in the state permanent funding for transit. It is a solid plan to really makes bus service work on two major streets, Peoria and 11th. The vote will be to spend millions of dollars building a system that won't get within 4 miles of my home.

All that being said, I am voting yes. I am willing to completely subsidize for someone to ride the bus that I will probably never ride and you guys make great arguments that convince me that it will be good for all of us.

But I also hear many of you pissed off that there is some street widening money also on the ballot. It is for roads that many of you may never drive on, but it is still Tulsa and still taxpayers who just choose to live differently than you. All I ask today is that you just accept that roads and widening is still needed in Tulsa and that we support things for you and expect you to support things we want.

I think some of the frustration you may hear, at least in my posts perhaps, is because of the huge disproportionate sums that do and have gone to "roads" over transit.  By a HUGE margin.  That coupled with over a generation of rules and regulations that have made transit and transit oriented development mostly illegal in Tulsa (while having rules and regulations that do unfairly favor automobiles).  

The local government practically has made it so that your "forced" to have a car because they want you to live and get around the way they think is best for you to do so, to build your businesses and live the way they want you to, the rules have been in place which force transit to be ineffective for most of the city, etc.  And that is screwy imho.  If we are not going to truly let the free market decide, then to fight for a little more percentage going to transit and a little more rules for transit zoning is long overdue and only fair.  

I really do believe that either the free market should decide, that the rules be balanced and fair to allow equally for transit oriented development and auto centric development, and that people then pay for the roads or transit they then use... or that again, the rules be balanced and fair to allow equally for transit oriented development and auto centric development (let the best model win of its own merit) and the government then assist accordingly.  

One can't say "The transit is crappy and I and a lot of other people don't, won't or can't use it." therefore why should I pay for it? when the reason it's crappy is because the game is unfairly set up so that the transit has to be crappy and the automobile and roads then need to be good.

We need more money for the roads we have to have because of the rules that make it that way.  Why can't you be happy with the little bit of money your getting for the transit that is lousy because of the rules we gave you that say it has to be lousy in order for our cars and roads to work better (though if all the rules and funding were fair and equal, transit would be more cost effective and efficient).


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: johrasephoenix on February 14, 2016, 05:40:01 pm
Note Denver is killing it with their transit.  Like Tulsa they are a historically sprawled out Western city that allowed its downtown to be hollowed out through the 70s.  Now they have built three rail lines and are in the process of building 4 more.  They are literally creating a big-city style rapid transit system from nothing.  And its revolutionizing the town.

I looked at their light rail schedule - it comes every 10 or 15 minutes.  If they keep building like this it won't be long before their system rivals some of the legacy systems like Chicago or maybe even Boston. 

 Portland and Minneapolis also built pretty stellar transit infrastructure from scratch since the 80s.  It's doable.  It just takes a lot of money and political will. 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 14, 2016, 05:49:32 pm
And......
If we use buses instead of rail, we still have to take care of the roads.  Grade separated BRT requires maintaining a paved road which would only be used by the buses.

One of the items that made in-street running trolleys unprofitable was that the private trolley companies had to maintain more than the portion of the streets occupied by their rails.  You know, the added portion where the buses and jitneys ran.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on February 14, 2016, 05:50:52 pm
One can't say "The transit is crappy and I and a lot of other people don't, won't or can't use it." therefore why should I pay for it? when the reason it's crappy is because the game is unfairly set up so that the transit has to be crappy and the automobile and roads then need to be good.

We need more money for the roads we have to have because of the rules that make it that way.  Why can't you be happy with the little bit of money your getting for the transit that is lousy because of the rules we gave you that say it has to be lousy in order for our cars and roads to work better (though if all the rules and funding were fair and equal, transit would be more cost effective and efficient).

I am not saying that. I am 100% in favor of all the transit funding. I know that we already subsidize it 5 to 1. For every dollar that goes into TulsaTransit  from a rider the taxpayers put in five. I know it doesn't make sense financially but a great city needs great transit.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD ALSO HELP PAY FOR A ROAD IN SOUTH TULSA THAT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.

The city screwed up south Mingo by adding 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a two lane road. But mid-towners on this forum seem to think that we have spent enough money on roads. So screw them. All the roads they drive are already four lanes or more.

I will pay for your buses, but stop saying you won't pay for any more roads for me.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 14, 2016, 07:02:20 pm
I am not saying that. I am 100% in favor of all the transit funding. I know that we already subsidize it 5 to 1. For every dollar that goes into TulsaTransit  from a rider the taxpayers put in five. I know it doesn't make sense financially but a great city needs great transit.


It doesn't make sense financially because at the city wants it to be that way.  We had plenty of chances with the new Comprehensive Plan to create a city where it would make sense financially but those types of plans were shot down.  Transit that "makes sense financially" is still illegal in most of Tulsa.  Why is that?  Why did the council let that happen?

How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 14, 2016, 11:04:53 pm
How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 

Falls into the same category as having Transit pay for itself.

Ain't gonna happen



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on February 15, 2016, 07:59:30 am
How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 

You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

   


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on February 15, 2016, 08:04:56 am
This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?

I fully understood that I was comparing a very conservative red state city that has implemented transportation options against another conservative red state city that despises transportation options. Your X1000 opinion helps to prove this short sighted viewpoint.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on February 15, 2016, 08:09:28 am
You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

   

(http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Keanu-Reeves-Whoa-09.jpg)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2016, 09:20:29 am
You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

    


Keeps going back to the whole "growth for growth's sake" BS that Tulsa (and most other towns/cities - Owasso, BA, etc) indulges in.  That 81st and Mingo area is a mess.  Also, Peoria - we drove up Peoria from 61st to 51st over the weekend - first time in a while - and it is just as big a mess, but 40 years older.

The attitude toward growth is just wrong - for midtown and the suburbs.  If ya can't afford to have the infrastructure in place and ready, ya can't afford to let apartments, housing additions be built.  Not even touching the ongoing maintenance of what is already there!!  Which is a whole other mess!!


In Midtown, as in rural areas, they see something they like - a look...a style...a feel....whatever it is that catches their eye - then "move in", chop up the old scenic, sightly estates to build more and more McMansions on ever smaller postage stamps.  Destroying the look and feel that drew them in the first place.


And still inadequate infrastructure of all kinds.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DowntownDan on February 15, 2016, 09:28:59 am
Dallas had the same problem of apartments and hospitals and other businesses blowing up in rural areas with two lane roads.  The developments went up overnight and the roads took a decade to catch back up.  At least they were suburbs like Frisco and Plano that ended up paying for them.  They also got toll roads for highways because of the expense of building an entire network of roads from nothing. Maybe 3000 apartments and 3 hospitals should pay a big portion of the cost of new road infrastructure if they want to move in 15 miles from the city core which was rural when you starting buying up the land.  

The fight isn't just midtowners being arrogant, it's a shift happening nationwide pushed by young people and others who have studies the economics of cities and are astounded at how sprawl hurt cities so egregiously.  It should never have happened in the first place, but hopefully with new advocates it can be curtailed.  If you want to live far away from the city, that's fine, but be prepared to pay if your way of life requires infrastructure to be built from scratch.

This, of course, is just my opinion, but I think more and more people are starting to feel the same way.  I wish I could find the statistic, but a lot has been written about people now in their 20's and 30's who were raised in the suburbs vowing never to live there themselves.  I'm one of them.  It'll take time, but sprawl will cut back and city cores will become stronger.  Transit will be a big part of it.  Unfortunately, a bunch of us will be senior citizens before cities like Tulsa get there, and its possible that cities like Tulsa will fight it so hard they'll go the way of once great small towns that are now quickly dying.  We're already struggling to grow and we can choose as a city to change how we grow to compete with Dallas, Kansas City, and Denver, or accept going the way of small towns that were great 50 years ago and are now stuck with a Wal-mart and part time post office and nothing else.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2016, 09:41:57 am

The fight isn't just midtowners being arrogant, it's a shift happening nationwide pushed by young people and others who have studies the economics of cities and are astounded at how sprawl hurt cities so egregiously.  It should never have happened in the first place, but hopefully with new advocates it can be curtailed.  If you want to live far away from the city, that's fine, but be prepared to pay if your way of life requires infrastructure to be built from scratch.

This, of course, is just my opinion, but I think more and more people are starting to feel the same way.  I wish I could find the statistic, but a lot has been written about people now in their 20's and 30's who were raised in the suburbs vowing never to live there themselves.  I'm one of them.  It'll take time, but sprawl will cut back and city cores will become stronger.  Transit will be a big part of it.  Unfortunately, a bunch of us will be senior citizens before cities like Tulsa get there, and its possible that cities like Tulsa will fight it so hard they'll go the way of once great small towns that are now quickly dying.  We're already struggling to grow and we can choose as a city to change how we grow to compete with Dallas, Kansas City, and Denver, or accept going the way of small towns that were great 50 years ago and are now stuck with a Wal-mart and part time post office and nothing else.




A small vocal group of people my age have been talking about suburban sprawl since the 60's.  Got us nowhere so far.  That sprawl concept now seems to be getting a reaction from 'quality of life' issues, which pretty much go hand in hand with the environmental considerations.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 15, 2016, 09:44:46 am
Dan, I'm glad you posted that. Mike is not accurate that the southern reaches of the city, namely 81st and Mingo paid or pay for our infrastructure in midtown. He is accurate that we're special though! Because we paid property taxes, sales taxes, and special assessments for decades longer than the Mingo area has contributed to the city. We tolerated the city's support and emphasis on sprawl rather than improvement in our established hoods by using zoning against us. Thus McMansions and walled off enclaves sprouting like weeds.

I worked in that area about 5 years ago logging some 30k miles on its congested roads and freeways. I am astounded that they continued to build with a frenzy as people tried to escape minorities, decaying neighborhoods and infrastructure to live the suburban dream. Astounded because the city didn't plan well for that growth or even keep up with it. Waiting for tax dollars to arrive, years after development, to pay for any expansion of arterials meant two lane roads depositing thousands of new homeowners with an average of 2.5 cars per family into walled off neighborhoods. The homes are beautiful, the shopping is great, the Creek Expwy is convenient but the traffic is crazy bad. And...they have no interest in mass transit which might ameliorate their problems. Deal with it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2016, 11:32:37 am
Dan, I'm glad you posted that. Mike is not accurate that the southern reaches of the city, namely 81st and Mingo paid or pay for our infrastructure in midtown. He is accurate that we're special though! Because we paid property taxes, sales taxes, and special assessments for decades longer than the Mingo area has contributed to the city. We tolerated the city's support and emphasis on sprawl rather than improvement in our established hoods by using zoning against us. Thus McMansions and walled off enclaves sprouting like weeds.

I worked in that area about 5 years ago logging some 30k miles on its congested roads and freeways. I am astounded that they continued to build with a frenzy as people tried to escape minorities, decaying neighborhoods and infrastructure to live the suburban dream. Astounded because the city didn't plan well for that growth or even keep up with it. Waiting for tax dollars to arrive, years after development, to pay for any expansion of arterials meant two lane roads depositing thousands of new homeowners with an average of 2.5 cars per family into walled off neighborhoods. The homes are beautiful, the shopping is great, the Creek Expwy is convenient but the traffic is crazy bad. And...they have no interest in mass transit which might ameliorate their problems. Deal with it.

To my knowledge, Tulsa has never properly anticipated its growth by leading with infrastructure before development.  I’m pretty sure you would remember the “I’m a weary survivor of 51st & Harvard” bumper sticker from the mid-1970’s when they were trying to expand that intersection to keep up with growth which had spread as far south as 81st St. by that time along Harvard.  Our infrastructure growth outside the very core of the city has always been reactionary in nature.

Speaking to other posters, there’s a supply and demand issue when it comes to suburban roads.  The 3000 units of apartments would never had been built if there were no demand for them.  Cities need affordable multi-family housing.  People need a way to get to and from their home to work, shop, and play.  Not everyone wants to live in the urban core of a city nor should they be conscripted to do so just because many of us on here love the urban core and love living in or near it.

Let’s be realistic here:  South Tulsa is never going to be plowed under to make people move to the urban center and take transit.  It’s simply not going to happen.  We need to be able to provide transit services to people who want and need them.  We also need to be able to provide safe and efficient roads for those who center their lives around another geographic area of the city.

Just because many of us don’t live there doesn’t mean we should not help pay for expanding roads on S. Mingo.  I transit that intersection maybe once or twice a year.  I will never live out that way.  So why should I pay for widening Mingo? 

Why should my property taxes be paying to educate someone else’s child now that mine are grown and on their own? 
Why should I subsidize someone else’s ride on a Tulsa Transit bus, when I never use it?
Why should someone who doesn’t ride or walk the river trails subsidize that cost so my wife and I can enjoy the trails?
Why should my tax dollars go to put out someone else’s house fire?
Why should my tax dollars go to pay for the police to investigate a burglary around the block from me when I have my own alarm and surveillance system?
Why should my tax dollars support museums and a zoo I only visit on rare occasions?

It’s part of living in a city.  It’s part of being a participant in society.

Just to be clear, I hate sprawl and see the waste of money it is, but it is our reality.  I’m simply not one who can say: “You should have thought better before moving out south...”  Just because some of us believe transit is a better investment for us doesn’t mean everyone else places as high a priority on it.  Wide, efficient roads matter when EMSA is trying to get a critically injured or ill person to a hospital. 

This package gives long-overdue dedicated funding to public transit.  People who live out in south Tulsa are going to end up helping to pay for that outlay if the measure passes.  We will end up paying for an expansion on south Mingo, if not now, at some point.  It’s a part of living in a larger city.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 15, 2016, 11:51:04 am
I believe in supply and demand. I also support the V2025 even though it includes areas I will never use or profit from. I believe in the very socialist views you just expressed. I also believe in accountability.  In those areas, Trump and I have a lot in common.

That doesn't mean people should demand that all of us subsidize poor planning, shortsighted planning, encourage fleeing problems in the core of the city to find "better schools", "safer" areas and social homogeneity. Those decisions should be made with accountability in mind. You may not get the support of those you are fleeing.

Accountability is the thing being cast off in most discussions. Who actually forces this system of build now, pay for infrastructure later and thereby profits while others suffer. Both midtown and expansion area residents should demand that the reasons for such poor planning be identified and changed.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on February 15, 2016, 12:42:03 pm
I do not disagree. This road is screwed up. Go see for yourself. Drive from 71st and Mingo to 91st and Mingo. The apartment complexes are huge. They extend for blocks from the road. There are new medical facilities everywhere.

Like it or not, this part of town is booming with new high paying jobs, new housing, and the fastest growing TCC branch. People who live and work here deserve the same considerations that other areas. I know of only one part of town that is demanding more transit and I shouldn't bag them. I was once a mid towner as well.

I apologize for my rants. I am willing to pay for your transit if you are willing to pay for one road that is desperately needed in south Tulsa. I just lose it when I see posters on this site and even leadership of TulsaNow making public comments about not one penny more for roads.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on February 15, 2016, 01:41:19 pm
I'm just glad those giant apartments didn't materialize near my area. Everything is huge out there. Even the churches are oversized.

Its likely the growth in medical facilities, (clinics, hospitals, specialists) is driving a lot of the traffic. Then add in the concentration of young people who can't buy a house yet and work in the nearby 71st street corridor and you have congestion.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 15, 2016, 01:50:28 pm
Just to be clear here.  Tulsa is not growing in population.  All we are doing is adding "new stuff" and more roads and infrastructure to have to maintain, plow, widen, police, light, etc.

It would be like me trying to run my store by buying things at wholesale for say $5, pricing them at $10, but then putting them on sale for $5, selling that and buying more items at $5 and spreading them out and saying I need to invest in more shelves (because we have a rule in place that won't allow new stuff to be displayed as efficiently "less product per square foot") and in the meantime the rent is going up...

And then people coming in and going "Wow look at all the new stuff you are getting and all the new shelves! You must be doing great!".  It might LOOK like it, but it wouldn't be at all true.  We would not be making money or growing our business.  All we would be doing is digging ourselves into a bigger hole and going further into debt.  No matter how painful it may be to admit it, we would have to stop sooner or later, cut our losses, quit what we had been doing and do something different.    

I am willing to bet we will see Tulsa's population decline this year, "possibly did last year" and jobs decline as well.  Though the joblessness rate may look decent as the population leaves faster than the jobs, another pleasant illusion of success.

We need to be urgently redoing our rules and development strategies which still favor sprawl and autos while unfairly hindering infill and hurting transit.  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on February 15, 2016, 02:16:25 pm
Just to be clear here.  Tulsa is not growing in population.  All we are doing is adding "new stuff" and more roads and infrastructure to have to maintain, plow, widen, police, light, etc.

It would be like me trying to run my store by buying things at wholesale for say $5, pricing them at $10, but then putting them on sale for $5, selling that and buying more items at $5 and spreading them out and saying I need to invest in more shelves (because we have a rule in place that won't allow new stuff to be displayed as efficiently "less product per square foot") and in the meantime the rent is going up...

And then people coming in and going "Wow look at all the new stuff you are getting and all the new shelves! You must be doing great!".  It might LOOK like it, but it wouldn't be at all true.  We would not be making money or growing our business.  All we would be doing is digging ourselves into a bigger hole and going further into debt.  No matter how painful it may be to admit it, we would have to stop sooner or later, cut our losses, quit what we had been doing and do something different.    

I am willing to bet we will see Tulsa's population decline this year, "possibly did last year" and jobs decline as well.  Though the joblessness rate may look decent as the population leaves faster than the jobs, another pleasant illusion of success.

We need to be urgently redoing our rules and development strategies which still favor sprawl and autos while unfairly hindering infill and hurting transit.  


The city of Tulsa grew from  2010 to 2014 by about 8,000 people, that's the last figures available. As for work force and unemployment, Tulsa's metro's unemployment peaked in 2014 at 4.5% but has fallen to 3.4% at the end of 2015 while at the same time the work force grew from 192k to 200k. This isn't great growth, but it is real and solid growth.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2016, 02:52:00 pm
Just to be clear here.  Tulsa is not growing in population.  All we are doing is adding "new stuff" and more roads and infrastructure to have to maintain, plow, widen, police, light, etc.

It would be like me trying to run my store by buying things at wholesale for say $5, pricing them at $10, but then putting them on sale for $5, selling that and buying more items at $5 and spreading them out and saying I need to invest in more shelves (because we have a rule in place that won't allow new stuff to be displayed as efficiently "less product per square foot") and in the meantime the rent is going up...

And then people coming in and going "Wow look at all the new stuff you are getting and all the new shelves! You must be doing great!".  It might LOOK like it, but it wouldn't be at all true.  We would not be making money or growing our business.  All we would be doing is digging ourselves into a bigger hole and going further into debt.  No matter how painful it may be to admit it, we would have to stop sooner or later, cut our losses, quit what we had been doing and do something different.    

I am willing to bet we will see Tulsa's population decline this year, "possibly did last year" and jobs decline as well.  Though the joblessness rate may look decent as the population leaves faster than the jobs, another pleasant illusion of success.

We need to be urgently redoing our rules and development strategies which still favor sprawl and autos while unfairly hindering infill and hurting transit.  


Agreed, sprawl is wasteful and costly.  Here’s the problem though: throughout our city’s history, tax payers have paid for the main arterial infrastructure for commercial and residential developers to be able to build and turn a profit.  From the very beginning, this has been the case.  Tulsa is one of the worst cities in North America about being 20-30 years behind on our infrastructure needs.  

We’ve built the streets for people who cannot depend on public transit and who do depend on those streets every day to get to work, to get kids to school, and to get their shopping done.  Since they are there and people depend on them, we need to do our best to maintain them.  Perhaps in the future, we might have leadership which might demand developers include the cost of road improvements in their development when they are building mega apartment complexes.  Perhaps we might demand some sort of special assessment area of all developers within a square mile to pay for improvements their projects need.

I’m going to have to disagree on your point about unfairly hindering infill and transit for the sake of sprawl.  We are getting great infill within the IDL now.  As we run out of space there, it will spill into the Pearl and hopefully north of I-244.  Finally, there is a transit package is on the ballot.  There are some tweaks that need to be made regarding minimum parking requirements to help get denser infill, but other than that, I’m really not seeing where infill is being hindered.  Please let me know what I’m missing here.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 15, 2016, 04:09:48 pm
The city of Tulsa grew from  2010 to 2014 by about 8,000 people, that's the last figures available. As for work force and unemployment, Tulsa's metro's unemployment peaked in 2014 at 4.5% but has fallen to 3.4% at the end of 2015 while at the same time the work force grew from 192k to 200k. This isn't great growth, but it is real and solid growth.

I would really like to see where you got those statistics.  They are similar to the ones I found where they had the city growing by about 1,000-2000 per year during those years or about 1% growth.  Which is really slow but at least growing.  But when I looked at a demographic breakdown it showed that the white population was declining, the black population remained steady and pretty much the only growth was in the Hispanic community.  Then if I look at what has happened nationally in the last couple of years with the slowdown in Hispanic migration and locally with oil hitting the rocks... my guess would be that 2015 saw what growth we had go below 1% and would guess that this year might see us hit negative numbers again.   This is one instance where I would be super happy to be wrong however. 



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on February 15, 2016, 04:41:16 pm
Agreed, sprawl is wasteful and costly.  Here’s the problem though: throughout our city’s history, tax payers have paid for the main arterial infrastructure for commercial and residential developers to be able to build and turn a profit.  From the very beginning, this has been the case.  Tulsa is one of the worst cities in North America about being 20-30 years behind on our infrastructure needs.  

We’ve built the streets for people who cannot depend on public transit and who do depend on those streets every day to get to work, to get kids to school, and to get their shopping done.  Since they are there and people depend on them, we need to do our best to maintain them.  Perhaps in the future, we might have leadership which might demand developers include the cost of road improvements in their development when they are building mega apartment complexes.  Perhaps we might demand some sort of special assessment area of all developers within a square mile to pay for improvements their projects need.

I’m going to have to disagree on your point about unfairly hindering infill and transit for the sake of sprawl.  We are getting great infill within the IDL now.  As we run out of space there, it will spill into the Pearl and hopefully north of I-244.  Finally, there is a transit package is on the ballot.  There are some tweaks that need to be made regarding minimum parking requirements to help get denser infill, but other than that, I’m really not seeing where infill is being hindered.  Please let me know what I’m missing here.

Minimum parking requirements are indeed one of those things that hurts urban development (aka pedestrian friendly/transit friendly).  Set back requirements, mixed use being disallowed in most areas, are another couple of things that hurt.  But those rules do help make auto centric development work well and better.

And remember its not just what "forbidden" but whats not encouraged and not incentivized that also hurts.   If your encouraging one form of development, and not another, well that "another" is at a disadvantage.  And if your a developer or business looking at the numbers its likely that you will go with whats encouraged. 

We will require certain types of things like minimum parking requirements to make sure that cars work well, but we will not require that buildings be built up to the sidewalk and be permeable on the main arterials to encourage pedestrian friendly/transit friendly development. 

We are requiring car oriented development things.
We are not requiring pedestrian/transit friendly development things. 
Many of the required car oriented development "things" are actually ones that hurt pedestrian/transit friendly development.

There is a multiple negative hit against urban development and transit. 

And that push for the automobile gives whatever is built as suburban in style an economic advantage over what is built as urban.  This also has an effect on the culture and how its convenient for people to do things, to think about things, it creates a cascade of effects and habits that are hard to overcome.  Downtown for instance is an island in a sea of suburban car culture and that has a knock on effect on that island making it more difficult to build a true, high quality urban environment.  We have to constantly degrade that environment to make room for the auto.  You almost have to add parking to the housing for instance.  And the housing will likely already be more expensive for people, now add on to that that you have to have parking and that transit won't work well.  Added expense and inconvenience which gives suburban development an advantage. The market is being manipulated by the city to favor one over another, or to favor one and not also favor the other.

We encourage one type of development, and do not encourage the other.  As a matter of fact, the "other" has rules and situations that go against it.  Its actually quite amazing that we are getting what we are getting but that is because people really want it despite the obstacles.

Even downtown just "allows" urban development to happen.  There are no rules in place that will guarantee that we will get that.  I hope we do, but there is also just as much a chance that we will not get it, that we will just get "big/denser" suburban style development that will ultimately not be as desirable and not help us up our attractiveness and up our growth potential.  But again, we will sure as heck have rules, and funding, in place that will make sure suburban style development works as best it can. 

We will get the BRT going then everyone will look at the numbers and complain that it isn't doing as well as they had hoped.  It may well be "allowed" to work in certain areas now.  But auto centric development isn't just "allowed" to work.  Its MADE to work.
 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Stanley1 on February 15, 2016, 05:07:31 pm
If you really agree x 1000 times you don’t seem to realize how myopic our current leadership is/was in trying to promote the REI and Turkey Mountain developments.  

Why would anyone think having a busy shopping center adjacent to an outdoor recreation area which is only growing in popularity amongst YP’s (actually all age groups) is a good idea?

Why would anyone think cheap-selling park land and subsidizing the construction for an REI plus other innocuous tenants is a boon for luring or retaining YP’s to Tulsa?  Guess who I usually see on the volleyball courts here?  Mostly under 40 people with all courts full when they are playing.

Those are both projects which would add incredibly little to our city coffers due to all the “gimme’s” the developers want to make them happen and mean nothing to young professionals who would either stay here or be attracted here.

I would hesitate to consider that land "park land".  The volleyball courts are nice.  Is there nowhere else in Tulsa where we can build some volleyball courts?  No room for it at the Gathering Place?  No room at Turkey Mountain?  No room anywhere else along the river?  How about just down the road where there is another park, or two, on Riverside?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 15, 2016, 05:46:00 pm
I would hesitate to consider that land "park land".  The volleyball courts are nice.  Is there nowhere else in Tulsa where we can build some volleyball courts?  No room for it at the Gathering Place?  No room at Turkey Mountain?  No room anywhere else along the river?  How about just down the road where there is another park, or two, on Riverside?

Is there no other place to put REI?  Is it really necessary to put a building of any kind (except maybe a restroom) there?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Red Arrow on February 15, 2016, 06:05:19 pm
People who live here:
https://goo.gl/maps/6oaeKgfMboF2

would consider almost all of Tulsa, including Midtown to be sprawl.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on February 15, 2016, 09:50:36 pm
I would really like to see where you got those statistics.  They are similar to the ones I found where they had the city growing by about 1,000-2000 per year during those years or about 1% growth.  Which is really slow but at least growing.  But when I looked at a demographic breakdown it showed that the white population was declining, the black population remained steady and pretty much the only growth was in the Hispanic community.  Then if I look at what has happened nationally in the last couple of years with the slowdown in Hispanic migration and locally with oil hitting the rocks... my guess would be that 2015 saw what growth we had go below 1% and would guess that this year might see us hit negative numbers again.   This is one instance where I would be super happy to be wrong however. 



These are official US Census and BLM numbers.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: patric on February 16, 2016, 11:38:37 am
Jenks has announced how it will use the money if Vision 2025 is renewed, and it will not include public safety.
They said the money will go toward economic development and road maintenance.


http://www.fox23.com/news/public-safety-beyond-the-realm-of-possibilities-for-jenks-vision-money/86433106



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: LandArchPoke on March 17, 2016, 07:45:58 pm
Arkansas River improvements impact study has been released

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/economic-impact-study-shows-big-possibilities-for-vision-s-river/article_5ef0c40d-b2cd-5946-8bc9-6eca158dce90.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/economic-impact-study-shows-big-possibilities-for-vision-s-river/article_5ef0c40d-b2cd-5946-8bc9-6eca158dce90.html)

Link to PDF: http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/ef/8ef58401-c250-57a2-b064-a1c12cfb6781/56eb1b4d080ca.pdf.pdf (http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/ef/8ef58401-c250-57a2-b064-a1c12cfb6781/56eb1b4d080ca.pdf.pdf)

Interested to see what people think. Personally, I think not one point is very applicable to what Tulsa is proposing. It's saying OKC's MAPS was the reason it's economy grew at X rate so that will mean Tulsa's economy has the potential to grow at X rate with Vision = $$$ economic impact. The other "river" investments they looked at are more comparable to what impact the Gathering Place/Parks in general have - not dams. They are very different. Building parks and civic building near a waterfront does create economic impacts, as it provides places for commerce. Simply building damns to add water, doesn't - you still need the places for commerce in order to get some economic benefit. Which in my opinion is what's been lacking with this proposal is there hasn't been enough emphasis on improvements to the public spaces next to the new "water in the river".

Also there is not a single mention/analysis of the potential development impact along the two proposed "lakes". How difficult would that have been? That's what everyone been wanting to know... if we build these dams how much new sq. ft. of real estate could go along the banks. That = $$ in property taxes, $$ = in sales taxes, xx new jobs, etc. That = $$$ in estimated economic impact/ X.X% ROI. These other cities could (and do) have a lot more vacant waterfront land than Tulsa does. We have very distinct/limit development opportunities along both proposed lakes that these other cities don't. Outside of the concrete plant and the city facility where is there large infill potential along Zink Lake? Outside of were the Simon outlet mall is proposed and some smaller parcels, where is there large infill potential along the Jenks lake?

Making a general assumption that the OKC River improvements/MAPS drove all job growth in OKC is blatantly wrong and bogus, and deriving an economic impact number from that for the Arkansas River improvements is even more bogus.

I'm glad that this is being broke into 3 votes. I will be voting NO on public safety. Likely voting YES on the other 2, but this study doesn't make me feel any better about the Jenks lake - I think Tulsa is being taken advantage of in % we are paying for and will see very little ROI from that area. Zink lake, I see the need for it with the Gathering Place and the potential westbank redevelopment areas and just creating a better sense of place around the downtown area.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TeeDub on March 20, 2016, 12:20:00 pm

So the city committed people to additional monies without ever checking?

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/03/dead-dam-vision-fox23s-spiked-st.html

Last week, a local TV station spiked a well-researched news story about funding problems for the proposed south Tulsa / Jenks low-water dam and the awareness of Tulsa elected officials of the problem before they voted to put the proposal on the ballot. The story's sudden withdrawal hints at pressure by local power-brokers, panicked that the public will become aware of the flimsy foundation of the "Vision Tulsa" sales tax proposal.

According to multiple documents, including internal e-mails, Tulsa city leaders knew the south Tulsa-Jenks dam had fallen through, yet Tulsa city leaders not only kicked off their Vision Tulsa campaign in late February as if nothing had happened, they continue to campaign for the two-dam system while working on alternative plans for the river at city hall.

But after FOX23 reported that the Creek Nation was going to set up an endowment, members of the Creek Nation began to contact FOX23 saying they were not aware of the multi-million dollar commitment Tulsa officials had allegedly assumed they would be fine with.

The tribe’s own internal news agency quoted Creek Nation representatives to Tulsa as saying they were not informed of the plan to set up the endowment and partner with Jenks and Tulsa on the dams.

Multiple sources close to the Vision Tulsa project who have been asked not to be identified have simply said city leaders assumed the tribe would be on board without consulting them of their plans before they presented them to voters as a done deal set in stone.

The first officials meeting to discuss an endowment happened on February 11th, and days later, the tribe officially notified city leaders they were out of the Vision low water dam plan.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TheArtist on March 20, 2016, 01:20:24 pm
There was also briefly something in the news about some proposed tax changes at the state level that would allow local areas to, I believe it was, raise property taxes (as the state has lowered some taxes) if they wanted for police/safety?  This could greatly impact one part of the Vision package as well, but it too seemed to appear, then vanish from the news cycle. I was thinking we would hear a lot more about it but haven't.  It may be that this could be an alternative to using Vision money for Police and Fire and enable it to be used as it was intended, for "vision" type stuff.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: davideinstein on March 20, 2016, 01:37:04 pm
It just seems like the transit vote is the only safe bet, but I want the Gilcrease to get the funding.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on March 21, 2016, 10:37:26 am
From Saturday's Tulsa World:

Arkansas River project: Proposed south Tulsa/Jenks dam could be in limbo due to funding questions

Posted: Saturday, March 19, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 3:41 pm, Sat Mar 19, 2016.

The funding to build one of two dams in the Arkansas River as part of the proposed Vision Tulsa plan could be in limbo.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation notified city officials in a Feb. 15 letter that it would not commit to providing funding “at the present time” to the river project, which is still pending approval from Jenks and Tulsa voters on April 5. City leaders have asked the Creek Nation for $18 million.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVr6xH_BW3tEAUzUnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZmVrazloBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjExMTVfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1458606129/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tulsaworld.com%2fhomepagelatest%2friver-project-contingency-plan-has-south-tulsa-dam-in-the%2farticle_7ba344a7-2e2e-5c38-b674-11f5e871c5ab.html/RK=0/RS=T14Kdzyau2nGx1fRnFNpTHxUScs-

Sounds like the Creek Nation will not commit to contributing to the South Tulsa dam until after Jenks and Tulsa voters approve.  Given that the River Spirit project would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the dam, this seems like a very risky approach for them to take.  By refusing to commit, they could end up getting the dams defeated.




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vashta Nerada on March 21, 2016, 03:17:41 pm
So the city committed people to additional monies without ever checking?

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/03/dead-dam-vision-fox23s-spiked-st.html

Last week, a local TV station spiked a well-researched news story about funding problems for the proposed south Tulsa / Jenks low-water dam and the awareness of Tulsa elected officials of the problem before they voted to put the proposal on the ballot. The story's sudden withdrawal hints at pressure by local power-brokers, panicked that the public will become aware of the flimsy foundation of the "Vision Tulsa" sales tax proposal.

According to multiple documents, including internal e-mails, Tulsa city leaders knew the south Tulsa-Jenks dam had fallen through, yet Tulsa city leaders not only kicked off their Vision Tulsa campaign in late February as if nothing had happened, they continue to campaign for the two-dam system while working on alternative plans for the river at city hall.

But after FOX23 reported that the Creek Nation was going to set up an endowment, members of the Creek Nation began to contact FOX23 saying they were not aware of the multi-million dollar commitment Tulsa officials had allegedly assumed they would be fine with.

The tribe’s own internal news agency quoted Creek Nation representatives to Tulsa as saying they were not informed of the plan to set up the endowment and partner with Jenks and Tulsa on the dams.

Multiple sources close to the Vision Tulsa project who have been asked not to be identified have simply said city leaders assumed the tribe would be on board without consulting them of their plans before they presented them to voters as a done deal set in stone.

The first officials meeting to discuss an endowment happened on February 11th, and days later, the tribe officially notified city leaders they were out of the Vision low water dam plan.

Some discrete inquiries seem to indicate Michael Bates' analysis is correct, at least with regard to tampering with the media's integrity.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 22, 2016, 08:01:52 am
I'm disappointed. City Officials certainly allowed We the People to believe the Creek funding was secured. Less than full disclosure.

Also very disappointed Fox 23. It appears the pulled the story because of politics, not because it was inaccurate in any way.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on March 22, 2016, 08:42:45 am
Tulsa, Jenks and Creek leaders clarify dam funding plans

http://www.fox23.com/news/tulsa-jenks-and-creek-leaders-clarify-dam-funding-plans/173298123

Quote
City of Tulsa officials say they have a backup plan if the city cannot deliver on promises included in the tax package they are asking voters to renew.

City officials said they hope to pass the Vision 2025 plan that would build two low-water dams, but they need financial help from the Creek Nation to make it all happen.

One of the dams would be located at Zink Lake and the other would create a south Tulsa lake.

George McFarlin with Citizens for a Better Vision said voters need to know that if they pass the Vision renewal, the dams are not a sure thing.

“There is no promise from the Muscogee Creek Nation,” McFarlin said.

McFarlin said a letter written to Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett from the Creek Nation said they are “unable to commit resources.”

Councilor G.T. Bynum, on the other hand, said some people just misunderstood the letter.

Bynum said the plan has always been for city leaders to discuss funding with the Creek Nation only if the Vision extension passes.

"No one has ever agreed to do it for sure," Bynum said.

Thompson Gouge with the Creek Nation confirmed Bynum’s claims. He said no one has agreed to fund the project, but he guaranteed the Creek Nation will talk about the funding.

In order to clear up confusion about the project’s funding, Jenks, Tulsa and Creek Nation officials released a joint statement.

“If approved, the Creek Nation looks forward to discussing how we can continue to partner on the Arkansas River Corridor,” the statement read.

City officials said if Jenks and Tulsa both vote for the project, but the Creek Nation decided not to fund it, the Zink Dam would still happen, but the south Tulsa dam would not.

The City Council would then decide how to spend the money allotted for the south Tulsa dam, or officials may end the tax early.

FOX23 asked officials if a commercial promoting the dams in connection with the Vision extension was misleading.

"I think if they vote for it, we have a chance to get it done," Bynum said. "If they don't, there's zero chance it happens."


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on March 22, 2016, 08:49:36 am
This has always been the approach, it’s been twisted into a bait and switch by people chronically against any improvement taxes and due to seriously piss-poor communication from the city.  It was also pointed out that if Jenks and/or the Creeks would not commit to funding that this part of the project would be left out and there would be no assessment for an unbuilt project.   i.e. the assessment for this part of the package would end early if the south dam were not built.  I am aware there is a possibility of someone else stepping up to make it a reality should Jenks and the Creeks not participate. 

They city put such a tight deadline on this and started rolling this out before many loose ends were tied up like the economic impact numbers it looks and sounds like a cluster at times.

I give city an “A” for the ideas in the package and a “C-" or a “D” on their communication and method of selling it to voters.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 22, 2016, 09:55:53 am
The current advertising touts 18,500 jobs created by the dams. That seems pretty....puffy. They may have included the impact of The Gathering Place, the casino and the dams to get there. Even then, hard to imagine that they will be anything more than hourly.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on March 22, 2016, 10:16:36 am
This has always been the approach, it’s been twisted into a bait and switch by people chronically against any improvement taxes and due to seriously piss-poor communication from the city.  It was also pointed out that if Jenks and/or the Creeks would not commit to funding that this part of the project would be left out and there would be no assessment for an unbuilt project.   i.e. the assessment for this part of the package would end early if the south dam were not built.  I am aware there is a possibility of someone else stepping up to make it a reality should Jenks and the Creeks not participate. 

They city put such a tight deadline on this and started rolling this out before many loose ends were tied up like the economic impact numbers it looks and sounds like a cluster at times.

I give city an “A” for the ideas in the package and a “C-" or a “D” on their communication and method of selling it to voters.

Added to that, there's been a change in Administration at the Creek Nation. There's a new Chief that wasn't part of the deal when Tulsa, Jenks and the Creek Nation were talking. He's never taken a stand and why should he spend the political capital within the tribe to back the dam deal before the vote? If the vote is "yes", then he can deal with getting support on the council to get funding. There's no upside for him to do it now.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 22, 2016, 12:00:05 pm
The current advertising touts 18,500 jobs created by the dams.

I'd love to see where those numbers come from. If you want water in the river because it looks pretty, fine. But the economic development angle baffles me. This will not create a waterfront with tons of land ready to be developed - there just isn't much land along the stretches of the river that will be "filled" with water that is available to be developed.

18,000 jobs? Lets look at our current employers...

8000 @ St. Francis Health System
3000 @ The Port of Catoosa
2000 @ BOK
1000 @ Bama Pie
820 @ Direct TV
700 @ Williams Employees in Tulsa
500 @ Helmrich and Payne
500 @ Creek Nation
400 @ EMSA
350 @ Linde
300 @ Goodwill Industries
250 @ Pennwell
250 @ Ramsey Winch
225 @ Spartan
200 @ Pepsi Bottling

So we can get rid of all of those companies and just build two dams?  Who knew! I say we build 20 dams and add 180,000 jobs!

Ridiculous.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on March 22, 2016, 12:07:59 pm

So we can get rid of all of those companies and just build two dams?  Who knew! I say we build 20 dams and add 180,000 jobs!

Ridiculous.

It's not the truthfulness of what you're saying...it's what you can get people to believe.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on March 22, 2016, 12:16:46 pm
The number quoted was 1,850 jobs, not 18,500.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/economic-impact-study-shows-big-possibilities-for-vision-s-river/article_5ef0c40d-b2cd-5946-8bc9-6eca158dce90.html


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on March 22, 2016, 12:58:47 pm
I'd love to see where those numbers come from. If you want water in the river because it looks pretty, fine. But the economic development angle baffles me. This will not create a waterfront with tons of land ready to be developed - there just isn't much land along the stretches of the river that will be "filled" with water that is available to be developed.

18,000 jobs? Lets look at our current employers...

8000 @ St. Francis Health System
3000 @ The Port of Catoosa
2000 @ BOK
1000 @ Bama Pie
820 @ Direct TV
700 @ Williams Employees in Tulsa
500 @ Helmrich and Payne
500 @ Creek Nation
400 @ EMSA
350 @ Linde
300 @ Goodwill Industries
250 @ Pennwell
250 @ Ramsey Winch
225 @ Spartan
200 @ Pepsi Bottling

So we can get rid of all of those companies and just build two dams?  Who knew! I say we build 20 dams and add 180,000 jobs!

Ridiculous.



There's a lot of land being opened up on the east side of Riverside south of 81st. A big piece has been cleared in the last couple of weeks south of the apartment complex across the street from the casino. The old mobile home park south of there is also for sale. Both plots of land extend from Riverside over to Lewis and between the two that's well over a half a mile of land riverfront available from 84th to the Southwoods location at 91st. Then there's another half a mile of riverfront land actually on the water south of 101st to where the dam would be located. 

Then of course there's the concrete plant and city land at 21st on the west bank.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 22, 2016, 01:29:19 pm
There's a lot of land being opened up on the east side of Riverside south of 81st.

The giant parking lot is owned by the Creek Nation, and it's not on the river.

Quote
A big piece has been cleared in the last couple of weeks south of the apartment complex across the street from the casino.

That property is owned by the City of Tulsa is is storm water collection, and is also separated from the river by Creek Nation land.

Quote
The old mobile home park south of there is also for sale. Both plots of land extend from Riverside over to Lewis and between the two that's well over a half a mile of land riverfront available from 84th to the Southwoods location at 91st.

The property isn't on the river, is separated from the River by Creek Nation Land, doesn't have access to Riverside Drive, and doesn't abut Lewis (it has access easements over Little Joe Creek through other peoples land). 19.5 acres that has been a mobile home park since 1970 and is sandwiched between "affordable" apartments, run down commercial, and an Indian Casino.  It is currently valued at $100k an acre. I don't see the value or development of that land exceeding $100million because there is water in a river just on the other side of the casino.

Quote
Then there's another half a mile of riverfront land actually on the water south of 101st to where the dam would be located.  


The dam is supposed to go in at 103rd street. There is very little land between 101st and 103rd street - 2 acres maybe?


Quote
Then of course there's the concrete plant and city land at 21st on the west bank.

Which has had "water in the river" for 40 years and still hasn't been developed.

The water pool doesn't extend a full three miles up stream. By 71st street, it's played out. You can't build multi-story near Jone's Riverside Airport - and most of the land there is owned by either the Creek's or the Tulsa Airport Improvement Trusts anyway.  Redoing Zink dam, while needed and I support, I don't expect to bring new development by knocking down the refinery, plowing under parkland, or doing what the concrete plant could have done at anytime in the last few decades.

I think you're proving my point. Other than park land, land that has been on a portion of the river fulled with water for decades, Jenks land, and Creek Nation land... there isn't really land in Tulsa that can be developed to take advantage of water in the river.  I'm not trying to be a nay sayer, I[m trying to be pragmatic. I just don't see it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on March 23, 2016, 01:07:07 pm
The Proposed ST/Jenks dam will back water to or just north of 71st (depends on the flow rate) which will I believe will make the SW corner of 71st and the River quite desirable. 

Of course someone is going to say what about the sludge drying facilities there... so from my observation, the Belt Filter Press Building (large masonry structure in the back) is not an issue and the storage beds (old gravity drying beds) can be relocated South of the Press Building and covered (like Wichita KS did with theirs in the middle of town, along with active odor control to their entire treatment plant) so the dried sludge doesn't rehydrate and generate odors (although it is not anything like raw sewage) at reasonable cost and the 71st frontage along with the river frontage then becomes available for appropriate development.  All without adverse, and likely positive, impact to Turkey Mountain and the proposed new west bank trail from TM to Jenks.   


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on March 23, 2016, 01:13:51 pm
The Proposed ST/Jenks dam will back water to or just north of 71st (depends on the flow rate) which will I believe will make the SW corner of 71st and the River quite desirable. 

Of course someone is going to say what about the sludge drying facilities there... so from my observation, the Belt Filter Press Building (large masonry structure in the back) is not an issue and the storage beds (old gravity drying beds) can be relocated South of the Press Building and covered (like Wichita KS did with theirs in the middle of town, along with active odor control to their entire treatment plant) so the dried sludge doesn't rehydrate and generate odors (although it is not anything like raw sewage) at reasonable cost and the 71st frontage along with the river frontage then becomes available for appropriate development.  All without adverse, and likely positive, impact to Turkey Mountain and the proposed new west bank trail from TM to Jenks.   


I thought the west bank trail was cut from the renewal package, did it not get cut after all?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on March 23, 2016, 01:36:25 pm
I thought the west bank trail was cut from the renewal package, did it not get cut after all?
You are correct, unfortunately the majority of trails once included were removed however it is still "proposed" just not funded in this package.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on March 23, 2016, 01:45:28 pm
You are correct, unfortunately the majority of trails once included were removed however it is still "proposed" just not funded in this package.

That was one part I really hoped would make it to the package.  There’s a whole lot of land along that west bank from 71st to Riverwalk Crossing which could be a good mix of park and development.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: BuiltRight on March 23, 2016, 03:46:06 pm
I'm not sure if these video has been posted here before, but i was at a luncheon with GT Bynum today and he was talking about the River Development part of the Vision Package. he told us that the renderings of the dams are accurate, they already have 60% complete drawings. The Rendering of the pedistrian bridge at zink dam is just a concept but money in included in the package to replace the old bridge. Just thought I would share.

https://vimeo.com/146306248 (https://vimeo.com/146306248)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Townsend on March 23, 2016, 03:54:39 pm
It's funny how quickly I perceive Williams Leaving Oklahoma as truth

Anything showing a positive for Tulsa is a "I'll wait until I see it before I believe it."


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 24, 2016, 06:49:48 am
The number quoted was 1,850 jobs, not 18,500.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/economic-impact-study-shows-big-possibilities-for-vision-s-river/article_5ef0c40d-b2cd-5946-8bc9-6eca158dce90.html

interesting. The printed material says 1850. Believable if not provable. I no longer see the version of the tv ad that touted 18500 jobs. The later version is not specific at all.
The great thing about print is once it's on paper you can't easily alter it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 24, 2016, 08:41:30 am
The Proposed ST/Jenks dam will back water to or just north of 71st (depends on the flow rate) which will I believe will make the SW corner of 71st and the River quite desirable. 

I agree that the land there could be developed. Access is somewhat difficult, the current facility would have to be moved, and is an abandoned oil well seeping that would need to be addressed - but it is available land on the river in a location that would not draw objection from Turkey users, park lovers, or the airport.

However --- stating that the river will have water in it at that location is not really accurate. It might during high flow, but not really much more on average than it does now. Unless the design and study commissioned is not accurate. Note the distinct lack of water in the river at 71st street in the rendering.
(http://i.imgur.com/aja1Mpqh.jpg)

http://riverprojectstulsa.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/4%20South%20Tulsa%20Jenks.pdf

I greatly respect your input, but it seems very dubious to argue that there is going to be tens of millions of dollars worth of investment because the river at that location now has a sliver more water on the other side of the bank.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 24, 2016, 10:47:00 am
It's funny how quickly I perceive Williams Leaving Oklahoma as truth

Anything showing a positive for Tulsa is a "I'll wait until I see it before I believe it."


Not funny, "Hah, hah...". 

Funny like, "Wanna sit in a corner and whimper about how ridiculous this has become..."



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: godboko71 on March 24, 2016, 12:32:02 pm
interesting. The printed material says 1850. Believable if not provable. I no longer see the version of the tv ad that touted 18500 jobs. The later version is not specific at all.
The great thing about print is once it's on paper you can't easily alter it.

I saw that TV ad too, you are not alone or crazy (bad memory.)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 24, 2016, 12:35:13 pm
Thanks. I took you on a float trip once didn't I?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: godboko71 on March 24, 2016, 12:42:54 pm
Thanks. I took you on a float trip once didn't I?

No never did get to make one of your trips you did some writing for a project that never really took off. Might have to dust it off again.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 25, 2016, 09:58:52 am
That was like another life for me. I still harbor a plan to organize a river float. I have two canoes, two kayaks and desire. I just don't have a trailer or a truck.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: rebound on March 25, 2016, 11:13:06 am
That was like another life for me. I still harbor a plan to organize a river float. I have two canoes, two kayaks and desire. I just don't have a trailer or a truck.

I have three kayaks, and my son and I would definitely be up for tagging along.   


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 25, 2016, 12:15:14 pm
I have an old (unregistered) aluminium canoe. Given the risk of see OHP on the river, I'm willing to be a dare devil and take it out if we get something together.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 26, 2016, 02:04:53 pm
That would be three canoes and five kayaks. A veritable inland naval fleet. Anyone got an old school bus or a trailer? Spring is usually a time for good flows on this river although until the surrounding area greens up its a bit bleak.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TeeDub on March 26, 2016, 03:37:56 pm

Canoes no longer have to be tagged in Oklahoma

https://www.ok.gov/tax/Individuals/Motor_Vehicle/Boats_&_Outboard_Motors/


How long would it take to go from Keystone to Zink?   (Or Zink to Bixby)   I might be able to come up with a trailer and a few more canoes.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on March 27, 2016, 12:47:29 pm
Depends on the flow and pace and whether there is low point beverages and food onboard. I seem to remember about 2-21/2 hours from Keystone to Zink. I couldn't say about Zink to Bixby but the current really slows down on that leg.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on March 28, 2016, 09:21:04 am
That would be three canoes and five kayaks. A veritable inland naval fleet. Anyone got an old school bus or a trailer? Spring is usually a time for good flows on this river although until the surrounding area greens up its a bit bleak.


I got a  school bus....needs tires...



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on March 28, 2016, 09:32:44 am
Have done both but I'd be up for another float, have a kayak and a low profile cat-a-raft.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: RecycleMichael on March 28, 2016, 10:32:46 am
I want to go.

I look like the Skipper, act like Gilligan, think I am the Professor, and really want to be Mr. Howell.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 28, 2016, 11:08:38 am
Started a thread for this drift. (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21255.new#new)  Get it, drift? It's a nautical term.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on March 28, 2016, 11:34:09 am
I want to go.

I look like the Skipper, act like Gilligan, think I am the Professor, and really want to be Mr. Howell.

But is Mary Ann going? That could really up the participation rate.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on March 28, 2016, 06:29:23 pm
But is Mary Ann going? That could really up the participation rate.

Ah, a Mary Ann guy.  She was always hotter than Ginger.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on April 03, 2016, 04:46:23 pm
Any bets on if all the propositions pass, or if not all of them which ones?  Most people I know are voting yes on all of them including myself but I know there are plenty that don't support it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Hoss on April 03, 2016, 06:28:26 pm
Any bets on if all the propositions pass, or if not all of them which ones?  Most people I know are voting yes on all of them including myself but I know there are plenty that don't support it.

I'm voting on 2 and 3 only.  I won't be subsidizing a service that is already supposed to be built into the budget to begin with.  I understand it would be nice to get emergency services up to snuff, but they keep asking for it via a sales tax.  Has to be a better way.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: davideinstein on April 03, 2016, 08:43:47 pm
I'm voting on 2 and 3 only.  I won't be subsidizing a service that is already supposed to be built into the budget to begin with.  I understand it would be nice to get emergency services up to snuff, but they keep asking for it via a sales tax.  Has to be a better way.

Same.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: davideinstein on April 03, 2016, 08:44:47 pm
I'm voting on 2 and 3 only.  I won't be subsidizing a service that is already supposed to be built into the budget to begin with.  I understand it would be nice to get emergency services up to snuff, but they keep asking for it via a sales tax.  Has to be a better way.

State law requires that is what I was told.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 04, 2016, 07:25:18 am
State law requires that is what I was told.

I don't know about that specifically, but Oklahoma is among the most restrictive states in the Union when it comes to local government. What OKC says goes for many, many things. From oil and gas wells in city limits to taxation. Small government, yay!

The  Oklahoma legislature reviewed the problem of municipal funding 5 years ago and concluded it significantly held down cities and towns, created unreliable revenue streams, manipulated the development market, and was inefficient. They suggested 13 changes, including giving cities the option of using other revenue streams to fund general operations. So far as I could tell, nothing was changed.

The study:

http://www.okhouse.gov/Documents/MunicipalFinanceTaskForceReport.pdf


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 04, 2016, 07:57:27 am
I don't know about that specifically, but Oklahoma is among the most restrictive states in the Union when it comes to local government. What OKC says goes for many, many things. From oil and gas wells in city limits to taxation. Small government, yay!

The  Oklahoma legislature reviewed the problem of municipal funding 5 years ago and concluded it significantly held down cities and towns, created unreliable revenue streams, manipulated the development market, and was inefficient. They suggested 13 changes, including giving cities the option of using other revenue streams to fund general operations. So far as I could tell, nothing was changed.

The study:

http://www.okhouse.gov/Documents/MunicipalFinanceTaskForceReport.pdf


Can't have any of that....eliminates too many opportunities to scoop a little cash off the top for themselves.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: davideinstein on April 05, 2016, 08:13:14 pm
Passed.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on April 05, 2016, 08:29:24 pm
Now that this has passed, what is the timeline for the major projects?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on April 05, 2016, 08:54:33 pm
My understanding was that a lot of the big projects were planning to use bonds so they could get started almost immediately.  I know for a fact that Tulsa Transit was planning to do this, as well as Gilcrease. Pretty sure they were wanting to do that for the dams too, but not certain.  I'm sure someone else could provide a complete list.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: shavethewhales on April 05, 2016, 09:09:22 pm
As unhappy as I am that we're going to be wasting money on all this ham, we can all rejoice that at least we don't have to hear anymore dam proposals anymore... There's undoubtedly some benefits coming from all this, despite the arguments about the timing within our current budget crises.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 06, 2016, 07:31:30 am
As unhappy as I am that we're going to be wasting money on all this ham, we can all rejoice that at least we don't have to hear anymore dam proposals anymore... There's undoubtedly some benefits coming from all this, despite the arguments about the timing within our current budget crises.

The timing is fine, as bond prices are so low for municipal bonds that it is almost free money (borrow cost anyway).

Overall, I'm happy it passed. It was designed to pass - set for an election with the lowest possible turn out (stupid Sheriff getting indicted and raising turnout) and enough slush money for about every organization to want it to pass even though they didn't like the package as a whole. Voters have consistently voted dam funding down, but combine it with enough special interests and you can get it to pass.  Keep the turnout low enough and TPD/TFD can almost pass their own funding if just friends and family turned out 13k votes). This could have been on the primary ballot, or on the next primary in a couple of months... it was set for the lowest possible turnout.

I'm most excited about the list of pet projects. Gilcrease. Turkey. etc.

On the dams, I'm happy the Zink dam will be renovated. If it is half of what is advertised it will be an asset for 50 years. The Jenks dam I wouldn't pay a dime for, and I don't believe anything they said about the "economic development" that comes along with either dam. As stated above, we can stop talking about dams now.

The police and fire proposal is just a slush fund. Per capita and adjusted for inflation, their budget has tripled, but they always need more money to reach this elusive zone of public safety that never materializes. The Fire Department even had trouble articulating what they needed they money for.  BUT - maybe now they will stop asking for MORE MORE MORE, and maybe perception of safety will go up. Which seems to be what really matters anyway.

Mass transit is a dream. If it delivers as advertised it could be a game changer.

The County Money is also just a slush fund as far as I can tell. I have no idea what they are going to use it for. But whatever.

If my choice was nothing passes or all passes, I'd want all to pass. I'm guilty of buying in to enough of the special interests (including Zink dam, Gilcrease, Turkey) to vote yes. Plus, in Oklahoma, I always fear that "low tax" will win no matter what. Even though this has some waste in it, it also has some good things.

The next fight will be for Riverparks land. When they get the shiny dams there will be a bunch of pressure to make them "pay for themselves" with economic development. In that most of the land is parkland, the argument will be that we need to give up some parkland to make it worthwhile.  Riverparks West needs to go to be combined with the cement lot, there is plenty of land on the east bank that is park, we can give some up for development here and there.  I wonder if they will develop the empty spaces they claimed were prime for development before making the play for parkland.

I'm always a cynic. But really, I'm glad it turned out the way it did.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on April 06, 2016, 07:59:25 am
Obviously, I’m thrilled a project I presented along with three other groups made the funding list and has now passed and the footprint of Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Area will grow.

There were many projects in this package I liked. Most of all, I’m excited to see the transformation of Gilcrease and I’m glad there will finally be accountability on rebuilding Zink Dam after so many broken promises on it.

I do believe it is wise to remain vigilant about what types of development take place along the river.  I’m sick and tired of hearing: “Tulsa needs to be like Portland, San Antonio, OKC, Denver, Austin, etc.”.  We need to get beyond that mindset, take a close look at what our best assets are, and promote them as uniquely Tulsa.  I’m not saying there should not be development along it, but we do need to take a step back and realize how fortunate we are to have literally miles and miles of park land along our river which offers a respite from the daily grind, and do our best not to muck it up with layup slab crap like the REI project.

Hopefully, by the time we have Zink Dam done, we will have an administration with a much more progressive view of development and one which recognizes the tax base will only grow when you make Tulsa a place people want to live and where companies want to locate.  Let’s face it, people don’t make relocation decisions based on what they can buy in a new city.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 07, 2016, 11:30:24 am
It is interesting seeing which districts showed up to vote and which districts voted for it:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/vision-votes-see-where-tulsa-voter-turnout-was-highest-and/article_8c6c732b-0c89-573d-8994-6570bcbcf7a5.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/vision-votes-see-where-tulsa-voter-turnout-was-highest-and/article_8c6c732b-0c89-573d-8994-6570bcbcf7a5.html)

As I would've expected, the midtown/downtown block strongly supported this and had the strongest turnout. The last time around, the rivertax had a strong passionate "vote no" crowd, evidenced by signs and a lot of people vocally against it. This time, the only signs I saw were for Vision and heard a lot more positive chatter about certain projects (with some disappointment about others not getting in).

I noticed that most of the districts which were against it had most of the lowest turnouts (North and East Tulsa). Again, very little opposition organization. The passionate crowd often wins in small elections like this.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Deta
Post by: davideinstein on April 07, 2016, 10:29:26 pm
It is interesting seeing which districts showed up to vote and which districts voted for it:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/vision-votes-see-where-tulsa-voter-turnout-was-highest-and/article_8c6c732b-0c89-573d-8994-6570bcbcf7a5.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/vision-votes-see-where-tulsa-voter-turnout-was-highest-and/article_8c6c732b-0c89-573d-8994-6570bcbcf7a5.html)

As I would've expected, the midtown/downtown block strongly supported this and had the strongest turnout. The last time around, the rivertax had a strong passionate "vote no" crowd, evidenced by signs and a lot of people vocally against it. This time, the only signs I saw were for Vision and heard a lot more positive chatter about certain projects (with some disappointment about others not getting in).

I noticed that most of the districts which were against it had most of the lowest turnouts (North and East Tulsa). Again, very little opposition organization. The passionate crowd often wins in small elections like this.

White, wealthy midtowners voted yes to spend $202M on a police department they'll never use.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Dspike on April 08, 2016, 07:23:34 am
"White, wealthy midtowners voted yes to spend $202M on a police department they'll never use."

The Tulsa World maps are for Prop 3 (Water in the River + Economic Development). I would actually be interested to see if the geography of Prop 1 and 2 differ from Prop 3.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Deta
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 08, 2016, 07:30:08 am
White, wealthy midtowners voted yes to spend $202M on a police department they'll never use.

What are you trying to say here? The city needs more police as evidenced by the study the increase was based on. Hiring more officers and firefighters will benefit the entire city and hopefully reduce crime rates and improve health and safety (firefighters are often first responders).

This proposition passed by such a high margin, I doubt there were many districts against it. The map didn't show that though. It showed who voted for Prop 3. Are you making a facetious comment about the classic argument about these kinds of tax increases, "the rich voted for improvements the poor will never use"?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 08, 2016, 08:06:26 am
Maybe he's saying white, middle class, midtowners were altruistic by voting to pay for something others will use  ;)

But who knows ???

Tone is hard to convey in writing. :'(

That's what emojis are for.  ;D


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2016, 09:26:38 am
There's no crime in midtown..??   No fires??   Whew!  I gotta move closer in!!

Don't know what I been thinking of all these years.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Deta
Post by: patric on April 08, 2016, 09:32:26 am
What are you trying to say here? The city needs more police as evidenced by the study the increase was based on. Hiring more officers and firefighters will benefit the entire city and hopefully reduce crime rates and improve health and safety (firefighters are often first responders).

There are as many studies that debunk that as support it.
Hiring more police doesnt always mean more police on the streets, as there's a long list of patrolmen waiting to move up to their promised specialty positions.

Didnt we use to preach "better utilization" ?  Granted, wear and tear on firefighter equipment is something we have fallen behind on, but that doesnt necessarily translate dollar-for-dollar for other departments.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: PonderInc on April 08, 2016, 03:45:55 pm
Hey, now that we've funded a $50 million slush fund for the Fire Dept so they can bring 4 guys and a ladder truck to every EMS call (which makes up something like 95% of fire dept responses).... maybe they can use that money instead to invest in smaller fire trucks or even red ambulances.  Then we could stop designing our city around the wide streets, huge access lanes, extra driveway aisles, and ridiculous turn radii that the fire department claims it needs for their big ol' trucks.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: davideinstein on April 08, 2016, 03:46:46 pm
Hey, now that we've funded a $50 million slush fund for the Fire Dept so they can bring 4 guys and a ladder truck to every EMS call (which makes up something like 95% of fire dept responses).... maybe they can use that money instead to invest in smaller fire trucks or even red ambulances.  Then we could stop designing our city around the wide streets, huge access lanes, extra driveway aisles, and ridiculous turn radii that the fire department claims it needs for their big ol' trucks.

Preach!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Deta
Post by: davideinstein on April 08, 2016, 03:52:21 pm
What are you trying to say here? The city needs more police as evidenced by the study the increase was based on. Hiring more officers and firefighters will benefit the entire city and hopefully reduce crime rates and improve health and safety (firefighters are often first responders).

This proposition passed by such a high margin, I doubt there were many districts against it. The map didn't show that though. It showed who voted for Prop 3. Are you making a facetious comment about the classic argument about these kinds of tax increases, "the rich voted for improvements the poor will never use"?

I'm saying the vast majority of votes came from the white, wealthy area to fund police that will go to the poor, undereducated areas. And to be clear, I'm specifically targeting prop 1. I voted yes on 2 and 3 in the same area that I am critical of.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Weatherdemon on April 11, 2016, 10:01:41 am
Hey, now that we've funded a $50 million slush fund for the Fire Dept so they can bring 4 guys and a ladder truck to every EMS call (which makes up something like 95% of fire dept responses).... maybe they can use that money instead to invest in smaller fire trucks or even red ambulances.  Then we could stop designing our city around the wide streets, huge access lanes, extra driveway aisles, and ridiculous turn radii that the fire department claims it needs for their big ol' trucks.

I think they respond to EMS calls to save money/increase response time because the EMSA contract sucks.
I don't know for sure though. I don't think the cost is that much more to bring a ladder truck vs. an ambulance and the 4 guys are getting paid the same if they are out on a call or sitting on their cot at the station.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: carltonplace on April 12, 2016, 07:30:35 am
I think they respond to EMS calls to save money/increase response time because the EMSA contract sucks.
I don't know for sure though. I don't think the cost is that much more to bring a ladder truck vs. an ambulance and the 4 guys are getting paid the same if they are out on a call or sitting on their cot at the station.

Either way it's wasteful. EM and Fire should be combined, though we all know the reasons this won't happen.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Weatherdemon on April 12, 2016, 09:56:29 am
Either way it's wasteful. EM and Fire should be combined, though we all know the reasons this won't happen.

I agree 100%


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on April 12, 2016, 10:19:00 am
The various sheriff's offices/police and fire departments should dissolve and form metro wide protection districts with the various cities/counties forming a commission to hire professionals to run the departments.

Under current state law fire protection districts are allowed to be funded by property taxes instead of volatile sales taxes. That law could/should be expanded to allow police districts as well.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: AquaMan on April 13, 2016, 09:52:42 am
The various sheriff's offices/police and fire departments should dissolve and form metro wide protection districts with the various cities/counties forming a commission to hire professionals to run the departments.

Under current state law fire protection districts are allowed to be funded by property taxes instead of volatile sales taxes. That law could/should be expanded to allow police districts as well.

This seems like a d#mn good idea. Why hasn't anyone (knowledgeable) responded? It uses a back door so to speak to secure a more stable funding source and would make them more professionally operated. Very smart. Or maybe that's what's wrong with it....


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on April 13, 2016, 02:39:11 pm
This seems like a d#mn good idea. Why hasn't anyone (knowledgeable) responded? It uses a back door so to speak to secure a more stable funding source and would make them more professionally operated. Very smart. Or maybe that's what's wrong with it....

The same reason school consolidation will never happen.  No one will give up their own little fiefdom.  Our state may resemble Mexico just south of the California border in 25 years but we will still enjoy our 500 some school districts over 77 counties, multiple over-lapping police forces, paramedic duties which could be done by FD’s etc. etc.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 13, 2016, 03:07:01 pm
The same reason school consolidation will never happen.  No one will give up their own little fiefdom.  Our state may resemble Mexico just south of the California border in 25 years but we will still enjoy our 500 some school districts over 77 counties, multiple over-lapping police forces, paramedic duties which could be done by FD’s etc. etc.

Dont forget the

TPD
Jenks PD
Broken Arrow PD
Skiatook
Sand Springs
Glenpool
Bixby
Owasso
TPS PD
TCC PD
Tulsa, Creek, Osage and Wagner Sheriffs
Highway Patrol
Secret Service
US Marshall's
TSA

and God knows I'm missing a few. For each new office, you get a new set of administrators, payroll clerks, etc. etc. etc.

Yay!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 13, 2016, 01:37:56 pm
What many opponents (and even some proponents) of this tax feared is already happening:


Quote
City officials defend cuts to 911
Councilor criticizes a proposal to eliminate 15 vacant 911 positions.

A city financial official for the second straight week on Thursday defended the elimination of 15 vacant 911 positions in next year’s budget.
Finance Director Mike Kier said the funding for public safety reflects cuts that all departments are experiencing for fiscal 2017 to fill a widening budget hole. Officials estimate the city will fall about $8.5 million or more behind budget estimates by June 30, the end of this fiscal year.
The issue has been in front of the City Council for two weeks in a row as Councilor Karen Gilbert has questioned the motives of cutting the 911 positions from the budget after voters approved Vision Tulsa’s public safety tax, which will add personnel.
We have 15 positions that are being eliminated, but within the new public-safety tax … we’re going to be funding 16 additional dispatchers,” Gilbert said. “So the way that we presented this to the public when we were going out and doing town hall meetings on Vision. … We presented it to the public that those departments included in Vision, the funding would stay to where it had been previously.”
Vision Tulsa’s public safety tax is a permanent, dedicated tax that took up almost a third of Vision 2025’s expiring 0.6 percent sales tax. Voters approved the tax April 5.
It goes into effect Jan. 1, and the funds begin to go into city coffers in mid-February.
The permanent tax eventually will put about $18 million per year toward public safety, which will go toward hiring about 160 new police officers, 70 new firefighters and the additional 911 personnel.
Gilbert said her concern is that it appears the funding from the tax is being directed elsewhere.
“Our intent was to add additional forces, not to replace current operations,” Gilbert said.
Kier said cutting the positions following the passage of Vision’s dedicated tax is not supplanting because public safety’s percentage of the general budget is staying the same.
“As long as we continue to provide … the same percentage of revenue that they would have been receiving prior to this, then we really aren’t taking those new funds and using them to fund something else,” Kier said.
Eliminating vacant positions was preferred to avoid the likelihood of eliminating filled positions, he said.
In total, the proposed budget eliminates 56 vacant positions from all over City Hall that haven’t been filled during a long-held hiring freeze.
The proposal also would eliminate three positions that are currently held, but officials have said they hope to move those employees to other positions to avoid them becoming layoffs.
Councilors have until the end of June to make changes to the budget proposal before finalizing it.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)

This is not surprising and will probably be followed by about 150 police positions cut and 60 firefighters. Great job, Dewey! You really had the public going there! Bravo!


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on May 13, 2016, 02:03:23 pm
Tulsa’s finance department:

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/bambino-d-costume-del-coniglietto-con-l-abaco-42433072.jpg)


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Laramie on May 16, 2016, 07:34:18 am
What on earth happened here:

Quote
A 0.05 percent Tulsa County sales tax approved by almost two-thirds of voters on April 5 may be in doubt because of an irregularity in the publishing of legal notices prior to the election.

At issue is the failure of some paid legal notices from Tulsa County to appear in the Tulsa World. The missed election notices could invalidate the vote on the county’s portion of the Vision sales tax extension.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/legal-issue-leaves-county-vision-vote-in-question/article_e7f0dfbc-d094-5254-9338-36b0c7429c58.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/legal-issue-leaves-county-vision-vote-in-question/article_e7f0dfbc-d094-5254-9338-36b0c7429c58.html)

Sixty-four percent (64%) voter approval in the April 5 election; heads need to roll.   Progress in Tulsa has momentum, this is not a time to put doubt in the minds of the voting public.

Quote
None of the other local municipal tax measures that were part of the April 5 Vision vote are affected. The unaffected measures include three city of Tulsa propositions that are expected to raise about $800 million for public safety, economic development and public transit. Those taxes take effect Jan. 1.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 16, 2016, 07:46:12 am
What on earth happened here:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/legal-issue-leaves-county-vision-vote-in-question/article_e7f0dfbc-d094-5254-9338-36b0c7429c58.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/elections/legal-issue-leaves-county-vision-vote-in-question/article_e7f0dfbc-d094-5254-9338-36b0c7429c58.html)

Sixty-four percent (64%) voter approval in the April 5 election; heads need to roll.   Progress in Tulsa has momentum, this is not a time to put doubt in the minds of the voting public.
 


No doubts in the mind of the voting public at all....the people running the show are incompetent.  Only been doing elections for how many decades...??

And can't get it right...



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Laramie on May 16, 2016, 07:53:57 am
Quote
None of the other local municipal tax measures that were part of the April 5 Vision vote are affected. The unaffected measures include three city of Tulsa propositions that are expected to raise about $800 million for public safety, economic development and public transit. Those taxes take effect Jan. 1.

Hopefully, this will only affect a small measure of the Vision 2025 initiative which garnered 64% of the vote.   It's important that Tulsa keeps the same momentum that Oklahoma City has with MAPS.   

Our two largest metropolitan areas need local support for initiatives like Vision 2025 & MAPS to keep up with the current trends to make both cities attractive to business & industry seeking to expand into our state.  Especially at a time when the State has hit a financial shortfall--making deep cuts to the bone.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 16, 2016, 09:04:13 am
Hopefully, this will only affect a small measure of the Vision 2025 initiative which garnered 64% of the vote.   It's important that Tulsa keeps the same momentum that Oklahoma City has with MAPS.   

Our two largest metropolitan areas need local support for initiatives like Vision 2025 & MAPS to keep up with the current trends to make both cities attractive to business & industry seeking to expand into our state.  Especially at a time when the State has hit a financial shortfall--making deep cuts to the bone.


Those aren't the main criteria to make the state/cities attractive to business/industry.  Education and infrastructure (roads, bridges, water, etc) are much higher on the list and we as a state are actively discouraging on that front.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: LandArchPoke on May 16, 2016, 12:51:33 pm
What many opponents (and even some proponents) of this tax feared is already happening:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)

This is not surprising and will probably be followed by about 150 police positions cut and 60 firefighters. Great job, Dewey! You really had the public going there! Bravo!

So basically we are getting 1 new 911 operators? AWESOME! Wonder how long before Dewey will shift this the same way for Fire and Police?

Exactly the reason why this should have NEVER been funded through Vision.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on January 18, 2017, 03:55:53 pm
Some dates are now being applied to the Vision projects:

The new pedestrian bridge at The Gathering Place will be built in 2018
New Zink Dam at 33rd will be built in 2019
The Convention Center expansion/renovation/conversion of old arena  in 2019
Gilcrease Museum expansion built in 2020
Tulsa Zoo Expansion in 2020
South Tulsa/Jenks dam built around 2024

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 19, 2017, 11:26:01 am
Some dates are now being applied to the Vision projects:

The new pedestrian bridge at The Gathering Place will be built in 2018
New Zink Dam at 33rd will be built in 2019
The Convention Center expansion/renovation/conversion of old arena  in 2019
Gilcrease Museum expansion built in 2020
Tulsa Zoo Expansion in 2020
South Tulsa/Jenks dam built around 2024

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf


That is disappointing if Gilcrease won't start until 2020. Gilcrease expansion is about half funded by TU so really they could start earlier and I would expect some of the other projects could get loans/bonds to start earlier as well even though the anticipated funds would come later. I would expect Gilcrease of all those would push to get dirt moving asap to get their name out there and boost name recognition as a top-notch museum. Waiting that long would just forego that much more revenue.

I would be impressed if the Zink Dam is built so quickly compared to everything else on there. Hope they do go through with it quickly. I wonder how the pedestrian bridge/Zink Dam construction will hamper Gathering Place activities. Will be a bit unfortunate for that to complete just in time for a couple more big construction projects but should be worth it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on January 19, 2017, 01:40:06 pm
That is disappointing if Gilcrease won't start until 2020. Gilcrease expansion is about half funded by TU so really they could start earlier and I would expect some of the other projects could get loans/bonds to start earlier as well even though the anticipated funds would come later. I would expect Gilcrease of all those would push to get dirt moving asap to get their name out there and boost name recognition as a top-notch museum. Waiting that long would just forego that much more revenue.

I would be impressed if the Zink Dam is built so quickly compared to everything else on there. Hope they do go through with it quickly. I wonder how the pedestrian bridge/Zink Dam construction will hamper Gathering Place activities. Will be a bit unfortunate for that to complete just in time for a couple more big construction projects but should be worth it.

Maybe the dam/whitewater flume and bridge projects can be done during Phase 2 of the Gathering Place.  That includes the Tulsa Children's Museum and other improvements at the south end of the park.  Not sure if the mixed-use housing and the new trail along Crow Creek are part of that phase or a Phase 3.  Still lots to be done after the initial park opens later this year.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Conan71 on January 19, 2017, 03:44:52 pm
That is disappointing if Gilcrease won't start until 2020. Gilcrease expansion is about half funded by TU so really they could start earlier and I would expect some of the other projects could get loans/bonds to start earlier as well even though the anticipated funds would come later. I would expect Gilcrease of all those would push to get dirt moving asap to get their name out there and boost name recognition as a top-notch museum. Waiting that long would just forego that much more revenue.

I would be impressed if the Zink Dam is built so quickly compared to everything else on there. Hope they do go through with it quickly. I wonder how the pedestrian bridge/Zink Dam construction will hamper Gathering Place activities. Will be a bit unfortunate for that to complete just in time for a couple more big construction projects but should be worth it.

It would not surprise me if a re-do of the Zink Dam had already been factored into the staging of The Gathering Place either based on the confidence it would get rebuilt in a tax package or a certain private donor or donors would pay to have it done.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 20, 2017, 08:16:35 am
Gilclrease just did a major expansion largely funded by TU and the Helmrich's, $28,000,000 back in 2014.

http://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/tulsans-get-a-sneak-peek-at-gilcrease-28m-expansion

Obviously, that is not the massive public display area they want or need to properly display s small fraction of what they have.  But to design and contract a great public space takes time.  To plan the displays, prepare the art, and strengthen relationships with the art community takes time.  Three years is might be a fair amount of time even if the project was fully funded today.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on January 20, 2017, 08:55:17 am
It would not surprise me if a re-do of the Zink Dam had already been factored into the staging of The Gathering Place either based on the confidence it would get rebuilt in a tax package or a certain private donor or donors would pay to have it done.
The Zink Dam improvements were mutually coordinated with the Gathering Place design which functions well with or without the Zink improvements but definitely better with IMHO.   


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on May 15, 2018, 03:34:29 pm
Some dates are now being applied to the Vision projects:

The new pedestrian bridge at The Gathering Place will be built in 2018
New Zink Dam at 33rd will be built in 2019
The Convention Center expansion/renovation/conversion of old arena  in 2019
Gilcrease Museum expansion built in 2020
Tulsa Zoo Expansion in 2020
South Tulsa/Jenks dam built around 2024

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf


We know the pedestrian bridge has been pushed back and discussed in another thread.  Hopefully when the Zink Dam improvements are done it can be in conjunction with the new ped bridge.  While the Gathering Place doesn't need to have these improvements to function it makes it a lot better.  If I remember it correctly the dam raises the water level in Zink Lake by 3 ft. which should make an impact on the river scenery all the way up past I-244.

I believe the other projects are still on schedule for 2019/2020.  I have no idea on what the latest is with the Jenks low water dam but I imagine the Creek's wanting to get that project moving with all of their investments in that area.



Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 16, 2018, 07:10:10 am
If we are going to get started on the pedestrian bridge in 2018, we should probably get some details together sooner rather than later.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Vision 2025 on May 16, 2018, 08:41:24 am

I believe the other projects are still on schedule for 2019/2020.  I have no idea on what the latest is with the Jenks low water dam but I imagine the Creek's wanting to get that project moving with all of their investments in that area.


The South Tulsa/Jenks LWD is presently in what we believe are the final stages of the environmental permitting by the USACE.  As of the last schedule Construction I say it was differed by many years into the City of Tulsa's program.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on May 16, 2018, 10:01:13 am
The South Tulsa/Jenks LWD is presently in what we believe are the final stages of the environmental permitting by the USACE.  As of the last schedule Construction I say it was differed by many years into the City of Tulsa's program.

Is the 2024 timeline accurate then, or could we see this project start before then? 


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 10:00:55 am
Updates (as far as I know or can find sources on) for Vision 2025 stuff:

* The prized visionary item in Vision 2025: Gilcrease museum - $65 million expansion (with $55 million "matching funds" from TU) to nearly double size to rival Crystal Bridges, slated to begin in 2020. Now $83 million total budget which will completely demolish existing 134,000 square foot museum (which was just renovated with $28 million in 2014) and rebuild a new 89,000 square foot museum which comes nowhere close to the 217,000 square foot Crystal Bridges museum. Will instead meet existing scope of the base city museum with the vast majority of the collection to remain in a vault, rather than on display. No regional or national draw expected.
* The Pedestrian Bridge is held up and is far under-funded vs what the citizens voted on.
* The BMX construction on the Fairgrounds was completely botched and old usable stadium (for which there was income-producing demand for soccer games) was demolished to be a sinkhole of lawn maintenance and no prospects. The new BMX facility ended up costing around 50% more than what it was supposed to cost.
* Zink Dam seems nowhere near starting even though it was slated to be constructed in 2019 (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf))
* The cuts to 911 15 staff right after voters approved adding 16 positions (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)) (The ol' bait & switch with fund diversion)
* Public Safety: Has crime decreased at all? In any categories? I keep seeing Tulsa creep up the most dangerous city lists with astonishingly high violent and property crime rates. Looks like some neighborhoods are safe from violent crime but petty theft is common while other neighborhoods are drowning in crime. Do we even have more police or fire fighters than before 2016?
* Education: Once again no measurable or visible improvement. Families still flock to the suburbs while the majority of inner city schools are proving they cannot and will not educate students. Teacher retention kept dropping more and more over the last 4 years. Nothing about the teacher retention fund seemed to help.  

I haven't heard updates on most of the Vision 2025 projects. Are any of the big items being constructed yet? We voted for this stuff in 2016 and 4 years later there is almost no progress on any of the big items! This is pathetic. Tulsans were foolish to ever think giving the government more money would create any "big visionary" changes like we were sold before voting. One of the easier things to implement in the package (BRT) took over 3 years!


I guess the government wants to teach Tulsans an important lesson: Life sucks and then you die. Or more specifically Tulsa sucks and the city will keep throwing your money away to make sure it always will. And Tulsa will approve the next "VISION" package and then the one after that because Tulsans are suckers and voters are mostly ignorant fools educated by the horrible excuse for an education system in the place that loves Trump, Bynum and Stitt. Some people including probably most on this board pay attention and there are quite a few well-educated, but they're consolidated to a few areas, making the other areas that much worse.

If we don't spend a massive amount of energy and money to make education the #1 priority, our society will keep going the direction it has with worsening crime and poverty. It takes education first and then over a long time, the poverty and crime will decrease. The state government is doing its best to assure we will be a bottom feeding state in the future. O&G can't bail us out forever with all of its high paying low-education jobs.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on February 14, 2020, 11:19:56 am
If you're going to trust the government (city/state/federal) to actually manage projects to a budget and schedule you'll always be disappointed.  Those issues you raised are the same issues that are being dealt with around the country, and in many places it is WORSE or far more corrupt.  You're naive if you think that government leaders and their cronies don't line their pockets with taxpayer funds.  Imagine that (no pun intended).  


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: Oil Capital on February 14, 2020, 11:24:49 am
Updates (as far as I know or can find sources on) for Vision 2025 stuff:

* The Pedestrian Bridge is held up and is far under-funded vs what the citizens voted on.
* The BMX construction on the Fairgrounds was completely botched and old usable stadium (for which there was income-producing demand for soccer games) was demolished to be a sinkhole of lawn maintenance and no prospects. The new BMX facility ended up costing around 50% more than what it was supposed to cost.
* Zink Dam seems nowhere near starting even though it was slated to be constructed in 2019 (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf (http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/library/37be184c-5714-4df5-99b9-f600852ef67d.pdf))
* The cuts to 911 15 staff right after voters approved adding 16 positions (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-defend-cuts-to/article_c856782f-5f58-5fca-be53-c3e88ada47f4.html)) (The ol' bait & switch with fund diversion)
* Public Safety: Has crime decreased at all? In any categories? I keep seeing Tulsa creep up the most dangerous city lists with astonishingly high violent and property crime rates. Looks like some neighborhoods are safe from violent crime but petty theft is common while other neighborhoods are drowning in crime. Do we even have more police or fire fighters than before 2016?
* Education: Once again no measurable or visible improvement. Families still flock to the suburbs while the majority of inner city schools are proving they cannot and will not educate students. Teacher retention kept dropping more and more over the last 4 years. Nothing about the teacher retention fund seemed to help. 

I haven't heard updates on most of the Vision 2025 projects. Are any of the big items being constructed yet? We voted for this stuff in 2016 and 4 years later there is almost no progress on any of the big items! This is pathetic. Tulsans were foolish to ever think giving the government more money would create any "big visionary" changes like we were sold before voting. One of the easier things to implement in the package (BRT) took over 3 years!


I guess the government wants to teach Tulsans an important lesson: Life sucks and then you die. Or more specifically Tulsa sucks and the city will keep throwing your money away to make sure it always will. And Tulsa will approve the next "VISION" package and then the one after that because Tulsans are suckers and voters are mostly ignorant fools educated by the horrible excuse for an education system in the place that loves Trump, Bynum and Stitt. Some people including probably most on this board pay attention and there are quite a few well-educated, but they're consolidated to a few areas, making the other areas that much worse.

If we don't spend a massive amount of energy and money to make education the #1 priority, our society will keep going the direction it has with worsening crime and poverty. It takes education first and then over a long time, the poverty and crime will decrease. The state government is doing its best to assure we will be a bottom feeding state in the future. O&G can't bail us out forever with all of its high paying low-education jobs.

Not to mention the Gilcrease cluster...


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 11:30:47 am
If you're going to trust the government (city/state/federal) to actually manage projects to a budget and schedule you'll always be disappointed.  Those issues you raised are the same issues that are being dealt with around the country, and in many places it is WORSE or far more corrupt.  You're naive if you think that government leaders and their cronies don't line their pockets with taxpayer funds.  Imagine that (no pun intended).  


It's that Bynum sold himself as a new type of mayor who would do things differently. Besides the easy fluff stuff and big lists (so big, they're full of hardly-actionable items), the city government has been about the same as under Bartlett. 4 years and virtually no progress on most of the big items in that plan, almost all far behind the initially stated schedules.

I know it's common, but that doesn't make it any better. Seems straight forward to do the job we're paying you to do and use the massive amounts of money allotted to make these things happen, but the reality is the city "leaders" selling these pork-like projects have no idea how much any of it will actually cost to make or even if they're even feasible. As usual, the Vision plan was a big fraud to increase their own power and to line the pockets of their friends.

But Tulsa has proven they'll always vote yes even if you rip them off again and again, so Bynum will keep it up and Tulsa in 2023 or 2030 will look a lot like it did in 2015: high crime, low education, led by a lying mayor and counsel.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 14, 2020, 11:47:35 am
Not to mention the Gilcrease cluster...

You're right. I added that (Originally added that list to the thread about Gilcrease). That is the Magnum Opus of failures in Vision 2025. If you wanted to write a script on how the major and city (and other parties) could horribly mess up every single thing as badly as possible, you would be hard pressed to write it any better (well, worse) than this.

Many Tulsans were so incredibly excited to finally get a chance to marvel at a large portion of the Gilcrease collection and for it to finally be what it could be: The largest and most valuable Western Art museum. Instead, it will remain an amazing collection the public cannot see and nothing more. It would've been something akin to the Gathering Place but for art. It would've been truly unique and renown. Instead we will get a more organized version of what we have now, but smaller.

Why can't they keep the existing museum as-is and add a new building next to it? The old building could be an overflow to display the extensive collection to the public while the new building could become the flagship Gilcrease collection. That seems vastly better than destroying it.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: DTowner on February 14, 2020, 04:15:31 pm

It's that Bynum sold himself as a new type of mayor who would do things differently. Besides the easy fluff stuff and big lists (so big, they're full of hardly-actionable items), the city government has been about the same as under Bartlett. 4 years and virtually no progress on most of the big items in that plan, almost all far behind the initially stated schedules.

I know it's common, but that doesn't make it any better. Seems straight forward to do the job we're paying you to do and use the massive amounts of money allotted to make these things happen, but the reality is the city "leaders" selling these pork-like projects have no idea how much any of it will actually cost to make or even if they're even feasible. As usual, the Vision plan was a big fraud to increase their own power and to line the pockets of their friends.

But Tulsa has proven they'll always vote yes even if you rip them off again and again, so Bynum will keep it up and Tulsa in 2023 or 2030 will look a lot like it did in 2015: high crime, low education, led by a lying mayor and counsel.

Tulsans don’t always say “yes,” they voted down two pre-Vison 2025 packages and a river project.

The last Vision package seemed to have lost its vision and was too much of a hodge-podge of special interest projects.  More money for public safety was needed, but I thought then and I still think now it should not have been included in the Vision package.  This was supposed to be about big idea capital improvement projects that will jump start other investment in the city.  This is our one funding mechanism for game changing ideas, and now we are using it to pay salaries for police and fire personnel and can’t seem to follow through on the many other promises.

I suspect the next time they put a Vision package in front of the voters it will need to be a much better group of true visionary projects that have been much more thoroughly vetted if they want it to pass.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: swake on February 14, 2020, 06:30:52 pm
Updates (as far as I know or can find sources on) for Vision 2025 stuff:

* The prized visionary item in Vision 2025: Gilcrease museum - $65 million expansion (with $55 million "matching funds" from TU) to nearly double size to rival Crystal Bridges, slated to begin in 2020. Now $83 million total budget which will completely demolish existing 134,000 square foot museum (which was just renovated with $28 million in 2014) and rebuild a new 89,000 square foot museum which comes nowhere close to the 217,000 square foot Crystal Bridges museum. Will instead meet existing scope of the base city museum with the vast majority of the collection to remain in a vault, rather than on display. No regional or national draw expected.

That $28 million didn't renovate Gilcrease, it built the Helmerich Center for American Research which is actually a separate building next to the public museum and not part of it. I've seen nothing that says that the Helmerich Center is also being torn down.
https://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/caffey

I can't find anywhere that TU promised $55 million in matching funds, just that there was going to be additional fundraising, which is still the case. And where did you find that "No regional or national draw expected"?


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 14, 2020, 07:55:12 pm
Had some hopes for Bynum.  Results just the same as the previous ones.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: SXSW on February 15, 2020, 08:32:37 am
Had some hopes for Bynum.  Results just the same as the previous ones.


The difference is he has done a better job than past mayors promoting Tulsa both nationally/internationally and on social media.  The OKC mayor is doing a similarly good job with this.  The end results may be the same but past mayors (especially Dewey) did not represent the city well.


Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 18, 2020, 10:57:02 pm
The difference is he has done a better job than past mayors promoting Tulsa both nationally/internationally and on social media.  The OKC mayor is doing a similarly good job with this.  The end results may be the same but past mayors (especially Dewey) did not represent the city well.


But if it ends up being just all propaganda, that doesn't really help much.  At least not for the long run.

I also feel that we already have a lot to 'sell', so maybe his jawboning will help.  Tulsa has a lot going for it - just doesn't seem to get shown off in a way that helps a lot.  Plus we keep doing the ole, foot in mouth routine.  Open mouth.  Insert foot.  Chew vigorously!




Title: Re: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details
Post by: TulsaBeMore on February 19, 2020, 01:31:12 am
That $28 million didn't renovate Gilcrease, it built the Helmerich Center for American Research which is actually a separate building next to the public museum and not part of it. I've seen nothing that says that the Helmerich Center is also being torn down.
https://www.newson6.com/story/26462158/caffey

I can't find anywhere that TU promised $55 million in matching funds, just that there was going to be additional fundraising, which is still the case. And where did you find that "No regional or national draw expected"?


Re: TU promise - I found only this on the TU page for the TU-Gilcrease partnership:    "In conjunction with Vision Tulsa, TU launched The Campaign for Gilcrease, a $50 million endowment campaign for operations of the museum."