River development and new sources of city revenue

[AquaMan]

Does anyone else find the Mayor's and councillor's comments on these subjects a bit unsettling?

I always have issues with those unfamiliar with our river boldly asserting the importance of "developing" it. What they mean by development is usually pretty vague and their familiarity is with the political/fundraising portion of development, not the reality of coping with the nature of the river. The real questions are, "shall we manipulate the river to produce polluted but waterfilled postcard ponds?" and "what type of development is acceptable on this type river?"

For instance, they often point to San Antonio and OKC as success stories but never talk details of just how that success is quantified and the related costs involved.

And I am really confused by remarks about educating our legislators (yeah that will go over well) about how cities need more revenue sources than what the state law allows, but in the same paragraph limit those possible sources by talking about it being "revenue neutral" (code for taking it from someone else's slice of the pie) and totally eliminating any consideration of a periodic or low level city income tax preferring to instead rob the county by taking property tax. Combine that with the governor's insistence that cities may not institute minimum wages. What you have is .......confusing.

I guess I shouldn't worry with the time frame being a decade or more and the history of failure of even good plans for river development but it is instructive to see how politics limits the growth of communities. Insistence on lowering taxes, failure to support wage earners and failure to acknowledge that the opposite of those views is bringing prosperity to other communities explains reams about Tulsa.

Please, don't invite me to the meetings. Done that. Futile. Scripted questions, little interaction and lots of emotion. It doesn't work except on paper. I want to hear what you folks think.

[Conan71]

I haven’t deviated from my opinions on river development.  San Antonio and OKC are irrelevant in comparing to the Arkansas through Tulsa as the big commerce area are on fabricated ditches which run through the middle.  Personally, I’ve always liked the green space which makes the Arkansas more unique.  I wish the banks were better kept, but then again, it’s a nice mix of nature doing what it does on the banks of a prairie river and an area for recreation along-side.  If the Creeks want to busy up their end with all sorts of commercial enterprises, more power to them.  Also let them pay for their own LWD at Jenks if they want water in the more southern reaches of it’s Tulsa leg.

I do like the idea of low water dams in terms of making the river more stable for various water sports and recreation.  I simply think each municipality can pay for their own LWD, recreational facilities, and access.

If Tulsa wants a “river walk” like OKC or San Antonio, it would need to be Crow Creek or un-capping the buried creek along 18th & Boston.  We discussed this at length in the run- up to the river fleece tax vote in 2007.  

My opinion has evolved somewhat on that.  I really don’t understand our identity crisis where we think that Tulsa needs something or everything that Austin, San Antonio, OKC, Dallas, KC, etc. has.

 

[rebound]

The real questions are, "shall we manipulate the river to produce polluted but waterfilled postcard ponds?" and "what type of development is acceptable on this type river?"

For instance, they often point to San Antonio and OKC as success stories but never talk details of just how that success is quantified and the related costs involved.

I haven't checked your previous posts on this subject, but I seem to detect a bias against the dams in general and not just with the monetary concerns.  In particular, why would you suggest the lakes would be "polluted but waterfilled postcard ponds"?  To the best of my knowledge (and I obviously yield to those here with additional information), all the health issues related to the river have been discussed and of all the various issues, pollution is not a problem that would deter development.

The second point, related to quantifying the success stories of San Antonio and OKC, is interesting.  I'm sure those types of studies have  been done, particularly regarding OKC who went through a fairly lengthy evaluation prior to building their "river".   But as to "success", is there any doubt that both developments have been wildly successful?  To discard obvious success by asking for specific criteria seems to be a biased perspective.  But the two above examples are both artificial creations.  Tulsa has a real, actual, river.  Look at Austin, or numerous other cities, to see how successful these type developments can be.

I mention Austin above because I am more familiar with what they have down there.  As an example of the kinds of ancillary things that could be developed along the river, see the Texas Rowing Center Summer Camps:  http://www.texasrowingcenter.com/summer_camps.htm    Very cool.  We sent my daughter (and friends) for a couple of years, and now my son will go this year.   There is activity all up and down that river, and while it will undoubtedly be different up here, there is no reason to expect that Tulsa can't achieve a similar outcome.

Here is  a link to questions on water quality in the river:

http://www.riverparks.org/how-safe-is-the-water-in-the-arkansas-river/

Also, had not seen this article before.  Thought it did a pretty good job of encapsulating all the river issues:

http://www.tulsatoday.com/2014/03/28/tulsas-arkansas-river-challenge/

[Conan71]

I haven't checked your previous posts on this subject, but I seem to detect a bias against the dams in general and not just with the monetary concerns.  In particular, why would you suggest the lakes would be "polluted but waterfilled postcard ponds"?  To the best of my knowledge (and I obviously yield to those here with additional information), all the health issues related to the river have been discussed and of all the various issues, pollution is not a problem that would deter development.

The second point, related to quantifying the success stories of San Antonio and OKC, is interesting.  I'm sure those types of studies have  been done, particularly regarding OKC who went through a fairly lengthy evaluation prior to building their "river".   But as to "success", is there any doubt that both developments have been wildly successful?  To discard obvious success by asking for specific criteria seems to be a biased perspective.  But the two above examples are both artificial creations.  Tulsa has a real, actual, river.  Look at Austin, or numerous other cities, to see how successful these type developments can be.

I mention Austin above because I am more familiar with what they have down there.  As an example of the kinds of ancillary things that could be developed along the river, see the Texas Rowing Center Summer Camps:  http://www.texasrowingcenter.com/summer_camps.htm    Very cool.  We sent my daughter (and friends) for a couple of years, and now my son will go this year.   There is activity all up and down that river, and while it will undoubtedly be different up here, there is no reason to expect that Tulsa can't achieve a similar outcome.

Here is  a link to questions on water quality in the river:

http://www.riverparks.org/how-safe-is-the-water-in-the-arkansas-river/

Also, had not seen this article before.  Thought it did a pretty good job of encapsulating all the river issues:

http://www.tulsatoday.com/2014/03/28/tulsas-arkansas-river-challenge/

Tulsa’s rowing community will be well-served once repairs to the Zink Lake dam are complete.  Are your kids in the TRC juniors program?  Great program!  One of my daughter’s is a veteran of it and she got me into rowing via her interest.  I have not rowed actively in a few years due to the flow issues with the LWD.

[Townsend]

[rebound]

Insert Channels Pics here...

Your point?

[DTowner]

No need for photo sarcasm.

[Townsend]

No need for photo sarcasm.

There's always need for photo sarcasm.

I really don't see any chance of city or county driven river development happening.

[Townsend]

New River Plan Floated

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/new-river-plan-floated

A new Arkansas River plan is bubbling to the surface in Tulsa. Under the plan, the city would ask voters to extend a portion of the soon-to-be-expiring Vision 2025 Sales Tax to fund river improvements.

DEWEY BARTLETT: " Our suggestion is that we strongly consider using a portion of that 6/10s that is coming up for renewal; that we use a significant portion of it to put water in the river."                             

Mayor Bartlett brought-up the plan at this week’s two City Hall in Your Neighborhood meetings. He also wants a portion of the tax to help fund police and fire operations.

Even KWGS is posting the story like it means diddly.

[DTowner]

There's always need for photo sarcasm.

I really don't see any chance of city or county driven river development happening.

Actually, the photo is important because it is a reminder of how that silly plan's legacy is poisoned electorial waters for river development that any good future plan has to overcome.

[DTowner]

Does anyone else find the Mayor's and councillor's comments on these subjects a bit unsettling?

I don’t know if it is unsettling, but my problem with talk of “river development” is it is so generic and undefined.  In reality, Tulsa’s portion of the Arkansas River is already quite developed.  The east bank is covered by a good (and a section of it soon to be a fantastic park) and next to the park are residential neighborhoods.  The west bank is covered by 2 refineries, apartments, a park, a concrete plant, a city maintenance facility, a PSO power plant, and a sewage treatment plant.  Any redevelopment along the river, presumptively along the west bank between 21st St. and highway 75 is going to be expensive because the 2 existing commercial property owners (concrete plant and apartments) will want to cash in big time.

What’s undeveloped is the actual river itself.  Fixing the one dam we have and building a couple more so that there is better visual appeal to the river is not a bad thing, and creating some recreational opportunities for rowing and rafting would also be a cool thing.  I just don’t know if the benefits are sufficient to justify the cost, particularly given that we really don’t hear anyone describing the likely benefits in any detail.

Our needs/wants are many, but our resources are few.  Let’s stay focused on our investments in downtown and look to expand on it by focusing on transit and further improvements in this proven success story.

[AquaMan]

I haven't checked your previous posts on this subject, but I seem to detect a bias against the dams in general and not just with the monetary concerns.  In particular, why would you suggest the lakes would be "polluted but waterfilled postcard ponds"?  To the best of my knowledge (and I obviously yield to those here with additional information), all the health issues related to the river have been discussed and of all the various issues, pollution is not a problem that would deter development.

The second point, related to quantifying the success stories of San Antonio and OKC, is interesting.  I'm sure those types of studies have  been done, particularly regarding OKC who went through a fairly lengthy evaluation prior to building their "river".   But as to "success", is there any doubt that both developments have been wildly successful?  To discard obvious success by asking for specific criteria seems to be a biased perspective.  But the two above examples are both artificial creations.  Tulsa has a real, actual, river.  Look at Austin, or numerous other cities, to see how successful these type developments can be.

At the risk of boring those who know my past I will do a quick synopsis. I hold the distinction of being the only person since the turn of the 20th century to have operated a ferry/shuttle/canoe/kayak excursion boat operation on the Arkansas river in Tulsa. It was a controversial, enlightening, exhilarating business that struggled under RPA for about three summers. I was the recipient of much hands on education in river lore, river misconceptions and the reality of how these dams work and the damage they do.

That experience plus my business degree make me quite skeptical of "river development". I want to know what development is, what it will cost and how it will change the river. At least a projection of what "success" might return in real $$. I supported the last proposed project because they were wise enough to include actual river activities (white water related) and provision for allowing interconnections between proposed "lakes". Both of those faded away over time and are no longer part of the conversation. That's a shame. Without them one wonders if just putting water in the river is a good investment. No way to know really till someone yields details.

We lost striper fishing when the Zink dam went in.  We lost a couple dozen people to undertow when the SS dam went in. I would swim in the upper reaches of the river from Newblock up to the Keystone dam but not below 11th street unless the flow is above 10000cfs. Don't trust them entirely. Fertilizer run-off, geese droppings, stagnant water, leaks from upstream operations and trash have all taken their toll. Walk into Zink lake at low water and be observant. Take a sample and test it yourself.

The dams themselves. Why? There are other ways to manage this type river that may yield even better cost/return ratios. Beware who stands to profit from more of the same. Many states are tearing out or replacing their dams because of ecological damage. Is it too much to ask just what particular benefit will be derived from building more of them instead of rethinking the concept in terms of today's technology and climate?

Would you feel secure investing $50,000,000 without getting these answers?

[Gaspar]

I am always happy to see the destruction of striper populations. That is not a native fish, and it has destroyed native fish populations in nearly every OK lake and waterway where it has been introduced.  It decimates sandbass, crappy, walleye and several panfish species.  Originally striped bass never made it this far north up the waterways until it was introduced and maintained as a sport fish. The adult populations only entered fresh water to spawn, now they have adapted to several OK lakes and rivers.

I'm a sportsman, so I like to catch them, but hate what they do to the habitat. Fish a lake like Eufaulla and you realize how prolific and diverse other species can be without them.

[AquaMan]

I am always happy to see the destruction of striper populations. That is not a native fish, and it has destroyed native fish populations in nearly every OK lake and waterway where it has been introduced.  It decimates sandbass, crappy, walleye and several panfish species.  Originally striped bass never made it this far north up the waterways until it was introduced and maintained as a sport fish. The adult populations only entered fresh water to spawn, now they have adapted to several OK lakes and rivers.

I'm a sportsman, so I like to catch them, but hate what they do to the habitat. Fish a lake like Eufaulla and you realize how prolific and diverse other species can be without them.

Well, you don't have to worry about them much in the Arkansas River. They can't make it up the dams to spawn so whatever is there came from Keystone lake. However, the Arkansas has a multitude of species including walleye, gar, sturgeon, flathead and channel cats, spoonbill, perch, rock bass and many others as exhibited in the Jenks Aquarium. I wanted to point out that when we change the river for appearance, we change entire ecosystems. The addition of a dam in Jenks may do little damage but the one in SS will be awful for the Shell Creek area.

[TheArtist]

 I was for the low water dams, and still am but with a caveat.  There is only so much money to go around and by doing the dams now we will not be doing other things, that may work even better, to "generate new sources of city revenue" like applying some of those funds to ramp up Downtown development.  

Also, at one time when Tulsa was trucking along at a better pace I could see some developer coming in and doing a decent sized project along the river.  But I have seen too many of those types of plans falter and now Tulsa is growing at an even slower pace with less momentum and positive energy.  So don't see any type of Branson Landing type project or even really any retail type project in those areas either.  Living, fine, but that won't add a lot to the tax base and again I would like to see more living downtown (more revolving funding help from the city for instance and if it goes to the river instead…), and more retail downtown.  

I think downtown is still not on the most solid of footings and there is only so much growth in our city.  Trying to pull some of that to the river at this time might not be the best choice.  If we were growing stronger and better my opinion would be different.   I even wonder what effect the new park by the river will have on downtown.  Over all, and over a longer period of time, I think it will absolutely be a plus, but I can see some of the Guthrie Green crowd going to the new park and thus decreasing traffic there. There will likely be new events and "programming" at that new park and from my experience here, those types of things can cause retail downtown to be slow on those days. I want to build up more good days downtown and not have more lackluster ones added to the mix.

 Again over all that park will be a huge plus for Tulsa, but as for more city funding to try and spur tax growth in the area around the river. I think you will get more bang for your buck using even half that money to spur more development downtown and the Pearl, etc. at this time, then once that is on more solid footing try the river.  Your core will actually then help the river as growth can "flow out" in that direction.  I don't see it happening the other way around, spending the money on the dams then trying to entice development along the river and hoping that may help the core.  Will just spread things out even more thinly and leave us with less monetary options.

Lets finish what we have started and do it right.