Dear Tulsa Voter - From Bill Martinson -Streets..

[Conan71]

From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.  

We've never been asked to approve a package that large.  The $282mm river tax went down in flames.  Partially due to it being a "Tulsa thing" and we were relying on the entire county to pass it.  Main message was though:  "We don't want more taxes until you can manage what you are already being given".  As well, another resounding message to come out of that no vote was that citizens don't want another huge tax package thrown at them with vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.

I believe this can all be staged in more pallateable pieces.  Use the first five year, $451mm project as a probationary period to see how that goes, then give us the opportunity to vote for another seven years of improvements.

It's time to get started on the streets.  If citizens like what they see, they will vote for more.  A $2 bln package will never, ever pass.  Martinson needs to get over himself and see what it is the citizens want.  It's not his city, it's OUR city.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.  

no, from a PORK perspective 2 bln is hard for voters to swallow.

please back2basics, let's hear your wild justifications for the non streets funding in the 2 bln package.....I need a good laugh.

[Back2Basics]

Actually Inteller I have offered no justification for the 'pork' as you put it.  If you read my first posting, I said I had actually asked Councilor Martinson to remove what everyone was calling 'pork' and make it a streets only package since that's the fundamental issue facing us.  If later there is money needed for Fire, Police, Telecommunications, Gilcrease, Convention Center, PAC, Parks, etc etc then bring it to the voters and let them decide separately if they want to continue funding those items I suppose.  But if you want a streets only package, then you have to exclude all other programs and call it that.

Take out the $240 million in 'pork' or non-streets funding and its $1.81 Billion plus or minus.

[Back2Basics]

I completely agree with you Conan...$2 bil is a lil large to get approval..wish it wasnt but lets face it, it is.  I also agree that voters have sent a clear message saying they dont want vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.

But thats what you get under the proposed $451mil plan.  There are no concrete rewards or plans by which to measure the effectiveness of our municipal officers over the next 5 years.  If the $451mil plan had concrete specifics such as the $2bil plan, I would be more inclined to favor it...I can measure it, I can express my appreciation or my disapproval with it but without specifics, how do we the tax paying citizenry hold anyone accountable?  Thats all Im saying...if you just look on the face of it, there is more concrete information within the $2bil package than the $451mil.  If you want concrete and not vague, dont support it but be ready to demand your councilors and mayor listen to you and put forth a more palatable package that gives you those concrete specifics and is ready to hold them accountable is all Im getting at.  "we are fixing this stretch of road this specific way, estimating this much money and this timeframe for completion."

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Back2Basics

Actually Inteller I have offered no justification for the 'pork' as you put it.  If you read my first posting, I said I had actually asked Councilor Martinson to remove what everyone was calling 'pork' and make it a streets only package since that's the fundamental issue facing us.  If later there is money needed for Fire, Police, Telecommunications, Gilcrease, Convention Center, PAC, Parks, etc etc then bring it to the voters and let them decide separately if they want to continue funding those items I suppose.  But if you want a streets only package, then you have to exclude all other programs and call it that.

Take out the $240 million in 'pork' or non-streets funding and its $1.81 Billion plus or minus.

Yes, and he could've marketed it as a 750M 5yr plan and just covered the first 5 years or so.

[YoungTulsan]

Each arterial, intersection, bridge, and neighborhood project proposed (which I used to make that map) had an estimated price tag attached to it.  While I can't tell what method of resurfacing, landscaping, or total replacement of the street from the ground up, is being done, perhaps someone more knowledgeable could surmise that from the cost projection?

Here are the arterials and intersections: http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/pdf/0808/Streets5Year.pdf

I'm having trouble finding the file that had all the neighborhood and bridge projects listed in it.

While not totally explicit, they do have cost projections for specific projects laid out.

[RecycleMichael]

I think most of the people who are against the streets proposal were just looking for any reason to oppose it. On this forum I have heard, "it isn't enough money to do it right", "it is too much money", "the city can't be trusted to do it right because the staff needs to retire", "the new Mayor can't be trusted", to I think the streets are fine just the way they are".

I just want something done. I am voting yes so we can get some of the roads repaired and the complainers can find some other reason to bash the mayor and her staff.

The cost to me is going to be less than seventy five cents a day. It is worth it just to get the potholes gone.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think most of the people who are against the streets proposal were just looking for any reason to oppose it. On this forum I have heard, "it isn't enough money to do it right", "it is too much money", "the city can't be trusted to do it right because the staff needs to retire", "the new Mayor can't be trusted", to I think the streets are fine just the way they are".

I just want something done. I am voting yes so we can get some of the roads repaired and the complainers can find some other reason to bash the mayor and her staff.

The cost to me is going to be less than seventy five cents a day. It is worth it just to get the potholes gone.

The last major front end work I had done on my truck due to potholes amounted to far more than .75 a day over a year. [B)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Back2Basics

I completely agree with you Conan...$2 bil is a lil large to get approval..wish it wasnt but lets face it, it is.  I also agree that voters have sent a clear message saying they dont want vague rewards and plans which are not fully-developed well before it goes to a vote.

But thats what you get under the proposed $451mil plan.  There are no concrete rewards or plans by which to measure the effectiveness of our municipal officers over the next 5 years.  If the $451mil plan had concrete specifics such as the $2bil plan, I would be more inclined to favor it...I can measure it, I can express my appreciation or my disapproval with it but without specifics, how do we the tax paying citizenry hold anyone accountable?  Thats all Im saying...if you just look on the face of it, there is more concrete information within the $2bil package than the $451mil.  If you want concrete and not vague, dont support it but be ready to demand your councilors and mayor listen to you and put forth a more palatable package that gives you those concrete specifics and is ready to hold them accountable is all Im getting at.  "we are fixing this stretch of road this specific way, estimating this much money and this timeframe for completion."

"Concrete"?  There's gotta be a pun in there somewhere. []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

From a marketing perspective, $2 bln and 12 years is a difficult number to market to voters.  

no, from a PORK perspective 2 bln is hard for voters to swallow.

please back2basics, let's hear your wild justifications for the non streets funding in the 2 bln package.....I need a good laugh.

That is a mighty big pork sword to swallow, isn't it?