I disagree this doesn’t benefit the public at large.
What heironymouspasparagus posted (with a couple of my grammatical/spelling corrections):
In general, TIF [districts] don't seem to be much more than corporate welfare (like BKDotCom facetiously stated.) Santa Fe in particular, I suspect there would be much better/greater return to society on that investment (and more), over a much longer time if money used for a public transit, or education funding. It is likely a big benefit to the insiders getting the break. Will it help the city? Probably some. Will it hurt the city? Probably some - a little more. At best, I think it is a small loss.
These things are used as a semi-private "sandbox" for political patronage...
What I posted, in general agreement with heironymouspasparagus's post above:
I'm not "anti-Santa Fe Square" either, but I concur with your previous opinion. Rising tides aside, these types of deals primarily benefit a few, not the public at large.
I'm not saying that the public at large will not benefit from the Santa Fe Square development. But the
prime beneficiaries are the few people directly connected with the development, not the general public.
A few more comments/corrections:
This is one though which manages to:
-Eliminate two 1.44 city blocks worth of surface parking and adds stacked parking for public use in addition to tenant use
-Benefits local developers so profits go back into Tulsa’s economy, not Dallas, Charlotte, New York, etc.
-More shopping, dining, hotel space, and convenient living space for people who wish to live and work within the IDL
-Creates denser development which (in an ideal world) means less money spent to maintain sprawling infrastructure and more money for education and public safety.
Here’s where it could hurt: higher property values and demand to live in the IDL may mean there may not be affordable housing in the IDL any longer.
-
Parking: In the designs I've seen, the proposed parking garage along Greenwood Avenue is not wrapped with pedestrian-friendly frontage. It ought to be, especially if the project is using TIF.
-
Benefits local developers: I agree! A few developers and their associates will benefit!
-
Creates denser development which (in an ideal world) means... In my opinion, Frankfort ought to be re-opened to vehicular traffic, especially if the project is using TIF and if 1st and 2nd remain as one-way streets.
In one of the project renderings, I counted about thirty acorn lights.
Thirty -- and that's just along Elgin and Second. Thirty more acorn lights might be planned along Greenwood and First, too, as far as I know. The streets surrounding the development ought to have
zero acorn lights, especially since its funding is relying on TIF.
In one of the project brochures, a "brick-paved pedestrian plaza" is touted. I'm not saying that won't work or can't work in Tulsa, but brick (and brick-like) pavements for pedestrians have failed almost everywhere they've been installed here. The bricks subside, creating uneven/hazardous walking surfaces. The sidewalks around Guthrie Green are some of the best quality brick pavements installed for pedestrians in Tulsa. But even at Guthrie Green, some of the bricks are failing already. They wouldn't pass an ADA standards test because they're too uneven.
