Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kiah on December 04, 2007, 01:52:25 pm
'Complete Our Streets' committee report and recommendations (http://"http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp")
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 04, 2007, 02:13:32 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
'Complete Our Streets' committee report and recommendations (http://"http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp")
$1.6 billion, yowch! That's a lot of need. - $650 million bond issue to bring to C- - permanent 1/2 penny for streets ($35 mill/year) - lobby for share of tag fees ($50 mill/year) Wow...just...wow! Truth is, this has been a problem that politicians have been ducking for decades. Respeck to these guys for looking for a real solution. But...just...wow.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: cks511 on December 04, 2007, 02:16:54 pm
OMG! And they can't even spell, how tacky. Sollutions?
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/FinanceCommitteeSummaryRecommendations_1.pdf
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: sgrizzle on December 04, 2007, 02:18:14 pm
Contracting committee report:
-3rd penny for infrastructure only
-Form a city transportation authority not influenced by city politics
-Catch up roads by widening, replacing and resurfacing (not patching)
- Pass $1.6B bond issue
Finance Committee:
-$1.1B for improvements, $500M for maintenance
-Pay with combination $650M Bond, dedicated sales tax (1/2cent) and state assistance (30% of vehicle license fees dedicated back to roads).
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: YoungTulsan on December 04, 2007, 02:22:59 pm
Good lowde thats a lotta money! How about I give you fourteen dollas and you dump some chunky stuff in some holes...
(oh yeah, thats what we already do)
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: cks511 on December 04, 2007, 02:28:30 pm
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 04, 2007, 02:43:13 pm
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
The proverbial chickens have come home to roost. A principal argument of the no voters in the River thing was that we had more pressing priorities, namely, streets.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 02:49:03 pm
And who is to oversee this mammoth job?
Page one on recommendations should read, "while we recognize the effort put forth during the last 23 years, the current head of Public Works needs to spend his remaining daze in the pasture...."
I thought it would take over 1.5 billion. But I think it will cost much more over a longer period.
Frankly, I can't look at the report. It's too hard to understand how we got from there to here. That vision thing 2025 failed to reason why it is we had America's Most Beautiful City.
Step up and make that 3rd cent permanent. And pass the bond. And make certain this Transportation Authority is not loaded with conflicts of interest.
George Bush has put every American citizen in debt to the tune of $30,000 (average) by war. Just add another $4,000. What good are tax cuts for the wealthy if this is the fallout?
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kenosha on December 04, 2007, 03:05:02 pm
quote:
Develop and Encourage Multiple Modes of Travel
Plans should support multiple modes of travel to, among other benefits, reduce wear on our roadways, to make the system more convenient and to enhance capacity
-Expand and improve transit service to provide safe, reliable, convenient, efficient and desirable public transportation
-Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax, for public transportation purposes to include planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation
What a concept! Reducing the number of cars on the road means less wear and tear on them? Brilliant! (http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Hands_and_Feet/Clapping.gif)
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kenosha on December 04, 2007, 03:11:42 pm
Seems like this Complete Streets stuff that Sarah from TulsaNow spoke about at the public meeting found it's way into the report. I like the set aside, ala the 1% for art in public projects, for bike and pedestrian stuff. From the Smart Urban Design Committee: quote:
More and more often businesses and families choose to locate where there are walkable neighborhoods with sidewalks, trails, bike lanes and other amenities, as well as effective public transit. Complete Streets defines the streets as public spaces to be used by all users, moving by car, truck, transit, bicycle, wheelchair, or foot in a safe, functional and welcoming way. Complete Streets policies call for routinely providing for travel by all users when building and reconstructing streets and roads, and implemented on a case by case basis. The development of a Compete Streets policy should include a set-aside of a percentage of construction or reconstruction funds to be applied toward the implementation of bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities.
Integrating transportation and land use is an economic development tool that cities such as Boulder, Austin, Charlotte and others are using to great advantage and one that Tulsa can not afford to ignore. The Comprehensive Plan update should incorporate Complete Streets concepts and develop new, typical cross sections that reflect the integration of land use in their design, using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Context Sensitive (CSS) design standards.
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is a series of standards that, when applied, are designed to integrate projects into the context or setting in a sensitive manner through careful planning, consideration of different perspectives, and tailoring designs to particular project circumstances.
Context Sensitive Solutions promotes six key principles:
1. Balance safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals in all projects.
2. Involve the public and affected agencies early and continuously.
3. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs.
4. Address all modes of travel.
5. Apply flexibility inherent in design standards.
6. Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 04, 2007, 03:15:16 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Develop and Encourage Multiple Modes of Travel
Plans should support multiple modes of travel to, among other benefits, reduce wear on our roadways, to make the system more convenient and to enhance capacity
-Expand and improve transit service to provide safe, reliable, convenient, efficient and desirable public transportation
-Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax, for public transportation purposes to include planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation
What a concept! Reducing the number of cars on the road means less wear and tear on them? Brilliant!
(http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Hands_and_Feet/Clapping.gif)
How about a little more analysis from someone who knows about street repair and maintenance that two mid-town Elitist Trust Fund babies who never worked an honest day's work in their entire lives? Do NOT just throw more money at the problem. The local road construction cartel, who are connected up the Wazoo with the local ruling power Oligarchy, and who happily share a tiny portion of their profits to fund the passage of every new and renewed local Tax, are being givin a free pass on SHODDY road construction and repairs that literally fall apart almost as soon as the yellow striping has dried. That is the root cause of the problem, not Under-Spending. Oh, and fire Charles Hardt and his cronies today, while we're at it.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 03:24:03 pm
What I said, FB .....and I thought ETF's were something else.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 04, 2007, 03:32:37 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
How about a little more analysis from someone who knows about street repair and maintenance that two mid-town Elitist Trust Fund babies who never worked an honest day's work in their entire lives?
Ask, and you shall receive: Contracting Committee ART COUCH SHARON KING DAVIS GENE HARRIS BOB KUHN BILL JONES TOM SNYDER Finance Committee Mr. Jack O’Brien Mr. Steve Mitchell Mr. John Weidman Mr. Kell Kelly Mr. Howard Barnett Mr. Ron Bussert Mr. Dewey Bartlett. Smart Urban Design Committee Keith Franklin John Lotti Art Justis Derek Gates Jerry Lasker Lisa Frankenberger Surely you can't hate everybody on this list, right? Oh wait, we're talking about Friendly Bear.[;)] quote:
Do NOT just throw more money at the problem.
They have lots of recommendations about contracting, urban design, financing, preventive maintenance. How 'bout you "Do NOT" start talking out your hindquarters until you've done at least a modicum of homework. Oh wait, we're talking about Friendly Bear.[;)] quote:
The local road construction cartel, who are connected up the Wazoo with the local ruling power Oligarchy, and who happily share a tiny portion of their profits to fund the passage of every new and renewed local Tax, are being givin a free pass on SHODDY road construction and repairs that literally fall apart almost as soon as the yellow striping has dried.
That is the root cause of the problem, not Under-Spending.
Oh, and fire Charles Hardt and his cronies today, while we're at it.
Attaboy, FB. Blame the "oligarchy", that'll fix the streets. And fire a couple of city employees, that'll produce $1.6 billion for sure!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 03:40:14 pm
"Fire" is a little strong....put out to pasture sounds cleaner. How about have the principles petered since they fell victim to the peter principal?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Conan71 on December 04, 2007, 03:44:05 pm
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first. [}:)]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 03:58:58 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first.
[}:)]
LMAO!!!!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 04, 2007, 05:45:53 pm
BTW, Kiah's post preceded a World flash by 40 minutes. Lurkers.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: blindnil on December 04, 2007, 06:29:08 pm
Actually the World had the breaking news up at 9:30 a.m. this morning ..... and added the link to the report this afternoon.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Conan71 on December 04, 2007, 06:42:07 pm
Okay, now that I got that bit of sarcasm out of the way that I've been saving up since last July, I was kinda surprised at the number at first. But if we've been about $1bn behind on maintenance and they are looking at expansion as well, $1.6 sounds about right. It's still a shot in the dark as there's not near enough time to put a finite figure on it.
That's fine though, as long as they have an on-going revenue source identified and not some tax which has to renew every x amount of years, that's all good work. It's needed.
Now all they need to do is promote Bob Dick as the street Czar so Friendly Bear will have plenty of reason to keep posting here.
[:P]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: swake on December 04, 2007, 07:17:55 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, now that I got that bit of sarcasm out of the way that I've been saving up since last July, I was kinda surprised at the number at first. But if we've been about $1bn behind on maintenance and they are looking at expansion as well, $1.6 sounds about right. It's still a shot in the dark as there's not near enough time to put a finite figure on it.
That's fine though, as long as they have an on-going revenue source identified and not some tax which has to renew every x amount of years, that's all good work. It's needed.
Now all they need to do is promote Bob Dick as the street Czar so Friendly Bear will have plenty of reason to keep posting here.
[:P]
No, you have it all wrong, Randi Miller will be the city street Czar and she will hire Bob Dick's Road Repair and Tamale factory Inc to fix the roads.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 08:01:40 pm
I hear you can sponsor a street. Now, let's see who is going to sponsor a street and what name will they choose to put on it.
I will start. 61st will be renamed King Davis Avenue between Harvard and Yale. Warren Blvd. will be Yale from I 44 til the new bridge at 121st St.where it becomes Parmale Parkway. These streets were grandfathered in.
Now. Where's Electric Avenue?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 04, 2007, 08:07:19 pm
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, now that I got that bit of sarcasm out of the way that I've been saving up since last July, I was kinda surprised at the number at first. But if we've been about $1bn behind on maintenance and they are looking at expansion as well, $1.6 sounds about right. It's still a shot in the dark as there's not near enough time to put a finite figure on it.
That's fine though, as long as they have an on-going revenue source identified and not some tax which has to renew every x amount of years, that's all good work. It's needed.
Now all they need to do is promote Bob Dick as the street Czar so Friendly Bear will have plenty of reason to keep posting here.
[:P]
No, you have it all wrong, Randi Miller will be the city street Czar and she will hire Bob Dick's Road Repair and Tamale factory Inc to fix the roads.
The renters and transient community will be more than happy to approve the Bond Portion of the Tax Increase, since they do not directly see the R.E. tax increase, and depending on rental market competitive pressure from landlords, may NOT get a straight pass-through of the Property Tax increase in the rental agreement at renewal. I predict the new 1/2 cent Sales Tax increase is D.O.A. People are tapped out on Sales Taxes. It is hovering way too close to 10 cents on the dollar. And, we've still got 13 more LONG years to pay on the Vision 2025 6/10 Sales Tax Increase. Uh, what did we get for that? An Arena with tickets going for the minimum of $49.50 to a concert? And, WHY, oh WHY reward miserable management, incompetence and failure in sound city infrastructure administration. Fire Chas. Hardt-less and his incompetent cronies, and hire some real civil engineers. By the time they stage this for a tax vote next year, the economy will be heading into the tank, anyway. Yes, you guessed it: A NO vote here.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 04, 2007, 08:13:20 pm
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And who is to oversee this mammoth job?
Page one on recommendations should read, "while we recognize the effort put forth during the last 23 years, the current head of Public Works needs to spend his remaining daze in the pasture...."
I thought it would take over 1.5 billion. But I think it will cost much more over a longer period.
Frankly, I can't look at the report. It's too hard to understand how we got from there to here. That vision thing 2025 failed to reason why it is we had America's Most Beautiful City.
Step up and make that 3rd cent permanent. And pass the bond. And make certain this Transportation Authority is not loaded with conflicts of interest.
George Bush has put every American citizen in debt to the tune of $30,000 (average) by war. Just add another $4,000. What good are tax cuts for the wealthy if this is the fallout?
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell
I just knew George Bush was behind all this. Thanks for pointing that out!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 04, 2007, 08:26:12 pm
The fleecing of America from the top down.....
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 04, 2007, 08:57:10 pm
An interesting report, although, another recommendation for a raise in taxes has this republican saying, "here we go again." We are already at historically high sales taxes and, because we keep finding other things to spend money on, we need another tax to fund the basics, which were the original purposes of the tax in the first place.
What I found the most interesting, although none of the committees had the courage to come right out and say it (some committees were more brave then others) was the past practice of allowing political influence dictate what street got repaired. Having known someone who worked for Public Works and oversaw street repair projects, his constant comments/complaints about streets being repaired/resurfaced that didn't need it but because a city councilor was doing a favor for a constituent, was a huge waste of money. Driving on our city's streets for a living and seeing what streets get resurfaced for no reason when other streets are in dire need also reeks of political influence. I will agree with the suggestion (made several times throughout the report) that a committee be formed that oversees what projects get done, thus removing (for the most part, I hope) streets getting repaved for a buddy.
The recommendation to charge a user fee to drive on certain streets because someone might live outside of Tulsa is just plain dumb. I'm envisioning stopping at every city/county limit to pay a toll because I don't live there. Give me a break.
One of the recommended ways to increase revenue was in naming right for streets. I can't wait to drive on Recycle Michael Way (unless he charges me a toll)!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 04, 2007, 09:04:44 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I can't wait to drive on Recycle Michael Way (unless he charges me a toll)!
I like the idea of my own road. Then I can drive in both lanes at once. When somebody yells out "Do you think you own the road?", I can say, "Why, yes, I do!"
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 04, 2007, 10:06:36 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
An interesting report, although, another recommendation for a raise in taxes has this republican saying, "here we go again." We are already at historically high sales taxes and, because we keep finding other things to spend money on, we need another tax to fund the basics, which were the original purposes of the tax in the first place.
Of what tax? The third penny? The city pretty much always spent that on infrastructure, roads and stormwater protection, mainly. Sewers were a mistake, because they could have been paid for through revenue, I'll grant you that. But the non-infrastructure exceptions, ironically since they are coming from you, are rolling stock, helos (twirling stock), and guns for the PD. I think the proper expression is, "Here we never went". We've never invested in maintenance like we should. And that's why our roads are a D, heading rapidly towards a failing grade. If you want to be sad, be sad about the fact that we didn't reinvest in our infrastructure 10 years ago, before China and India blew the roof off the cost of construction materials. quote:
Overall, materials and components for construction have risen an average of 4.4% per year from 1970-2006, but almost twice that level at 7.5% per year from 2003-2006. Highway construction materials and labor have not escaped the price increases. Between 1998 and 2005, the cost of materials for highway and street contractors increased 35.1% compared to a 19.6% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)1.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/cap_cost_infla_forecasting10-06.pdf
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Double A on December 04, 2007, 11:20:02 pm
At first glance, it sounds good except for one glaring thing:
Oil and Gas Drilling in the City. Once again, a bit unorthodox but we believe that the City Government needs to consider those “out of the box� opportunities to determine new sources of revenue that are not related to increased or new taxes. One such opportunity might be to allow leasing of the City’s mineral rights for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Although members of the oil and natural gas industry will say that commercially productive amounts of oil and natural gas in the Tulsa area will probably not make a huge contribution to the city’s needs, one never knows. New technologies and energy demands are providing new methods of making money in the energy industry. There are certainly drilling and production methods that are extremely safe for the environment and appropriate parameters can be required and enforced. There is no need for additional employees to monitor this activity – oversight can be acquired either on a contract basis or donated by appropriate private entities. One simply has to look at the Dallas - Ft. Worth Airport for an example of significant money paid for drilling opportunities. The City of Oklahoma City has long encouraged drilling within its city limits. In fact, its airport has been the recipient of substantial royalty revenues for a long time. There is no reason that we should close the door on this opportunity.
That's a deal breaker for me. This has no business being on a vote to fund roads. This should be a completely separate issue. Cason Carter started pushing drilling at the airport in Council Committee meetings recently. Guess he couldn't wait for the formal announcement. This what happens when foxes guard the hen house. Their own hunger and self interest is their main motivation. Besides, fossil fuels are so passe, I thought we are: Tulsa A New Kind of Energy.[;)]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kenosha on December 04, 2007, 11:31:26 pm
A deal breaker Double A???
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 05, 2007, 08:05:06 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
How about a little more analysis from someone who knows about street repair and maintenance that two mid-town Elitist Trust Fund babies who never worked an honest day's work in their entire lives?
Ask, and you shall receive:
Contracting Committee
ART COUCH
SHARON KING DAVIS
GENE HARRIS
BOB KUHN
BILL JONES
TOM SNYDER
Finance Committee
Mr. Jack O’Brien
Mr. Steve Mitchell
Mr. John Weidman
Mr. Kell Kelly
Mr. Howard Barnett
Mr. Ron Bussert
Mr. Dewey Bartlett.
Smart Urban Design Committee
Keith Franklin
John Lotti
Art Justis
Derek Gates
Jerry Lasker
Lisa Frankenberger
Surely you can't hate everybody on this list, right? Oh wait, we're talking about Friendly Bear.[;)]
quote:
Do NOT just throw more money at the problem.
They have lots of recommendations about contracting, urban design, financing, preventive maintenance. How 'bout you "Do NOT" start talking out your hindquarters until you've done at least a modicum of homework. Oh wait, we're talking about Friendly Bear.[;)]
quote:
The local road construction cartel, who are connected up the Wazoo with the local ruling power Oligarchy, and who happily share a tiny portion of their profits to fund the passage of every new and renewed local Tax, are being givin a free pass on SHODDY road construction and repairs that literally fall apart almost as soon as the yellow striping has dried.
That is the root cause of the problem, not Under-Spending.
Oh, and fire Charles Hardt and his cronies today, while we're at it.
Attaboy, FB. Blame the "oligarchy", that'll fix the streets. And fire a couple of city employees, that'll produce $1.6 billion for sure!
Where did you get the idea that I hate ANYONE on the list? I just don't see what special knowledge the leadership brings to the committee. A couple of privileged Mid-town trust fund babies who've never done an honest day's work in their life? Pshaw.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 05, 2007, 08:07:38 am
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, now that I got that bit of sarcasm out of the way that I've been saving up since last July, I was kinda surprised at the number at first. But if we've been about $1bn behind on maintenance and they are looking at expansion as well, $1.6 sounds about right. It's still a shot in the dark as there's not near enough time to put a finite figure on it.
That's fine though, as long as they have an on-going revenue source identified and not some tax which has to renew every x amount of years, that's all good work. It's needed.
Now all they need to do is promote Bob Dick as the street Czar so Friendly Bear will have plenty of reason to keep posting here.
[:P]
The return of Dirty Bob Dick would definitely bring the Bear out of hibernation.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kiah on December 05, 2007, 08:25:54 am
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first.
[}:)]
Post of the year . . . .
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: brunoflipper on December 05, 2007, 09:58:51 am
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Conan71 on December 05, 2007, 10:42:54 am
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
Bruno, unless there is some way the money can be squandered elsewhere other than roads, I'll vote for the taxes. Hopefully, the wording on city ballots isn't as full of back-door escape routes as county ballots.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: midtownnewbie on December 05, 2007, 10:45:15 am
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
+1
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Rico on December 05, 2007, 10:49:58 am
Something has to be done...
It would be nice to drive through town on roads similar to the Tisdale Expressway...
It is a shame the City could not place the "River Development and Streets" under one City ballot...
A permanent 1/2 penny for streets and a dissolving cost for "River Development"..
IMO that would have had a better chance of becoming reality..
Here is an article regarding Tulsa, from an Oklahoma City news article "Here's why we are Rooting for Downtown Tulsa" (http://"http://newsok.com/article/3176815/1196752289")
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 05, 2007, 12:24:46 pm
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
Are you trying to say the 'vote no people' pay NO TAXES. Our taxes are at historically high levels and look at the trouble we're in. Once I'm convinced that tax money doesn't get wasted on pet projects (I work for the government, I know) and we are at wits ends to pay for anything, then I'll consider an additional tax. But let me promise you something, WE AIN'T THERE YET. FAR FROM IT.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 01:28:06 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
Are you trying to say the 'vote no people' pay NO TAXES. Our taxes are at historically high levels and look at the trouble we're in.
Once I'm convinced that tax money doesn't get wasted on pet projects (I work for the government, I know) and we are at wits ends to pay for anything, then I'll consider an additional tax. But let me promise you something, WE AIN'T THERE YET. FAR FROM IT.
Pet projects like flood control? We've gone from the highest flood insurance rates in the country to the LOWEST. That's money in the pockets of Tulsans. Pet projects like helicopters? The PD says they need them and I, for one, believe them. We're a safer, better community because of these things, and I'll bet that they aren't free. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation. For another, the city of Tulsa has not raised your sales tax since 1983. (http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2711/salestaxgk9.jpg) Meanwhile, salaries, insurance, materials, fuel and just about everything else it takes to run a city have outpaced inflation dramatically. Public safety, for instance, has grown from 50% to 65% of the general fund since 1990! When you are dealing with a finite piece of pie, and things like that shift so dramatically, then other things go unattended. Things like streets. I'm no expert on gub'mint by any stretch, but I'm a quick study. Study this Council Report (http://"http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf") and tell me you are still convinced that we are the same city we were in 1983, and that we don't need to do anything to save our butts. And don't forget other little sales tax tidbits like, the explosive growth of retail in the suburban communities and internet sales.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Kenosha on December 05, 2007, 01:46:03 pm
From yesterday's Daily Oklahoman: quote:
Tue December 4, 2007
http://newsok.com/article/3176815/1196752289
Here's why we're rooting for downtown Tulsa
By Steve Lackmeyer
Main Street
Visit downtown Tulsa these days and you'll see for yourself a virtual construction zone. Streets are ripped up, sidewalks torn apart, and detour signs are just the outward signs of a city in transition.
Residents of the state's largest city bristle at comparisons to the transformation of downtown Oklahoma City. It's odd to be the outsider in Tulsa — visiting with ordinary folks, one gets the impression the two cities are in some sort of fierce rivalry where only one can emerge victorious.
Yet while traveling a few weeks back with a handful of some of Oklahoma City's most powerful corporate leaders, I heard nothing but concern for Tulsa.
The October flight coincided with two much-anticipated votes in both cities — a school bond election for Oklahoma City Public Schools and a sales tax to further development along Tulsa's Arkansas River corridor.
This may surprise Tulsans, but the Oklahoma City delegation was rooting for both issues to pass.
Their anxiety over the school bond election was easy to understand. After witnessing Oklahoma City's resurgence the past decade, they believe one of the biggest hurdles remaining is the city's schools.
But they were just as eager to see a win up in Tulsa. They cared because despite perceptions in their sister city, the state needs both cities to be economic powerhouses if it's to overcome historical disadvantages. And, yes, they were disappointed to hear the Tulsa tax had been voted down — even as the Oklahoma City school bond issue was winning by an almost historic margin of victory.
Tulsa isn't down for the count. The city's new arena is truly a masterpiece that Oklahoma City residents can only admire.
And the pain being encountered by businesses, downtown workers and visitors isn't without precedent. It was a decade ago that similar logistical nightmares were to be found throughout downtown Oklahoma City.
But the big success stories seem to be eluding downtown Tulsa; a development deal for a Wal-Mart fell through.
And there appears to be no sign that the once-ambitious plans heralded by Henry Kaufman and Maurice Kanbar for one-third of downtown Tulsa they bought two years ago will be fulfilled now that the two men have ended up in a court fight in San Francisco.
Some may also worry about recent reports that the operator of Tulsa's historic Brady Theater has discontinued its promotions and that, for now, the landmark no longer will be hosting performances as it has for decades. The Brady is more than just a downtown Tulsa institution. It is also the anchor for the city's fledgling entertainment district.
It's interesting that Oklahoma City, with a downtown area that has so little going for it, has come so far in the past decade. Consider all that downtown Tulsa has — not just the Brady, but also Cain's Ballroom; the incredible Art Deco downtown skyline; and a river that never needed to be mowed three times a year.
What's evident in Tulsa is that there is no unified vision for its downtown. I'm not sure that the impulse to look at Oklahoma City as a foe needing to be vanquished will revitalize Tulsa's inner-core.
But with time, and with vision and leadership, downtown Tulsa will thrive again. And I know many Oklahoma City folks who will be cheering for that resurgence with every bit of enthusiasm as they have for their own hometown.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 02:25:07 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask? Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th. Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 02:35:26 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
The Tax Foundation. Just so's you know, they are the premier tax watchdog group. They are the ones that came up with Tax Freedom Day (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day"). http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html or pdf http://taxfoundation.org/files/sl_burden_oklahoma-2007-04-04.pdf Why do you ask? Skeptical?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: spoonbill on December 05, 2007, 02:36:13 pm
Ogh! Watching our city try to work is exhausting.
The proposal I heard this morning was for an increase in property taxes to pay for the streets.
This would add a significant amount of money to mortgage payments (up to $20 a month for a $100k home).
This is so stupid and short sighted, I can't believe it.
An additional two penny gas tax would take care of our roads for a very long time. It would mean an extra spending of around $4 a month to the average oklahoma driver, and exceptionally more to heavy vehicles trucks and industry. This is a use tax that could be structured with an expiration date, and would not stifle growth like an increase in property tax.
But of course no one is going to touch this idea because a certain car rental company would be impacted.
You guys are killing me!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 02:44:19 pm
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Ogh! Watching our city try to work is exhausting.
The proposal I heard this morning was for an increase in property taxes to pay for the streets.
This would add a significant amount of money to mortgage payments (up to $20 a month for a $100k home).
This is so stupid and short sited, I can't believe it.
An additional two penny gas tax would take care of our roads for a very long time. It would mean an extra spending of around $4 a month to the average oklahoma driver, and exceptionally more to heavy vehicles trucks and industry. This is a use tax that could be structured with an expiration date, and would not stifle growth like an increase in property tax.
But of course no one is going to touch this idea because a certain car rental company would be impacted.
You guys are killing me!
No. Nobody is going to touch it because there was a STATEWIDE vote in 2005 and the gas tax failed miserably. And a local gas tax is stupid because people will simply buy their gas someplace else. It ain't Tulsa's fault, or Taylor's for that matter. I don't disagree that a gas tax would be a very appropriate solution, but I doubt the legislature is going to tackle this one again any time soon. It's great that you are thinking, but try not to spin so much, you are making me dizzy.[;)]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 02:45:19 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
The Tax Foundation. Just so's you know, they are the premier tax watchdog group. They are the ones that came up with Tax Freedom Day (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day").
http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html
or pdf
http://taxfoundation.org/files/sl_burden_oklahoma-2007-04-04.pdf
Why do you ask? Skeptical?
My edit and your answer crossed in the mail, so to speak. I ask because I like to look at source material. Some sources are more reliable than other. Don't be gettin' all defensive on me. ;-) As I mentioned above, I did note that the study you cited shows Oklahoma's state and local tax burden is 45th, not 50th. (Indeed, the overall burden drops to 50th when the federal tax burden is included.) Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden (which is, after all, what we are speaking of) compares to other cities?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 02:54:29 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.
Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Bates has tried, sort of. During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading. Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area. This is something that would take some research. I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[;)] Lemme know. I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita. What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money. KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof. I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: RecycleMichael on December 05, 2007, 03:02:02 pm
Since you brought up gas taxes...
The national average for total federal and state taxes on a gallon of gasoline is 42.0 cents.
Oklahoma is 35.4 cents
New Mexico is 36.4 cents
Texas is 38.4 cents
Arkansas is 40.1 cents
Kansas is 42.4 cents.
Only five states have lower overall gasoline taxes...Alaska, Georgia, New Jersey, South carolina and Wyoming
Wonder why we have crappy roads?
Because we won't pay for anything better.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 03:46:31 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.
Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Bates has tried, sort of. During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading. Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.
This is something that would take some research. I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[;)] Lemme know. I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita. What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money. KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof. I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation. I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 05, 2007, 03:52:43 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
From yesterday's Daily Oklahoman:
quote:
Tue December 4, 2007
http://newsok.com/article/3176815/1196752289
Here's why we're rooting for downtown Tulsa
By Steve Lackmeyer
Main Street
Visit downtown Tulsa these days and you'll see for yourself a virtual construction zone. Streets are ripped up, sidewalks torn apart, and detour signs are just the outward signs of a city in transition.
Residents of the state's largest city bristle at comparisons to the transformation of downtown Oklahoma City. It's odd to be the outsider in Tulsa — visiting with ordinary folks, one gets the impression the two cities are in some sort of fierce rivalry where only one can emerge victorious.
Yet while traveling a few weeks back with a handful of some of Oklahoma City's most powerful corporate leaders, I heard nothing but concern for Tulsa.
The October flight coincided with two much-anticipated votes in both cities — a school bond election for Oklahoma City Public Schools and a sales tax to further development along Tulsa's Arkansas River corridor.
This may surprise Tulsans, but the Oklahoma City delegation was rooting for both issues to pass.
Their anxiety over the school bond election was easy to understand. After witnessing Oklahoma City's resurgence the past decade, they believe one of the biggest hurdles remaining is the city's schools.
But they were just as eager to see a win up in Tulsa. They cared because despite perceptions in their sister city, the state needs both cities to be economic powerhouses if it's to overcome historical disadvantages. And, yes, they were disappointed to hear the Tulsa tax had been voted down — even as the Oklahoma City school bond issue was winning by an almost historic margin of victory.
Tulsa isn't down for the count. The city's new arena is truly a masterpiece that Oklahoma City residents can only admire.
And the pain being encountered by businesses, downtown workers and visitors isn't without precedent. It was a decade ago that similar logistical nightmares were to be found throughout downtown Oklahoma City.
But the big success stories seem to be eluding downtown Tulsa; a development deal for a Wal-Mart fell through.
And there appears to be no sign that the once-ambitious plans heralded by Henry Kaufman and Maurice Kanbar for one-third of downtown Tulsa they bought two years ago will be fulfilled now that the two men have ended up in a court fight in San Francisco.
Some may also worry about recent reports that the operator of Tulsa's historic Brady Theater has discontinued its promotions and that, for now, the landmark no longer will be hosting performances as it has for decades. The Brady is more than just a downtown Tulsa institution. It is also the anchor for the city's fledgling entertainment district.
It's interesting that Oklahoma City, with a downtown area that has so little going for it, has come so far in the past decade. Consider all that downtown Tulsa has — not just the Brady, but also Cain's Ballroom; the incredible Art Deco downtown skyline; and a river that never needed to be mowed three times a year.
What's evident in Tulsa is that there is no unified vision for its downtown. I'm not sure that the impulse to look at Oklahoma City as a foe needing to be vanquished will revitalize Tulsa's inner-core.
But with time, and with vision and leadership, downtown Tulsa will thrive again. And I know many Oklahoma City folks who will be cheering for that resurgence with every bit of enthusiasm as they have for their own hometown.
Daily Dissapointment getting it right on target? What's with all the other districts like Pearl and East End and on and on? Spot on editorial. Makes you wonder who's feeding the editorial staff informtion....Aox?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: swake on December 05, 2007, 03:53:09 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.
Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Bates has tried, sort of. During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading. Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.
This is something that would take some research. I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[;)] Lemme know. I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita. What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money. KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof. I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.
I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: swake on December 05, 2007, 04:03:24 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.
Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Bates has tried, sort of. During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading. Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.
This is something that would take some research. I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[;)] Lemme know. I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita. What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money. KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof. I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.
I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: PonderInc on December 05, 2007, 04:05:53 pm
Last time the 3rd penny sales tax came up for a vote, I did an analysis of where all the money for roads was going. The proposed projects showed 90% of the money for "street and expressway" improvement was earmarked for south of 61st and/or east of Mingo. Therein lies the problem.
Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million. Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads. Let's focus our energy on all forms of transportation and strategies of development that would take cars OFF the roads, instead of making the roads bigger and suitable only for cars.
Another idea: The committee has proposed a general obligation bond that would add about 15 mills to the city’s property tax rate, which would translate to an extra $12.50 a month for a $100,000 home.
Instead, let's increase property taxes on a sliding scale depending upon how close you are to downtown. The people who spend the most time driving (the people furthest out) should pay the most for roads. The nearer you live to downtown, the cheaper your tax rate should be. Why encourage suburban living at the fringes of our city limits...when those are the areas that will cost the most to "fix" (widen)...and ultimately contribute to our inability to maintain ALL of the streets in Tulsa.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 04:08:18 pm
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.
What is you source for that, if I may ask?
Never mind, I found it. I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.
Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?
Bates has tried, sort of. During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading. Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.
This is something that would take some research. I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[;)] Lemme know. I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita. What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money. KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof. I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.
I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.
By whom?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 04:11:44 pm
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million. Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads.
The bond issue that SOS is recommending is exclusivly for rehab...no expansion. They are making that distinction, and I think they are going to give us the choice. Or, at least I hope that's what it leads to. Rehab is one thing, expansion is another in my book.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: PonderInc on December 05, 2007, 04:21:35 pm
I noticed that the Finance committee's report includes something called "Special Assessment Districts" (SAD). This would allow "willing neighborhoods" to tax themselves for the purpose of sidewalks, greenbelts, parks, bikelanes, trails...
This strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how this would help Tulsa...though it might help already rich neighborhoods become nicer...while excusing the city (and its citizens) from our responsibility to ALL Tulsans who think that greenspace, parks, and safe sidewalks are not ammenities, but necessities to quality of life.
This reminds me that we are sort of Balkanized already, and that there are people who don't care if folks in certain parts of town have nice public spaces...as long as they have them in their own little gated communities.
Sorry folks, but my community is ALL of Tulsa. (Despite my downtown/midtown bias). I want it all to be nice/beautiful...not just the already affluent neighborhoods. I want all kids to get a chance to experience nature/greenbelts/parks and safe sidewalks and bike trails.
As soon as certain neighborhoods start "paying to play," they will feel justified to "opt out" of paying for improvements city-wide. ("We paid for our park space. If you want park space, go earn the money yourself!") This is not the definition of community. And my instinct is that this would be a bad idea for Tulsa.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 05, 2007, 04:33:29 pm
I agree.
Such a Brookside sound to it....SAD but true.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 04:46:33 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.
I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Well, then. You are easier to please than I thought.[;)] From the same Council Report linked above: (http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/9172/tulsaokcww9.jpg) This shows that the city's take is substantially lower than OKC's: The property tax millage is lower nearly 21% lower than OKC's, and the sales tax take is nearly 23%.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 04:55:02 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited. That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.
I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma. The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.
Well, then. You are easier to please than I thought.[;)]
From the same Council Report linked above:
(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7873/tulsaokcjh4.jpg)
This shows that the city's take is substantially lower than OKC's: The property tax millage is lower nearly 21% lower than OKC's, and the sales tax take is nearly 23%.
I see that. Very interesting. But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa). I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes. Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes? A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.) Note, too, that Tulsa's city budget is already higher, per capita, than is Oklahoma City's (even though, as mentioned above, Tulsa's arena and other 2025 items are in the county's budget).
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 05:19:40 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I see that. Very interesting. But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa).
Yes, but much of that County 1.017% is in projects outside Tulsa or projects with countywide benefit, i.e. Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix, so, you can't quite lump in all of that 1.017% and say that Tulsa the city is grabbing more than OKC. That wouldn't be fair, either. You can argue that Tulsans are STILL subsidizing the growth of our neighbors, but that's been a problem since Inhofe was mayor. It does s*ck though. quote:
I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes. Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes? A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.)
They may. go look at that Council Report. It's a goodn'. The county millages pay for the same things. The one thing I can see from the pie charts is that a much bigger piece of the county's pie goes to community college/vo-tech. TCC is one of the best community colleges in the country, so, that makes sense. I don't think you need to dig much deeper than this though, to determine that the city is not exactly running hog wild in comparison to OKC, and in the end, they are the ones that are going to have to fix the streets. The county, may be a little wild. The World says they increased their budget by 17% this year, that seems like pretty hefty growth for one year.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Oil Capital on December 05, 2007, 05:53:53 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I see that. Very interesting. But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa).
Yes, but much of that County 1.017% is in projects outside Tulsa or projects with countywide benefit, i.e. Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix, so, you can't quite lump in all of that 1.017% and say that Tulsa the city is grabbing more than OKC. That wouldn't be fair, either. You can argue that Tulsans are STILL subsidizing the growth of our neighbors, but that's been a problem in Inhofe was mayor. It does s*ck though.
quote:
I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes. Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes? A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.)
They may. go look at that Council Report. It's a goodn'. The county millages pay for the same things. The one thing I can see from the pie charts is that a much bigger piece of the county's pie goes to community college/vo-tech. TCC is one of the best community colleges in the country, so, that makes sense.
I don't think you need to dig much deeper than this though, to determine that the city is not exactly running hog wild in comparison to OKC, and in the end, they are the ones that are going to have to fix the streets. The county, may be a little wild. The World says they increased their budget by 17% this year, that seems like pretty hefty growth for one year.
I'm not quite ready to give them the pass you are. If I read this thread correctly (and if the poster was accurate), the proposal is to add 15 mills to our property tax. That would make our rate a whopping 73% higher than OKC's, in addition to the higher sales taxes we already pay (yes, some of that pays for things outside the city, but by far the majority of it is being spent in Tulsa (BOK Center, Convention Center, OU, OSU, American Airlines +++), so at best, we are probably paying at least the same amount in sales taxes when comparing apples to apples. I'll take a look at the council report and see what else I can learn.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Double A on December 05, 2007, 07:13:26 pm
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I noticed that the Finance committee's report includes something called "Special Assessment Districts" (SAD). This would allow "willing neighborhoods" to tax themselves for the purpose of sidewalks, greenbelts, parks, bikelanes, trails...
This strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how this would help Tulsa...though it might help already rich neighborhoods become nicer...while excusing the city (and its citizens) from our responsibility to ALL Tulsans who think that greenspace, parks, and safe sidewalks are not ammenities, but necessities to quality of life.
This reminds me that we are sort of Balkanized already, and that there are people who don't care if folks in certain parts of town have nice public spaces...as long as they have them in their own little gated communities.
Sorry folks, but my community is ALL of Tulsa. (Despite my downtown/midtown bias). I want it all to be nice/beautiful...not just the already affluent neighborhoods. I want all kids to get a chance to experience nature/greenbelts/parks and safe sidewalks and bike trails.
As soon as certain neighborhoods start "paying to play," they will feel justified to "opt out" of paying for improvements city-wide. ("We paid for our park space. If you want park space, go earn the money yourself!") This is not the definition of community. And my instinct is that this would be a bad idea for Tulsa.
My sentiments exactly.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Double A on December 05, 2007, 07:40:06 pm
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Last time the 3rd penny sales tax came up for a vote, I did an analysis of where all the money for roads was going. The proposed projects showed 90% of the money for "street and expressway" improvement was earmarked for south of 61st and/or east of Mingo. Therein lies the problem.
Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million. Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads. Let's focus our energy on all forms of transportation and strategies of development that would take cars OFF the roads, instead of making the roads bigger and suitable only for cars.
Another idea: The committee has proposed a general obligation bond that would add about 15 mills to the city’s property tax rate, which would translate to an extra $12.50 a month for a $100,000 home.
Instead, let's increase property taxes on a sliding scale depending upon how close you are to downtown. The people who spend the most time driving (the people furthest out) should pay the most for roads. The nearer you live to downtown, the cheaper your tax rate should be. Why encourage suburban living at the fringes of our city limits...when those are the areas that will cost the most to "fix" (widen)...and ultimately contribute to our inability to maintain ALL of the streets in Tulsa.
I like that idea. I also think we should encourage the state legislature to bring back auto inspections to help raise money to fund road maintenance.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 05, 2007, 08:13:14 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...
and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?
this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...
if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...
Are you trying to say the 'vote no people' pay NO TAXES. Our taxes are at historically high levels and look at the trouble we're in.
Once I'm convinced that tax money doesn't get wasted on pet projects (I work for the government, I know) and we are at wits ends to pay for anything, then I'll consider an additional tax. But let me promise you something, WE AIN'T THERE YET. FAR FROM IT.
Pet projects like flood control? We've gone from the highest flood insurance rates in the country to the LOWEST. That's money in the pockets of Tulsans. Pet projects like helicopters? The PD says they need them and I, for one, believe them. We're a safer, better community because of these things, and I'll bet that they aren't free.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes. For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation. For another, the city of Tulsa has not raised your sales tax since 1983.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2711/salestaxgk9.jpg)
Meanwhile, salaries, insurance, materials, fuel and just about everything else it takes to run a city have outpaced inflation dramatically. Public safety, for instance, has grown from 50% to 65% of the general fund since 1990! When you are dealing with a finite piece of pie, and things like that shift so dramatically, then other things go unattended. Things like streets. I'm no expert on gub'mint by any stretch, but I'm a quick study. Study this Council Report (http://"http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf") and tell me you are still convinced that we are the same city we were in 1983, and that we don't need to do anything to save our butts. And don't forget other little sales tax tidbits like, the explosive growth of retail in the suburban communities and internet sales.
I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project. I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending. I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed. What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in. And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed. As we add more and more sales taxes, we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher. That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass). When we stop spending money on waste projects like: resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads. But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about. Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 05, 2007, 08:17:56 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first.
[}:)]
Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority. Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire. How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river? Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets. Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profliglacy. Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa? To quote mayoral candidate Kathy: THAT'S CRAZY! [^]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Renaissance on December 05, 2007, 08:59:06 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first.
[}:)]
Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority.
Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire.
How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river?
Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets.
Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profiglacy.
Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa?
To quote mayoral candidate Kathy: THAT'S CRAZY!
[^]
The Mayor hasn't yet endorsed any tax increases.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 09:29:49 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project. I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending.
You are right in a myopic way. They did prioritize flood control...at the expense of streets. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what "capable government leaders" do? Really? quote:
I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed.
I don't think so. Some of the most dangerous areas have been addressed, Mingo Creek, for example. But I thought we weren't even half way done with flood control. quote:
What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in.
How is it the city's fault that the state and county have jacked the sales tax rate? The city has been trying to do it on the same 3 cents since 1983. Why do I have to repeat this? quote:
And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed.
No, let's not agree because that is not the case. The city apparently has fewer employees than it did a decade ago. (http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/4514/employeeswa1.png) I think the bloat is in your head, friend. And I didn't say anything about "skyrocketing", I'm not even complaining. I'm just saying that if your salary increases are averaging more than about 2.8% a year, then you are outpacing inflation, and you are whittling away at a pie that is not growing. quote:
As we add more and more sales taxes,
Please study this council report (http://"http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf"), I'm getting pretty sick of posting every other page. Be a big boy and do your homework. When adjusted for inflation, Tulsa sales tax is the same as it was in 1996. The pie ain't growing. quote:
we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher. That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass).
Dude. Your sales tax rate hasn't changed in 24 years. Your revenue has been flat for 10 years. You have fewer employees than you did 10 years ago. And you depend heavily on things that have outpaced inflation: fuel, asphalt, health insurance, etc. THAT is why our streets are a wreck. We've been trying to squeeze blood from a turnip for so long that we can't even mow a freakin' park or fix a pothole. quote:
When we stop spending money on waste projects like: resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads. But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about.
Tulsa's street condition was rated one of the top ten worst in the nation a couple of years ago...I'm looking for the reference, but, trust me, many of us remember the thread. quote:
Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.
Dude...they are a D grade. If we don't do something dramatic very soon, we will all have to start driving ATVs to work. And those d*mn things are dangerous. Listen. I know you Republican conservatives do most of your thinking with your gut, not your head. But truthiness is not going to fix our streets. Learn something and try to understand that you can't just use a City like toilet paper. You have to take care of it.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Conan71 on December 05, 2007, 10:12:20 pm
Mayor Taylor drew short straw on this one. No I've definitely not agreed with all her new tax and spending initiatives. But what's the answer on this? Do nothing and in another 20 years we'll find ourselves driving on roads which have been reduced to rutted wagon trails.
This has been a pass-along problem for at least the last 20 years, if not longer, and now we are at a point of relative cataclysm with our streets.
Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government. One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them. There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.
I'm not saying this as a dodge to keep from paying more taxes, I'm suggesting this as a way to shift funds and accellerate road repairs and improvements.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 10:14:10 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I'm not quite ready to give them the pass you are.
If I read this thread correctly (and if the poster was accurate), the proposal is to add 15 mills to our property tax. That would make our rate a whopping 73% higher than OKC's, in addition to the higher sales taxes we already pay (yes, some of that pays for things outside the city, but by far the majority of it is being spent in Tulsa (BOK Center, Convention Center, OU, OSU, American Airlines +++), so at best, we are probably paying at least the same amount in sales taxes when comparing apples to apples.
I'll take a look at the council report and see what else I can learn.
Yes, the SOS report recommends a bond issue that is 15 mills "at the peak". http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/streetreportBundle.pdf quote:
A General Obligation Bond issue (utilizing 20 year bonds) of at least $650 million
should be placed before the voters on the general election ballot for the City elections in
April, 2008, to allow the funding to be considered in the 2009 budget cycle. These bonds
would be issued over approximately 5 years and, at the peak, would increase the millage
rate in Tulsa approximately 15 mills. This would translate to an increase in property taxes
of approximately $12.50 per month for a house of $100,000 assessed value. This would
decrease fairly rapidly as currently outstanding bonds are paid off.
Emphasis mine. I'm not exactly "whopped" [;)], but yes, that would be more than double the city's millage rate from property tax for about five years. It's significant, but maybe it's worth it.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: AVERAGE JOE on December 05, 2007, 10:26:19 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government. One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them. There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.
Wilbur's last post was shot down by facts. The city has 168 fewer authorized employees than in 1996. The city payroll does not keep growing with new jobs.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 05, 2007, 10:34:08 pm
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government. One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them. There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.
Wilbur's last post was shot down by facts. The city has 168 fewer authorized employees than in 1996. The city payroll does not keep growing with new jobs.
"Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support." ~ Stephen Colbert
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 06, 2007, 07:14:00 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project. I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending.
You are right in a myopic way. They did prioritize flood control...at the expense of streets. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what "capable government leaders" do? Really?
quote:
I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed.
I don't think so. Some of the most dangerous areas have been addressed, Mingo Creek, for example. But I thought we weren't even half way done with flood control.
quote:
What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in.
How is it the city's fault that the state and county have jacked the sales tax rate? The city has been trying to do it on the same 3 cents since 1983. Why do I have to repeat this?
quote:
And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed.
No, let's not agree because that is not the case. The city apparently has fewer employees than it did a decade ago.
(http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/4514/employeeswa1.png)
I think the bloat is in your head, friend. And I didn't say anything about "skyrocketing", I'm not even complaining. I'm just saying that if your salary increases are averaging more than about 2.8% a year, then you are outpacing inflation, and you are whittling away at a pie that is not growing.
quote:
As we add more and more sales taxes,
Please study this council report (http://"http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf"), I'm getting pretty sick of posting every other page. Be a big boy and do your homework. When adjusted for inflation, Tulsa sales tax is the same as it was in 1996. The pie ain't growing.
quote:
we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher. That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass).
Dude. Your sales tax rate hasn't changed in 24 years. Your revenue has been flat for 10 years. You have fewer employees than you did 10 years ago. And you depend heavily on things that have outpaced inflation: fuel, asphalt, health insurance, etc. THAT is why our streets are a wreck. We've been trying to squeeze blood from a turnip for so long that we can't even mow a freakin' park or fix a pothole.
quote:
When we stop spending money on waste projects like: resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads. But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about.
Tulsa's street condition was rated one of the top ten worst in the nation a couple of years ago...I'm looking for the reference, but, trust me, many of us remember the thread.
quote:
Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.
Dude...they are a D grade. If we don't do something dramatic very soon, we will all have to start driving ATVs to work. And those d*mn things are dangerous.
Listen. I know you Republican conservatives do most of your thinking with your gut, not your head. But truthiness is not going to fix our streets. Learn something and try to understand that you can't just use a City like toilet paper. You have to take care of it.
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for....... And please look at the big picture, not just little bits. The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 07:14:33 am
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL! I'll knee jerk if I wanna!
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf
We have bigger priorities than streets. Let's do the river first.
[}:)]
Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority.
Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire.
How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river?
Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets.
Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profiglacy.
Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa?
To quote mayoral candidate Kathy: THAT'S CRAZY!
[^]
The Mayor hasn't yet endorsed any tax increases.
I don't think you'll have to hold your breath in anticipation very long........ Her comments about the Committee Report were practically an enthusiastic endorsement.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 07:37:20 am
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I don't think you'll have to hold your breath in anticipation very long........
Her comments about the Committee Report were practically an enthusiastic endorsement.
Maybe that was because she heard from a zillion citizens to, "fix the streets, first!" She's giving them the opportunity to vote that way. There's nothing wrong with that.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: AVERAGE JOE on December 06, 2007, 09:15:09 am
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......
And please look at the big picture, not just little bits. The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
You need to care. Fixing the streets is a city of tulsa issue. The city of tulsa hasn't raised the sales tax in over 30 years. Same 2 cents plus the 3rd penny. The sales tax went up because of the state and the county (4 to Fix, Vision 2025) yet the mayor gets the blame? The city's expenditures are at record high because of inflation on goods and services. Every year will be a new "record" high. That doesn't mean the growth has kept pace with needs, and particularly with the backlog of infrastructure projects. Bottom line: Tulsa has deferred street maintenance projects for decades -- partially because we couldn't afford to do more and partially because we bit off more than we could chew by sprawling outward so far. We have far more miles of infrastructure than we have population to support it. Unfortuntately, the bill's come due.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 09:20:23 am
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.
Well, maybe you should care. One tax get's you an arena that you may use 4 or 5 times a year. And another gets you streets that you use every day for work and everything else in your life. quote:
Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......
I'm not trying to tell you that. In fact, I just said that. The County's sales tax rose to 1.017% precisely for those reasons. The fact remains, the city hasn't raised your sales tax since 1983. Are you going to hold the city accountable for something the county does? 'Cause that sounds like what you are trying to do. quote:
And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.
Those "little bits" are what some like to call "facts", and they are pesky. The big picture is, your tax burden is low. Most Americans pay more than you do. So, are you willing to let this city go down the tubes because you feel that your taxes are high, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise? quote:
The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
Don't be mislead. The two pennies, and the 3rd penny, of sales tax rise with inflation, no quicker, no slower. A dollar today does not buy what it did yesterday...period. So, this "record high" cr*p is exactly that, cr*p. The city hasn't raised your taxes since 1983. And yet, many of the things that it takes to run a city HAVE risen faster than inflation: concrete, asphalt, health insurance, real estate, etc. Tulsa can't buy cheap goods from China to make up the difference. Same piece of pie, but that pie buys a lot less. What do you think happens after 24 years of this? You try to stretch your dollar as far as it can go. And, when you reach the limit, you start making sacrifices. I am trying to look at the big picture, Wilbur. And this city seems to do a better job than many in giving me some things to study. I'm trying to figure this out on my own, I don't know much about this kind of business, but as a citizen, I think I should. So, I'm learning. Are you?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 10:18:07 am
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Bottom line: Tulsa has deferred street maintenance projects for decades -- partially because we couldn't afford to do more and partially because we bit off more than we could chew by sprawling outward so far. We have far more miles of infrastructure than we have population to support it. Unfortuntately, the bill's come due.
Emphasis mine. Excellent point. Unless we want to continue to raise taxes again and again, we have to change the way we build. Looking it up (http://"http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=65158"), Portland has 3,748 lane miles of streets. From that very informative council report, we learn that Tulsa has 4,312 non-expressway lane miles. But look at the 2006 population estimates (http://"http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/census/popestimate/2006-subcounty-population-hawaii/SUB_EST2006_01.xls"): Portland - 537,081 vs. Tulsa - 382,872. So, Portland has 143 persons per lane mile and Tulsa has 88 persons per lane mile. They have an additional 55 persons per lane mile supporting their streets. All things being equal, they would probably pay 38% less to maintain their streets. More likely, they can afford to maintain their streets, and we are struggling. Portland is a compact city, we aren't. Do we want to stay spread out and inefficient, or do we want to change? This is precisely why I'm not yet in favor of adding lane miles. Fix what we have, sure, that's a must. But before we jump out and add to the problems, we need to re-examine how we develop. The SOS committees' recommendations seem to have split this out the same way, and I'm happy about that.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 10:21:05 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.
Well, maybe you should care. One tax get's you an arena that you may use 4 or 5 times a year. And another gets you streets that you use every day for work and everything else in your life.
quote:
Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......
I'm not trying to tell you that. In fact, I just said that. The County's sales tax rose to 1.017% precisely for those reasons. The fact remains, the city hasn't raised your sales tax since 1983. Are you going to hold the city accountable for something the county does? 'Cause that sounds like what you are trying to do.
quote:
And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.
Those "little bits" are what some like to call "facts", and they are pesky. The big picture is, your tax burden is low. Most Americans pay more than you do. So, are you willing to let this city go down the tubes because you feel that your taxes are high, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise?
quote:
The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
Don't be mislead. The two pennies, and the 3rd penny, of sales tax rise with inflation, no quicker, no slower. A dollar today does not buy what it did yesterday...period. So, this "record high" cr*p is exactly that, cr*p. The city hasn't raised your taxes since 1983. And yet, many of the things that it takes to run a city HAVE risen faster than inflation: concrete, asphalt, health insurance, real estate, etc. Tulsa can't buy cheap goods from China to make up the difference. Same piece of pie, but that pie buys a lot less. What do you think happens after 24 years of this? You try to stretch your dollar as far as it can go. And, when you reach the limit, you start making sacrifices. I am trying to look at the big picture, Wilbur. And this city seems to do a better job that many in giving me some things to study. I'm trying to figure this out on my own, I don't know much about this kind of business, but as a citizen, I think I should. So, I'm learning. Are you?
As far as holding city officials accountable, let's take a short trip down Memory Lane: Former Mayor LaFortune was one of the chief cheerleaders for the Vision 2025 COUNTY-wide tax, which got Tulsa the downtown Arena which we don't actually need (and built the Rooneys and Flints another layer to their fortunes, which they definitely DO NEED to FEED their GREED). And, the city will have to expend operating funds to clean, guard, heat and cool that White Elephant for as long as it sits them, mostly empty. Occassionally, it will be full, like when they give the house away to get a celebrity like Celine Dion. Uh, but SMG isn't exactly giving away the tickets, are they? $49.50 for the CHEAPEST ticket? It won't be full with either Arena Football or the Ice Oilers, either. They can't even half fill their Maxwell Assembly Center venue. Letting the county carve into basically the ONLY funding source for city operations was stupid for our former city "leaders" to support. Dumb and Dumber. County government's poaching on the city sales tax territory started with the Whirlpool Sales Tax. Remember. It's all about jobs. And, Corporate Welfare. Continued with the Jail Sales Tax to fund a Super-Max Jail. And, was renewed 2x under the 4-to-Fix-the-County Sales tax. Rising Real Estate prices the past 10 years already made Tulsa County government rich. They haven't been able to spend it fast enough, but they sure TRIED real hard with CCA running the money-pit jail. Now, that the city has let the streets go to hell through mismanagement, and they feel they've softened us up from a few years of REALLY bad streets, they want to Punish the Innocent by raising our sales and property taxes by a huge amount. All because Terry Young, Dick Crawford, Roger Randall, Susan Savage, Bill LaFortune, and Kathy Taylor's mismanagement? And, throw in Charles Hardt, too. He should be fired, along with his chief deputies. New Mayor Kathy Taylor, who inherited the road problems, showed she too was astoundingly DUMB in supporting the County River Tax, because if it had passed, it would have again sucked the Oxygen totally out of any attempt by the city to raise sales taxes. Broken Arrow's city leadership could see that problem was going to hurt their future sales tax grabs, and they vehemently fought against the Kaiser County River Tax. And, the Kaiser County River Tax may after all still killed City of Tulsa's chances to raise sales taxes so soon after its failure. People aren't really so dumb as to forget that a mere 60 days ago, our local leaders were shouting just like CHICKEN LITTLE, that the sky would fall if we didn't pass the Kaiser River Tax. The Kaiser County River Tax was their #1 Priority. NOT streets. Well, Tulsa County did NOT pass it Oct. 9, and the sky did not fall, and the Arkansas river is still, there if not actually flowing there nonetheless. And, I want to thank the Kaiser Family Foundation for widening the bike and jogging trails. Thank you. Now because the River Tax failed, you just don't have Atkins-Benham (one of the active promoters) vacumning money out our pockets moving sand around in the River. Last little memory: I'll just bet Beeco and Sherwood Construction are in orgasmic ectasy over the proposed $1.6 BILLION in road construction taxes. For them, that would be AT LEAST 10 YEARS OF FEAST. [:P]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: TeeDub on December 06, 2007, 10:25:28 am
It also helps the city when they change their own city sales tax code. Prior to July 31, 2006 the law required 33.3 % of the sales tax revenue to go into capital improvements..... Now, only 15% needs to do that.
As for value of the dollar, and the fact that they haven't raised rates in years, you did not address the fact that not only has consumer spending gone up (thereby raising the amount of revenue collected) but the value of the dollar has worked for/against both sides evenly. While yes, there is inflation, it effects both the cost of consumer goods (and therefore tax revenue) and the purchasing power of that 3% evenly.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: TeeDub on December 06, 2007, 10:30:59 am
I figured I had better back up my statements... See section 118.
http://www.cityauditorphilwood.com/ordinances/43-TAX.pdf
I guess they needed that extra revenue to make up for the loss in city jobs.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 10:33:37 am
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
It also helps the city when they change their own city sales tax code. Prior to July 31, 2006 the law required 33.3 % of the sales tax revenue to go into capital improvements..... Now, only 15% needs to do that.
As for value of the dollar, and the fact that they haven't raised rates in years, you did not address the fact that not only has consumer spending gone up (thereby raising the amount of revenue collected) but the value of the dollar has worked for/against both sides evenly. While yes, there is inflation, it effects both the cost of consumer goods (and therefore tax revenue) and the purchasing power of that 3% evenly.
The citizens of Oklahoma (and Tulsa) need TABOR to control the tax-and-spend Crack Addicts that are selected by the local ruling Oligarch Families. TABOR is simple. NO tax should increase greater than the proportion of increase in population and inflation combined. NEVER. You can see how important it is for the Tax Vampires to kill TABOR. They are even trying to IMPRISON three of the organizers on the flimsiest of charges. The Wall Street Journal even took note of Mr. Edmundsen legal charade.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 10:59:07 am
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
As far as holding city officials accountable,
let's take a short trip down Memory Lane:
Former Mayor LaFortune was one of the chief cheerleaders for the Vision 2025 COUNTY-wide tax...
He was held accountable, don't you remember? The regionalist was booted, in spite of the endorsement from hawks like Bates. You'll get no argument from me about the arena...it won't be the cure-all that they claimed it will. Duh. I am pleased, however, to see that the city is trying to make the best of it. The sidewalk improvements will really help downtown. The secondary improvements may end up sparking a revitalization after all. I'm more optimistic than I used to be. quote:
Rising Real Estate prices the past 10 years already made Tulsa County government rich.
Yes. And the county grew it's budget by 17% this year. It's darn easy to find fault in them. But it won't fix our streets now, will it? quote:
And, the Kaiser County River Tax may after all still killed City of Tulsa's chances to raise sales taxes so soon after its failure.
Maybe. We'll see. This is a different animal, IMO. quote:
People aren't really so dumb as to forget that a mere 60 days ago, our local leaders were shouting just like CHICKEN LITTLE, that the sky would fall if we didn't pass the Kaiser River Tax.
If you will recall, I was on the fence for months on that one. I never believed that and I never said that. In the end, the free private money prompted me to vote for it. Granted, I was more than happy, after the fact, to rail on a few morons who suddenly realized they had turned down a $117 million, and thought that they should rewrite history in order to cover their butts. quote:
The Kaiser County River Tax was their #1 Priority. NOT streets.
$117 million, dude. It gets attention. So do giant potholes.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 11:17:52 am
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
It also helps the city when they change their own city sales tax code. Prior to July 31, 2006 the law required 33.3 % of the sales tax revenue to go into capital improvements..... Now, only 15% needs to do that.
The third penny does not go for salaries, it goes for capital stuff. One--Two--Three. 33.3333333333333333%...still the same. quote:
As for value of the dollar, and the fact that they haven't raised rates in years, you did not address the fact that not only has consumer spending gone up (thereby raising the amount of revenue collected) but the value of the dollar has worked for/against both sides evenly. While yes, there is inflation, it effects both the cost of consumer goods (and therefore tax revenue) and the purchasing power of that 3% evenly.
No, not when the prices of things that a city needs to operate outpace the CPI. Look: (http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3339/inflationeg7.jpg) The black line is the CPI. Inflation (CPI) from 2002 to 2006 = 3%. Construction costs in the same period rose 13%. Do you see the differential, or is it still obscured by hot air?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 11:21:45 am
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The citizens of Oklahoma (and Tulsa) need TABOR to control the tax-and-spend Crack Addicts that are selected by the local ruling Oligarch Families.
TABOR is simple. NO tax should increase greater than the proportion of increase in population and inflation combined.
NEVER.
You can see how important it is for the Tax Vampires to kill TABOR. They are even trying to IMPRISON three of the organizers on the flimsiest of charges.
The Wall Street Journal even took note of Mr. Edmundsen legal charade.
You have got to be kiddin' me. First off, wrong thread, TABOInsanity is state level. Go start a thread on TABOR and I'll be more than happy to tell you how you are wrong.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 11:42:33 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The citizens of Oklahoma (and Tulsa) need TABOR to control the tax-and-spend Crack Addicts that are selected by the local ruling Oligarch Families.
TABOR is simple. NO tax should increase greater than the proportion of increase in population and inflation combined.
NEVER.
You can see how important it is for the Tax Vampires to kill TABOR. They are even trying to IMPRISON three of the organizers on the flimsiest of charges.
The Wall Street Journal even took note of Mr. Edmundsen legal charade.
You have got to be kiddin' me. First off, wrong thread, TABOInsanity is state level. Go start a thread on TABOR and I'll be more than happy to tell you how you are wrong.
First off, TRY to be nicer. I'm not your enemy. Merely a friendly Bear. Second, the TABOR comment is directly related to the APPETITE For local (and state officials) to ALWAYS propose raising taxes to fix problems their own actions (or misadministration) have caused. Third, we can debate why Mayor MisFortunate lost re-election until the cows come home. I suspect the real reason the GOP voted only 41% for him in the GOP Mayoral Primary was because he RAN as a Reformer against the RECORD Of former Mayor Susan Savage, yet once elected, he proceeded to REFORM: NADA. He was a money-establishment mouthpiece with a well-known last name. that tried to thwart any reform actitivies of a re-invigorated BI-PARTISAN Reform City Coalition. Remember Cameron and Reynolds, anyone? Remember Margaret Erling and $100K lobbying job on the city payroll? Remember low-rate 40-year Water deals with Bixby and Owasso to subsidize their housing developers? I suspect that promoting the Vision 2025 Sales Tax did cost him some votes from his GOP base. But, he had seriously disenfranchised whatever base long before the Mayoral Election. When an INCUMBEMBENT Mayor gets only 41% of the vote in a GOP Primary then he's a certifiable Dead Man Walking...in the general election. Fourth, my reference to Chicken Little was to your eponymous Nursery Rhyme relative: Chicken Little of " The Sky is Falling" Chicken Little fame. Not the TulsaNow.net Forum FB Detractor infamous Chicken Little. Mistaken identity, there, CL. [^]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 11:54:40 am
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
...TABOR comment is directly related...
Nope. Wrong. Different level of government. Different can of worms. It's off-topic. Start one if you want. quote:
Third, we can debate why Mayor MisFortunate lost re-election until the cows come home.
Not necessary, because it won't fix our streets. Refer to the thread title, "'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations". quote:
Remember Cameron and Reynolds, anyone?
Regionalism is, directly, a reason that Tulsa does not have the extra money. People in the 'burbs used to shop in Tulsa, now they shop in their hometown. This sales-tax "leakage" has made it more difficult to fix the streets, no doubt. Internet sales have also taken a toll. quote:
Fourth, my reference to Chicken Little was to your eponymous Nursery Rhyme relative: Chicken Little of "The Sky is Falling" Chicken Little fame.
Fine. Apology accepted.[;)] FB, you're getting your can kicked all around the block on this streets issue, and all we've got is a couple of documents from the city council and SOS committee. Changing the subject is not an option. Go study.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 06, 2007, 02:15:49 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.
Well, maybe you should care. One tax get's you an arena that you may use 4 or 5 times a year. And another gets you streets that you use every day for work and everything else in your life.
quote:
Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......
I'm not trying to tell you that. In fact, I just said that. The County's sales tax rose to 1.017% precisely for those reasons. The fact remains, the city hasn't raised your sales tax since 1983. Are you going to hold the city accountable for something the county does? 'Cause that sounds like what you are trying to do.
quote:
And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.
Those "little bits" are what some like to call "facts", and they are pesky. The big picture is, your tax burden is low. Most Americans pay more than you do. So, are you willing to let this city go down the tubes because you feel that your taxes are high, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise?
quote:
The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
Don't be mislead. The two pennies, and the 3rd penny, of sales tax rise with inflation, no quicker, no slower. A dollar today does not buy what it did yesterday...period. So, this "record high" cr*p is exactly that, cr*p. The city hasn't raised your taxes since 1983. And yet, many of the things that it takes to run a city HAVE risen faster than inflation: concrete, asphalt, health insurance, real estate, etc. Tulsa can't buy cheap goods from China to make up the difference. Same piece of pie, but that pie buys a lot less. What do you think happens after 24 years of this? You try to stretch your dollar as far as it can go. And, when you reach the limit, you start making sacrifices. I am trying to look at the big picture, Wilbur. And this city seems to do a better job than many in giving me some things to study. I'm trying to figure this out on my own, I don't know much about this kind of business, but as a citizen, I think I should. So, I'm learning. Are you?
We should all care that our sales taxes, and all other taxes for that matter, continue to rise and we end up further in the hole. While a portion of the recent sales tax increases are considered county taxes, the city is getting to spend the majority of it, and, like you said, will be stuck with the expenditures of the arena. And while you may be able to say the city hasn't raised sales taxes in 23 years, look at other items the city charges for that have raised. Don't forget, you also pay city taxes on your electric bill, water, gas bill, phone bill, cell phone bill, cable tv bill, ...... and fees for other items. These aren't sales taxes, but they are all considered income used by the government (which equal taxes). And don't tell me I pay less taxes then everyone else. I keep track of every tax I pay, and as of today, for 2007, 48.1% of my total expenditures have gone to taxes. We live off my wife's salary and we use my total salary to pay taxes. Plus, this year we will get nailed by AMT (yes, more taxes) And you are suggesting we should pay more! Feel free to donate as much as you wish. Two years ago this city said our priority was an arena (and has been a priority for how many years? How many times did we have to vote on that thing?) Now we're all stuck with that tax for several years. Then a new city hall was a priority. Then the river was a priority. Now all of a sudden, streets are the priority, but we haven't paid off all the other priorities yet. And after the streets priority, what's next? Can't wait 'till they tell us a new city building will be needed downtown (after the move to city hall). Just wait, that will be another priority.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 02:54:04 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.
Well, maybe you should care. One tax get's you an arena that you may use 4 or 5 times a year. And another gets you streets that you use every day for work and everything else in your life.
quote:
Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025. Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix. Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......
I'm not trying to tell you that. In fact, I just said that. The County's sales tax rose to 1.017% precisely for those reasons. The fact remains, the city hasn't raised your sales tax since 1983. Are you going to hold the city accountable for something the county does? 'Cause that sounds like what you are trying to do.
quote:
And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.
Those "little bits" are what some like to call "facts", and they are pesky. The big picture is, your tax burden is low. Most Americans pay more than you do. So, are you willing to let this city go down the tubes because you feel that your taxes are high, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise?
quote:
The city's total expenditures is at record high levels. Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.
Don't be mislead. The two pennies, and the 3rd penny, of sales tax rise with inflation, no quicker, no slower. A dollar today does not buy what it did yesterday...period. So, this "record high" cr*p is exactly that, cr*p. The city hasn't raised your taxes since 1983. And yet, many of the things that it takes to run a city HAVE risen faster than inflation: concrete, asphalt, health insurance, real estate, etc. Tulsa can't buy cheap goods from China to make up the difference. Same piece of pie, but that pie buys a lot less. What do you think happens after 24 years of this? You try to stretch your dollar as far as it can go. And, when you reach the limit, you start making sacrifices. I am trying to look at the big picture, Wilbur. And this city seems to do a better job than many in giving me some things to study. I'm trying to figure this out on my own, I don't know much about this kind of business, but as a citizen, I think I should. So, I'm learning. Are you?
We should all care that our sales taxes, and all other taxes for that matter, continue to rise and we end up further in the hole. While a portion of the recent sales tax increases are considered county taxes, the city is getting to spend the majority of it, and, like you said, will be stuck with the expenditures of the arena. And while you may be able to say the city hasn't raised sales taxes in 23 years, look at other items the city charges for that have raised. Don't forget, you also pay city taxes on your electric bill, water, gas bill, phone bill, cell phone bill, cable tv bill, ...... and fees for other items. These aren't sales taxes, but they are all considered income used by the government (which equal taxes). And don't tell me I pay less taxes then everyone else. I keep track of every tax I pay, and as of today, for 2007, 48.1% of my total expenditures have gone to taxes. We live off my wife's salary and we use my total salary to pay taxes. Plus, this year we will get nailed by AMT (yes, more taxes) And you are suggesting we should pay more! Feel free to donate as much as you wish. Two years ago this city said our priority was an arena (and has been a priority for how many years? How many times did we have to vote on that thing?) Now we're all stuck with that tax for several years. Then a new city hall was a priority. Then the river was a priority. Now all of a sudden, streets are the priority, but we haven't paid off all the other priorities yet. And after the streets priority, what's next? Can't wait 'till they tell us a new city building will be needed downtown (after the move to city hall). Just wait, that will be another priority.
Tulsa COUNTY residents will be paying 6/10 higher sales taxes until 2017 to pay off Vision 2025. Vision 2025 was a sinecure for the Rooney and Flint financial interests. 4-to-Fix-the-County was Matrix and Flint's sinecure. The Kaiser River Tax was planned to help line the pockets of Atkins-Benham, and You-Know-Who's bank as non-competitive bid bond underwriter, just like they did in Vision 2025. The proposed new Bond/Sales Tax grab is providing orgasmic ecstasy fantasies to Sherwood Construction, Beeco, and the associated cabal of crony contractors and sub-contractors who get all the local street work. Who said: Crime Doesn't Pay?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 03:17:38 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
We should all care that our sales taxes, and all other taxes for that matter, continue to rise and we end up further in the hole. While a portion of the recent sales tax increases are considered county taxes, the city is getting to spend the majority of it, and, like you said, will be stuck with the expenditures of the arena.
And while you may be able to say the city hasn't raised sales taxes in 23 years, look at other items the city charges for that have raised. Don't forget, you also pay city taxes on your electric bill, water, gas bill, phone bill, cell phone bill, cable tv bill, ...... and fees for other items. These aren't sales taxes, but they are all considered income used by the government (which equal taxes).
And don't tell me I pay less taxes then everyone else. I keep track of every tax I pay, and as of today, for 2007, 48.1% of my total expenditures have gone to taxes. We live off my wife's salary and we use my total salary to pay taxes. Plus, this year we will get nailed by AMT (yes, more taxes) And you are suggesting we should pay more!
Feel free to donate as much as you wish.
Two years ago this city said our priority was an arena (and has been a priority for how many years? How many times did we have to vote on that thing?) Now we're all stuck with that tax for several years. Then a new city hall was a priority. Then the river was a priority. Now all of a sudden, streets are the priority, but we haven't paid off all the other priorities yet. And after the streets priority, what's next? Can't wait 'till they tell us a new city building will be needed downtown (after the move to city hall). Just wait, that will be another priority.
Who says I don't care about taxes? The better question is, why are you willing to let your city crater, literally? Is it because you are mad about the AMT? Are broken struts, bulging sidewalls, and warped rims your way "sticking it to the man"? Seems costly, and a little cryptic. I mean, you could try the direct approach and just call your Republican senators and ask to stop holding up the bill that would raise the threshold. That crap on your electric bill is rent that AEP pays the city in order to protect their monopoly. They call it a tax so that you will be mad at somebody else, but it's just a cost of doing business that they pass through to you the consumer. And water is not a tax, it's a service. Gimme a break. No wonder you are paying 48.1% in taxes...everthing's a tax to you. Is winter a tax? How about when you spill soup on your sweater, is that a tax, too?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: TURobY on December 06, 2007, 03:19:07 pm
With all the negativity, you'd wonder why anybody would even live here... [xx(]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: spoonbill on December 06, 2007, 03:34:45 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
We should all care that our sales taxes, and all other taxes for that matter, continue to rise and we end up further in the hole. While a portion of the recent sales tax increases are considered county taxes, the city is getting to spend the majority of it, and, like you said, will be stuck with the expenditures of the arena.
And while you may be able to say the city hasn't raised sales taxes in 23 years, look at other items the city charges for that have raised. Don't forget, you also pay city taxes on your electric bill, water, gas bill, phone bill, cell phone bill, cable tv bill, ...... and fees for other items. These aren't sales taxes, but they are all considered income used by the government (which equal taxes).
And don't tell me I pay less taxes then everyone else. I keep track of every tax I pay, and as of today, for 2007, 48.1% of my total expenditures have gone to taxes. We live off my wife's salary and we use my total salary to pay taxes. Plus, this year we will get nailed by AMT (yes, more taxes) And you are suggesting we should pay more!
Feel free to donate as much as you wish.
Two years ago this city said our priority was an arena (and has been a priority for how many years? How many times did we have to vote on that thing?) Now we're all stuck with that tax for several years. Then a new city hall was a priority. Then the river was a priority. Now all of a sudden, streets are the priority, but we haven't paid off all the other priorities yet. And after the streets priority, what's next? Can't wait 'till they tell us a new city building will be needed downtown (after the move to city hall). Just wait, that will be another priority.
Who says I don't care about taxes? The better question is, why are you willing to let your city crater, literally? Is it because you are mad about the AMT? Are broken struts, bulging sidewalls, and warped rims your way "sticking it to the man"? Seems costly, and a little cryptic. I mean, you could try the direct approach and just call your Republican senators and ask to stop holding up the bill that would raise the threshold.
That crap on your electric bill is rent that AEP pays the city in order to protect their monopoly. They call it a tax so that you will be mad at somebody else, but it's just a cost of doing business that they pass through to you the consumer. And water is not a tax, it's a service. Gimme a break. No wonder you are paying 48.1% in taxes...everthing's a tax to you. Is winter a tax? How about when you spill soup on your sweater, is that a tax, too?
STOP THE SWEATER TAX!!!! Except for this guy- (http://cache.kotaku.com/gaming/images/sweater25.jpg)
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 03:48:41 pm
No streets until the Sweater Tax is repealed!
(http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/images/clownsweater.jpg)(The Wil Wheaton tax, however, should be doubled).
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: spoonbill on December 06, 2007, 04:04:00 pm
I'm starting to think the sweater tax is a good idea!
(http://image30.webshots.com/30/7/75/8/244877508ynvEMp_ph.jpg)
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: PonderInc on December 06, 2007, 04:30:26 pm
Can anyone remember what this thread was about...?
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 04:43:50 pm
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Can anyone remember what this thread was about...?
Yes, it is about the Complete our Streets Committee Recommendations. Apparently, some folks have pages and pages of reasons why we shouldn't fix our streets, ranging from, "faulty premise" to, "incorrect information". Oh, yeah...and, "huh?"...sorry FB, almost forgot you. It's mostly wingnut tax apoplexy. If we could mix this stubborn brand of hysteria with an ashpalt binder, we could fix our street problems forever. You think this is bad, go peruse the Tulsa World site.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: FOTD on December 06, 2007, 04:48:58 pm
[/quote]
Tulsa COUNTY residents will be paying 6/10 higher sales taxes until 2017 to pay off Vision 2025.
Vision 2025 was a sinecure for the Rooney and Flint financial interests.
4-to-Fix-the-County was Matrix and Flint's sinecure.
The Kaiser River Tax was planned to help line the pockets of Atkins-Benham, and You-Know-Who's bank as non-competitive bid bond underwriter, just like they did in Vision 2025.
The proposed new Bond/Sales Tax grab is providing orgasmic ecstasy fantasies to Sherwood Construction, Beeco, and the associated cabal of crony contractors and sub-contractors who get all the local street work.
Who said: Crime Doesn't Pay?
[/quote]
Snap!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 07:29:07 pm
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government. One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them. There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.
Wilbur's last post was shot down by facts. The city has 168 fewer authorized employees than in 1996. The city payroll does not keep growing with new jobs.
The city outsourced to SMG and displaced a number of city of tulsa positions that are associated with the Maxwell Convention Center, and the upcoming Arena.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: blindnil on December 06, 2007, 08:29:58 pm
That's not true. SMG hired all of the city workers who wanted to join their company. The city workers who were close to retirement could stay within the city system.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Friendly Bear on December 06, 2007, 09:06:59 pm
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
That's not true. SMG hired all of the city workers who wanted to join their company. The city workers who were close to retirement could stay within the city system.
Fine. I'm glad they weren't cut loose. Nonetheless, they are no longer counted in the City of Tulsa personnel FTE's. That could be part of the reason for the absolute # of decline.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: swake on December 06, 2007, 10:42:43 pm
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Can anyone remember what this thread was about...?
It's about proving once and for all to waterboy that Friendly Bears posts are just as pointless and nonsensical as TripleSevenMob's
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Wilbur on December 07, 2007, 06:48:35 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
We should all care that our sales taxes, and all other taxes for that matter, continue to rise and we end up further in the hole. While a portion of the recent sales tax increases are considered county taxes, the city is getting to spend the majority of it, and, like you said, will be stuck with the expenditures of the arena.
And while you may be able to say the city hasn't raised sales taxes in 23 years, look at other items the city charges for that have raised. Don't forget, you also pay city taxes on your electric bill, water, gas bill, phone bill, cell phone bill, cable tv bill, ...... and fees for other items. These aren't sales taxes, but they are all considered income used by the government (which equal taxes).
And don't tell me I pay less taxes then everyone else. I keep track of every tax I pay, and as of today, for 2007, 48.1% of my total expenditures have gone to taxes. We live off my wife's salary and we use my total salary to pay taxes. Plus, this year we will get nailed by AMT (yes, more taxes) And you are suggesting we should pay more!
Feel free to donate as much as you wish.
Two years ago this city said our priority was an arena (and has been a priority for how many years? How many times did we have to vote on that thing?) Now we're all stuck with that tax for several years. Then a new city hall was a priority. Then the river was a priority. Now all of a sudden, streets are the priority, but we haven't paid off all the other priorities yet. And after the streets priority, what's next? Can't wait 'till they tell us a new city building will be needed downtown (after the move to city hall). Just wait, that will be another priority.
Who says I don't care about taxes? The better question is, why are you willing to let your city crater, literally? Is it because you are mad about the AMT? Are broken struts, bulging sidewalls, and warped rims your way "sticking it to the man"? Seems costly, and a little cryptic. I mean, you could try the direct approach and just call your Republican senators and ask to stop holding up the bill that would raise the threshold.
That crap on your electric bill is rent that AEP pays the city in order to protect their monopoly. They call it a tax so that you will be mad at somebody else, but it's just a cost of doing business that they pass through to you the consumer. And water is not a tax, it's a service. Gimme a break. No wonder you are paying 48.1% in taxes...everthing's a tax to you. Is winter a tax? How about when you spill soup on your sweater, is that a tax, too?
I'm sensing we'll be canceling out each others' vote. [:D]
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: waterboy on December 07, 2007, 07:33:54 am
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Can anyone remember what this thread was about...?
It's about proving once and for all to waterboy that Friendly Bears posts are just as pointless and nonsensical as TripleSevenMob's
[:D]Honestly, you guys are on a different plane than I am. I just try to keep up and add insights. FB makes strong points in an interesting manner (so did Goebbels!). However, I note that when pressed to provide proof or invited to act upon his beliefs, he does neither. TippleSeven on the other hand, like Paul Tay, is a Molotov. I suspect there is some truth to be gleaned from all of them. I am clenching my teeth in order to not blurt out a "told ya so" about what many of us felt during the Kaiser river debacle. There can be no roads package of taxes proposed to the public that is palatable to FB and friends. Their plate is full of envy, distrust and conspiracy theories. No room left for infrastructure tax. Unless it goes on someone else's plate.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 07, 2007, 09:22:19 am
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I'm sensing we'll be canceling out each others' vote. [:D]
Nah. I have a feeling you'll come around.[;)] The main things I'm seeing so far are that: a) the city doesn't seem to be rolling in money and hasn't since 2001 (if not before), and b) fixing streets, which is apparently a business that is heavily oil and material dependent, has gotten way more expensive. At some point we are going to have to pony up, I'm almost certain of that. But, I really like that the SOS group said that Tulsans should lobby to get car tag money back from the state to the tune of $50 million a year (http://"http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/FinanceCommitteeSummaryRecommendations_1.pdf"). The state of Oklahoma, which is running (http://"http://www.ok.gov/~sto/news/AprilRevenuePR_5-15-2007.html") a $228 million a year surplus because of oil and gas revenue, can afford it. And they will probably continue to do very well as those things remain expensive (forever?). If they are going to make money on oil, then they should probably pass through some of the windfall to the cities, who are going to suffer because they have to pay a lot more for things like asphalt and diesel to fix roads. There are still things that I am concerned about. The SOS guy's recommendation (http://"http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf"), clearly shows that they have split street rehab and street expansion into seperate funding sources. The 3rd penny and GO bond always lump them together. If maintaining streets is a problem, then should we really be growing this problem? Or, should we be looking for smarter solutions? So, I'd be happy to see one line item for rehab, and another for expansion, and maybe even another for mass transit. Let us voters decide the direction for our future, not the streets department.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: spoonbill on December 07, 2007, 09:58:58 am
Just some food for thought. We have a very harsh climate for streets. We get very hot and then very cold, and in Oklahoma, sometimes we do this within a 12 hour period causing cold asphalt to react to hot air quickly. This weakens the surface, and once the cracks form, it doesn't take much to destroy the surface.
You can travel across the country and see that in the USDA zone 6 cities streets are poor for this same reason.
This makes comparison to Dallas or Houston, or any of the northern cities difficult.
The surface of our streets is forced to be more elastic due to the fluctuations in temperature and we just have to live with that.
I have high hopes that global warming will push us into zone 7 or 8 soon and our streets will be in better shape. We will also be able to grow bigger tomatoes.
Hurry up global warming! I'm cold!
(http://mgonline.com/zone_map.gif)
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Rico on December 07, 2007, 07:01:39 pm
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Just some food for thought. We have a very harsh climate for streets. We get very hot and then very cold, and in Oklahoma, sometimes we do this within a 12 hour period causing cold asphalt to react to hot air quickly. This weakens the surface, and once the cracks form, it doesn't take much to destroy the surface.
You can travel across the country and see that in the USDA zone 6 cities streets are poor for this same reason.
This makes comparison to Dallas or Houston, or any of the northern cities difficult.
The surface of our streets is forced to be more elastic due to the fluctuations in temperature and we just have to live with that.
I have high hopes that global warming will push us into zone 7 or 8 soon and our streets will be in better shape. We will also be able to grow bigger tomatoes.
Hurry up global warming! I'm cold!
(http://mgonline.com/zone_map.gif)
See this were I differ with the "zone 7 or 8" synopsis......
I would prefer that our weather causes us to build a subway system... say similar to Toronto..
No automobiles needed.!
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: Chicken Little on December 09, 2007, 10:45:32 am
What's up, gang? Are you plum out of reasons why we shouldn't fix our streets? Did anybody listen to the KFAQ interview with former Street Commissioner Jim Hewgley? He's a conservative, right? He knows what he's talking about, right? What'd he say?
Did he say that we don't need to raise taxes?(, Chicken Little asked, knowingly.)
The link is on Batesline.com.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: USRufnex on December 09, 2007, 08:34:46 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
With all the negativity, you'd wonder why anybody would even live here... [xx(]
^+1 No kidding.
Title: 'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations
Post by: booWorld on January 26, 2008, 02:08:47 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
With all the negativity, you'd wonder why anybody would even live here... [xx(]
Some people choose to make Tulsa their home because they think the benefits and opportunities outweigh the costs. Compared to cities on the coasts or in other parts of the world, it is relatively inexpensive to live here.
|