|
Rico
Guest
|
 |
« on: May 24, 2008, 06:22:59 am » |
|
For anyone watching the City Council meeting, on 5/22, they would have seen Jamie Jamieson questioning why a trivial $50K had not been allocated (in the "new Budget") to INCOG for the implementation of the trial form based codes project in the Pearl District.
The plan was given approval...no?
We are in the middle of bringing the "Comprehensive Plan" up to the goals of this time frame and not pre-historic times...no?
Our Mayor.. was elected for her progressive thinking and aggressive marketing strategy for the Downtown area..no?
This must have been one of those conspicuous oversights we read about...
Surely when you have so many of the Tulsa Now organization aid in the election of a Mayor like Kathy Taylor this could not be anything other than one of those conspicuous oversights..no?
(the above facts and figures are merely placed for your consideration.... For the true and factual story of these events one must consult either the Tulsa Now newsletter or one of the many Tulsa Now Board members that post content on this message board.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2008, 07:48:09 am » |
|
Since the entire city is going through a complete comprehensive planning process, do you now is the time to start a pilot program?
I am in favor of form-based codes, but it is a radical change from what we currently do. We are investing quite a bit of our planning department and our future into the PlanItTulsa effort and I think it would be unwise to launch a pilot during the next 18 months.
The budget is also tight this year. I know you wrote $50,000 is trivial, but when there is no revenue growth...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2008, 08:39:05 am » |
|
Its disghusting that they should even be a "pilot program". I know the fixed budget didnt allow for any increases anywhere, but what our city loses by continuing on the development path it is on is greater.
Its an embarrassment that mixed use, pedestrian friendly development should be considered "experimental" in Tulsa. What we lose by not having it is far far greater than what it would cost to implement. Just avoiding the squabbles we get into with each new development, alone would make it worth it imo lol. Though only in one part of the city at first, once implemented it would be easy to then overlay those Form Based codes onto other areas, that wanted them, to help with the development struggles they are having.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 08:40:07 am by TheArtist »
|
Logged
|
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2008, 09:50:08 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
For anyone watching the City Council meeting, on 5/22, they would have seen Jamie Jamieson questioning why a trivial $50K had not been allocated (in the "new Budget") to INCOG for the implementation of the trial form based codes project in the Pearl District.
The plan was given approval...no?
We are in the middle of bringing the "Comprehensive Plan" up to the goals of this time frame and not pre-historic times...no?
Our Mayor.. was elected for her progressive thinking and aggressive marketing strategy for the Downtown area..no?
This must have been one of those conspicuous oversights we read about...
Surely when you have so many of the Tulsa Now organization aid in the election of a Mayor like Kathy Taylor this could not be anything other than one of those conspicuous oversights..no?
(the above facts and figures are merely placed for your consideration.... For the true and factual story of these events one must consult either the Tulsa Now newsletter or one of the many Tulsa Now Board members that post content on this message board.
Didn't they just get 3.8 million in diverted street funds for another one of his pet pork projects in the Pearl? Maybe that had something to do with it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<center>  </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2008, 12:00:38 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Didn't they just get 3.8 million in diverted street funds for another one of his pet pork projects in the Pearl? Maybe that had something to do with it?
It could be argued that decorative streetlighting is a pet pork project, and there's no end in sight on that one. A lot of streets could be maintained with the money wasted on that, and pools opened this summer... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2008, 12:53:15 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Didn't they just get 3.8 million in diverted street funds for another one of his pet pork projects in the Pearl? Maybe that had something to do with it?
It could be argued that decorative streetlighting is a pet pork project, and there's no end in sight on that one. A lot of streets could be maintained with the money wasted on that, and pools opened this summer...
True dat. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<center> </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
Rico
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2008, 07:07:13 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Since the entire city is going through a complete comprehensive planning process, do you now is the time to start a pilot program?
I am in favor of form-based codes, but it is a radical change from what we currently do. We are investing quite a bit of our planning department and our future into the PlanItTulsa effort and I think it would be unwise to launch a pilot during the next 18 months.
The budget is also tight this year. I know you wrote $50,000 is trivial, but when there is no revenue growth...
Lat's see.. I can't find my glasses today.... Does that say "bait and switch"..? Oh well I can read who wrote it. I really wish they would have said the same thing regarding recycling sometimes.... What's the hurry..? While 18 months may make another election cycle possible I see little else in substantive value cough.... cough. in the postponement of (Form Based Codes)... In the beginning it will be a trial regardless of the time frame. Sprawl can cut quite a swath in 18 months... Not that "Form Based Codes are a panacea.... However they are an attempt at better and smarter use of what we have. You speak that dialect don't you..? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2008, 07:33:34 pm » |
|
Now Rico...I said I was for form-based codes. But there are many who are not. I am glad you have made up your mind, but do you really think it is wise to start a pilot now?
There have been many public meetings and many more to come. Thousands of Tulsans will be asked to provide input on what kind of city we want and how to get there.
My fear is that even a small, but controversial change will dominate and potentially hamper the PlanitTulsa efforts. You and I agree that it is a better way to encourage and control development and I wish it would have started by now. But it didn't and now we have too much at stake to begin tinkering around. If this community wants form-based codes, now is the time to make sure the planners hear it. Have patience, speak up, and be ready to say it agagin and again.
Speaking of recycling. I have been fighting for more recycling in this town for over two decades. It has been a disappointment for me.
Now, the trash haulers decided they wanted to do a pilot program in select neighborhoods adding once-a-week recycling in exchange for one of the trash days. It was a good idea, but because they tried to do it without City Council buy-in and the same time as the trash-to-energy plant was closing, they have lost political support.
It was a good idea that will now probably fail because the idea was pushed on the wrong timeframe and without the needed public buy-in. It is a big blow to what many of us feel is the future and partially ruins two decades of work.
Don't let that happen to our comprehensive plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2009, 09:14:48 pm » |
|
Keep also in mind this is moving forward despite the fact the city money never came through. Woohoo!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2009, 09:18:40 pm » |
|
I am glad he got at least this much approved to be Form Based Codes. But its such a small area is it really even enough to be able to tell one way or another what the impact would be? The entire Pearl District is a small area. and the Pilot Program is just a small section of that area. But, hey Jamie keeps plugging along. A small victory is a victory none the less. Perhaps it will set the stage, once the "establishment" becomes familiar and at ease with it, it will make expanding to the rest of the area much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
|
|
|
|
Renaissance
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2009, 11:40:33 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I think this article is the most telling:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090111_11_A1_JamieJ423862
Alberty needs to shut his fat ****ing mouth and get out of the way.
The most damning comment:
"I hope they're right," he said. "I hope the change will meet their expectations, but I think it remains to be seen. Development is market-driven and likely unrelated to zoning."
Well NSS! Only problem is in your kingdom, developers say "YOU WANT THIS!" and you say "yessum massa, let me just finaggle the zoning codes to bring your monstrosity to bear!"
Alberty, just keep talking. Your decision to interject your opinions in development just show how much of a dinosaur and how out of touch you are with reality. You should just **** and simple carry out decisions by your rubberstamp committee until Tulsa can figure out a way to cut you parasites off.
That comment is so dense and so telling. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the development process works--a process he's supposed to help shepherd! This was obviously forced over his desk. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PonderInc
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2009, 05:43:34 pm » |
|
There's an art to giving succinct quotes that won't be misconstrued or sound weird in print...
While zoning certainly affects development, it doesn't necessarily CAUSE development to occur in a particular location. That is, we can create a zoning overlay that will ensure that whatever development happens will be guided by the form-based codes, but we can't require someone to develop in this area. This is probably what Alberty meant.
My hope is that the form-based codes will attract a certain type of developer/investor, who recognizes the benefits of the form-based overlay. They won't have to worry that their investment in a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly neighborhood might be compromised by incompatible (suburban sprawl) developments next door.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
