Council Questions TDA over $4million tax fund allocation to American Residential

[Oil Capital]

I think we have argued this enough...we ain't going to agree...

Yes, the process was flawed. No, just because someone said someone said something don't make it true.

If your cat crawls in the oven and has kittens, it don't make 'em biscuits.

It would be helpful if you would read and make a serious attempt to comprehend my posts before posting your seemingly random thoughts.  My focus has not been on anything anyone "said".  My posts have been focused on the undeniable fact that the TDA (in a process you agree is "flawed") awarded the money in a no-bid, no competition, "backroom" deal.  Highly suspicious, unfair and inappropriate, to say the least.  What is it you insist on disagreeing about? 

[RecycleMichael]

This is what you originally posted...

No evidence whatsoever???   LOL   A no-bid, no opportunity for anyone else to apply or compete, award of money to a mayoral contributor is evidence of some sort of backroom deal.   Pretty persuasive evidence.

I say there is no evidence of any deal and no evidence of the Mayor's involvement. You understand that or do you want to keep playing stupid?

[Oil Capital]

This is what you originally posted...

No evidence whatsoever???   LOL   A no-bid, no opportunity for anyone else to apply or compete, award of money to a mayoral contributor is evidence of some sort of backroom deal.   Pretty persuasive evidence.

I say there is no evidence of any deal and no evidence of the Mayor's involvement. You understand that or do you want to keep playing stupid?

and I have not focused on the mayor since.  My point, which you keep trying your best to ignore is that this is clearly and obviously a "backroom deal" by the TDA.  There MAY be other people involved, maybe not.  (But again, there is SOME evidence of the mayor's involvement.  It may not be strong evidence, it may be hearsay, but it is nevertheless evidence; as badly as you wish to believe it does not exist.)

More to the point, my discussion with you in particular has been about your dishonest attempt to merely sweep the whole thing under the rug as nothing more than sour grapes from developers who did not "win", completely ignoring the fact (no innuendo here) that nobody except the chosen developer was allowed to apply, compete, or ask for the money.  And for some reason you kept bringing the mayor into the discussion...  Go figure...

[MichaelBates]

The major flaw in your argument is that the developer got the original $4 million loan under Mayor Bill LaFortune, yet he contributed money to his opponent. If there was a real deal here, wouldn't he had tried to keep LaFortune as Mayor?

Wrong. The loan dates back to the Savage administration. Renaissance Uptown and Tribune Lofts were already leasing in 2001, a year before LaFortune took office.

Not that it matters. The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

[Hoss]

Wrong. The loan dates back to the Savage administration. Renaissance Uptown and Tribune Lofts were already leasing in 2001, a year before LaFortune took office.

Not that it matters. The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

Hey, we don't mind if people say negative things about the city government.  Back them up with irrefutable facts though.  Most of these 'hit and runners' probably have some kind of axe to grind, and almost never have facts that can be backed up.  It's usually just hearsay.

[RecycleMichael]

The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

What?

Who said they weren't welcome?

I just argued another point of view. Posters shouldn't argue back?

[FOTD]

The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

PWD sux....

just want to insure my status here....

[Oil Capital]

Hey, we don't mind if people say negative things about the city government.  Back them up with irrefutable facts though.  Most of these 'hit and runners' probably have some kind of axe to grind, and almost never have facts that can be backed up.  It's usually just hearsay.

LOL  This is just the kind of thing MB is talking about.  Ignore the actual posts and facts and attack the motives of the poster...  Thanks for the timely example, Hoss.

Since you've apparently missed it. . .   It is an irrefutable fact that the TDA awarded money in a no-bid, no-competition-allowed "process".  It is also, by the way, an irrefutable fact that the "winner" of this non-contest is a friend and benefactor of the mayor.  Classic Tulsa insider back-room dealing.  (Whether the Mayor was involved is not an irrefutable fact, and I have never pretended otherwise.)

[RecycleMichael]

Your reply is to attack Hoss?

That's not very welcoming...

[Hoss]

LOL  This is just the kind of thing MB is talking about.  Ignore the actual posts and facts and attack the motives of the poster...  Thanks for the timely example, Hoss.

Since you've apparently missed it. . .   It is an irrefutable fact that the TDA awarded money in a no-bid, no-competition-allowed "process".  It is also, by the way, an irrefutable fact that the "winner" of this non-contest is a friend and benefactor of the mayor.  Classic Tulsa insider back-room dealing.  (Whether the Mayor was involved is not an irrefutable fact, and I have never pretended otherwise.)

Have you no reading comprehension?  I said we don't mind the criticisms if they're based in fact.  Way to spin it with an attack.  It makes you look bad.

[sgrizzle]

Not that it matters. The message to Oil Capital and Downtown Now is that you're not welcome here on the TulsaNow forum if you want to say negative things about city government.

Yeah THAT'S it.

Has nothing to do with the fact that this is like the 30th post where one of them takes a concern (real or imaginary) and runs with it like they stole it until they pass the point of credibility. The result is we spend more time debating hairbrain theories and not enough time digging into the dirt of the matter.

Not everything is a vast global conspiracy.

[nathanm]

Funny that you still haven't provided one iota of evidence that this is anything more than people doing what they usually do. Working with the people they already know.

Yet you hammer on how the developer contributed to Taylor's campaign and other things that are utterly irrelevant without evidence of impropriety. While we might have preferred competitive bidding, someone loaning money to someone they already loaned money to isn't evidence of anything sinister or untoward. The only thing it's evidence of is political blindness.

[Oil Capital]

Funny that you still haven't provided one iota of evidence that this is anything more than people doing what they usually do. Working with the people they already know.

Yet you hammer on how the developer contributed to Taylor's campaign and other things that are utterly irrelevant without evidence of impropriety. While we might have preferred competitive bidding, someone loaning money to someone they already loaned money to isn't evidence of anything sinister or untoward. The only thing it's evidence of is political blindness.

Nothing more than what people usually do??   If you are referring to private business, sure.  So what?  People can do what they want with their own money.  When it's public money, different standards should apply.  If you are referring to public projects. Well, you are probably right that this is the way it is usually done  . . . in Tulsa.

Hammering on???  The only thing I've hammered on is RecycleMichaels' dishonest attempt to dismiss this as nothing more than sour grapes by developers who didn't "win".

Utterly irrelevant?  Awarding public money with no bids and no competition is impropriety and is untoward (in addition to political blindness).

Sure, no laws were apparently broken, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.  Sorry, I hold those in public office to a slightly higher standard.  So, Tulsa's insiders-only culture rolls merrily along.

Insider?  Here, we've got some low-interest money for you (or was it no-interest, I've lost track).

Not an insider?  Don't even bother applying.  We already gave all the money to an insider.  And by the way, don't even think about doing any re-development in the ballpark area.  That area is designated "insiders only".

Everyone just move along... nothing to see here.  No untoward activities or impropriety here...No sir.  Just Tulsa doing business as usual.

[nathanm]

Nothing more than what people usually do??   If you are referring to private business, sure.  So what?  People can do what they want with their own money.  When it's public money, different standards should apply.  If you are referring to public projects. Well, you are probably right that this is the way it is usually done  . . . in Tulsa.

It's human nature, it happens everywhere in government and business. You deal with people you're comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that unless it becomes so endemic that there's obvious discrimination going on.

And no, it's not really impropriety, it's just stupid. If it were as wrong as you say, we would have put a stop to the military using no-bid contracts years ago.

We're all in agreement that it's not the best way to go about doing things, but smearing the mayor and everyone else you can think of because you don't like it isn't at all appropriate. Perhaps instead of focusing your outrage on this forum, you might call your legislators and see if you can't get them to pass a law regarding awards such as this that require a bid process.

Whining on the forum and attacking other posters isn't productive in the least. If you're OK with that, I have no issue with it, but as worked up as you seem to be, perhaps action would be better than words. And perhaps diplomacy would be useful to you in getting what you desire.

[Oil Capital]

It's human nature, it happens everywhere in government and business. You deal with people you're comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that unless it becomes so endemic that there's obvious discrimination going on.

And no, it's not really impropriety, it's just stupid. If it were as wrong as you say, we would have put a stop to the military using no-bid contracts years ago.

We're all in agreement that it's not the best way to go about doing things, but smearing the mayor and everyone else you can think of because you don't like it isn't at all appropriate. Perhaps instead of focusing your outrage on this forum, you might call your legislators and see if you can't get them to pass a law regarding awards such as this that require a bid process.

Whining on the forum and attacking other posters isn't productive in the least. If you're OK with that, I have no issue with it, but as worked up as you seem to be, perhaps action would be better than words. And perhaps diplomacy would be useful to you in getting what you desire.

Not worked up in the least, man.  Just not willing to let others sweep it under the rug as nothing more than sour grapes (and thus smearing those other developers who were given no chance to apply for these funds). 

I did not smear the mayor in the least.  Stating facts is not a smear.  It is what it is, my friend.  You and RecycleMichael have both agreed it would be "better" if they did competitive bidding or that the process is "flawed" and yet you insist on continuing to attack me.  I guess calling it "untoward" or "improper" or, goodness gracious, "a back-room deal" is just too harsh for your tender constitutions?  ;-)