A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2017, 03:11:24 pm
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details  (Read 42039 times)
Dspike
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« on: December 22, 2015, 08:23:55 am »

The Tulsa World and the Frontier have reported that the Vision extension proposal will include (1) Water in the River; (2) Public Safety; and (3) Economic Development. While not set in stone, the breakdown among those categories is:

  • River: $157.1M
  • Public Safety: $268.8M
  • Economic Dev: $366M

http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-and-mayor-hammer-out-vision-package-but-more-work/article_87a58209-65c3-553f-818a-d9472420e1f9.html?mode=jqm

The Economic Development package currently includes:

Gilcrease Museum expansion, $69 million
Tulsa Zoo expansion, $30 million
Watco rail line relocation, $5 million
Langston University-Tulsa, $18 million
Peoria-Mohawk business park, $12 million
USABMX national headquarters, $18 million
Tulsa beautification fund - $12 million
Commercial revitalization fund, $12 million
Community Health Connection building, $10.5 million
Arts Alliance Tulsa, $3 million
Route 66 Trust fund, $10 million
Air National Guard, $9.4 million
TCC career placement, $5.6 million
Airport infrastructure, $32 million
Transit, $60 million
Center of Universe Transportation Hub, $15 million
Advance funding allowance, $25 million
Contingency fund, $20 million

The Councilors and Mayor expect to move some proposals to the Improve Our Tulsa package that will come after the Vision package:

a portion of funding for Performing Arts Center expansion
Cox Business Center expansion
South Mingo corridor
Peoria Connection
GO Plan
Public schools safety and crosswalks
Teach. Live. T-Town.
Mohawk Sports Complex
Discovery Lab
Page Belcher and Mohawk golf course facilities
McCullough Park
A portion of Center of the Universe transit hub

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/vision-package-cuts-leave-strong-projects-for-later/article_edd25b58-2603-5ce5-943e-ac0461411cae.html

And some projects are left out of the Vision and Improve Our Tulsa plans:

Raw Space
Bike Share
relocation of a Salvation Army warehouse
Spotlight Theatre rehabilitation
Tulsa Fire Museum
Tulsa Rugby Football Club’s clubhouse


So TulsaNow folks, what do you say? Is this Vision package worth supporting?
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28709



« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2015, 10:01:59 am »

Unless the vote for the package is multi-tiered into the three categories like the first Vision 2025, I think the dams will kill the entire initiative.  If they stand alone, I think the other two packages will pass and perhaps that $157M could be re-tooled in a later initiative with real economic impact.

To date, I’m not aware that Bynum has returned to the table with a valid payback analysis on the dams.  Secondly, if the dam near 101st St. is important to Jenks and the Creeks, we don’t need to fund that.  I’m all for adequate funding to completely overhaul the Zink Dam.  I was even for the investment in the Spotlight Theater as that is a development along the river which could be very nice without actually encroaching on park space.

I’m also a bit puzzled about what qualifies as economic development.  How does Raw Space get cut while we commit $130M between the airport, zoo, and Gilcrease?  Unless the airport infrastructure funding is for an industrial park or improvements to attract new industries to Tulsa, I don’t see it as improving Tulsa’s economic outlook.  Maybe those investments in the zoo and Gilcrease would make them world class institutions, but it seems like a disproportionate amount considering some of the smaller initiatives that looked like they had very good economic payback for the city.

I’m also not a fan of putting funding for Langston in this package.  I simply do not like the way the board of regents treats Tulsa like a stepchild of other educational institutions and 30 years after the formation of UCAT, we still do not have a “real” four year public university in Tulsa.

I really liked Gilcrease’s proposal when they presented it to the council.  They keep pointing to the success of Crystal Bridges in Bentonville and the annual census numbers of that museum and that is their goal.  However, the entire campus around CB is very unusual and beautiful.  It’s also along a 40 some mile corridor of pedestrian paths, something the Gilcrease package attempts to emulate. 

Unless I missed something in the proposal, USABMX can’t possibly add enough jobs to justify $18M of the pot.  They do a huge race in the Expo Center around Thanksgiving every year, that’s the real prize to the Tulsa economy.  How much would developing a training center here really add back?  I fail to see this as any different than offering Emmett Hahn $18M to establish the “national headquarters” for the Chili Bowl, Tulsa Shootout, and American Sprint Car Series. 

I’m appreciative of the process, and for many different individuals and groups to present their ideas to the council.  Even after that process, the final slate looks like many pre-concieved projects directly from the council chambers, not the at-large projects.  JMO.

Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11111



« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2015, 10:50:19 am »

Even though not in Tulsa, I would rather see a few million go the the Oklahoma Botanical garden than anything go to the dams!  That will have much greater return than the dams will - even without the support!  Give it a boost!!


If nothing else, give them money for road improvements to the facility.  I hate that it ended up so far out of town, 'cause this could be like the Ft. Worth botanical garden - very big draw for people, even in fall/winter.  Took a train trip there a couple weeks ago, and the place was packed!  And beautiful.


There is a massively underutilized, large tract of land from 36th St N to 46th St N,  Peoria to Lewis that would have been an excellent place for a large botanical garden/park complex.   And there is a creek corridor from Lewis that extends over under 75 to Yahola lake - could have connections to Mohawk area.  This could have been a very nice, very large facility that would make excellent use of an area that has nice terrain features and could be cleaned up nicely.  Just a thought....

Would have to get rid of the perpetual garage (garbage) sale on Lewis....


Plus, there is another wasted area just south of 36th St N that could be included.... 


« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 11:01:01 am by heironymouspasparagus » Logged

“When you wage war on the public schools, you're attacking the mortar that holds the community together. You're not a conservative, you're a vandal.”    - Garrison Keillor

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.

What you do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say.
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12009



« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2015, 11:28:39 am »

Will the ballot be three separate votes?
Logged
patric
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6318


These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For


« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2015, 12:43:59 pm »

Will the ballot be three separate votes?


It would have to be, if anything were to pass.

Remember this was specifically infrastructure and Quality-of-life funding, not a crutch for too-big-to-fail city departments.
Logged

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
AquaMan
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4043


Just Cruz'n


« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2015, 12:54:37 pm »

Mostly what Conan wrote. The bulk of the economic funds, $210,000,000 out of $366,000,000 go for the perennial needy: The Zoo, The Airport, Gilcrease, Tulsa Transit and Langston. They've been begging funding as long as I can remember. I thought we would get some really creative, progressive ideas for the next generation. What happened?

Move the public safety out of the Vision package. This is a short term tax source being used for ongoing expenses of an expected public service. Not a good idea in the long run. They need to find a basic source of funding to rely on and stay within their budgets. Strangely I am reminded that when criticized back in 2005 that the tax would become permanent and used for ongoing expenses we were promised this Vision thing was supposed to be a temporary tax to accomplish specific economic generators for the city. Not an annual turkey/ham giveaway. Anyone else remember those criticisms and promises?

"The river is the thing wherein the conscience of the city will be revealed...."
Logged

onward...through the fog
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12009



« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 01:09:54 pm »

I'll most likely vote "no". 

I'm disappointed that this was not centered more on progressive vision.

River?  Nothing has been done to prove to me that we won't end up with REI developments.

Police?  Should have nothing to do with this.

Economic Development?  It looks like there's just enough money allocated to pay someone to send in quotes for projects that could be done if we want to send more money.

No x 3 - I've never voted that way since I've been legally able to vote.
Logged
brettakins
Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 01:10:09 pm »

I do not agree that public safety should be included in the package. So what happens when that expires, will the city of tulsa have to implement a new vision package to fund public safety?

I do not understand why residents of Osage County that live in Tulsa are required to pay taxes to the city but are not included in the vote. Their taxes are being allocated for projects that they have no say so. Gilcrease Hills is in Osage County it makes no sense.
Logged
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601



« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2015, 01:40:52 pm »


I’m appreciative of the process, and for many different individuals and groups to present their ideas to the council.  Even after that process, the final slate looks like many pre-concieved projects directly from the council chambers, not the at-large projects.  JMO.


Quote from:  AquaMan  link=topic=21207.msg303453#msg303453 date=1450800119
Mostly what Conan wrote. The bulk of the economic funds, $210,000,000 out of $366,000,000 go for the perennial needy: The Zoo, The Airport, Gilcrease, Tulsa Transit and Langston. They've been begging funding as long as I can remember. I thought we would get some really creative, progressive ideas for the next generation. What happened?

I was really excited how they opened up the process so that many could present their ideas and was looking forward to seeing which projects made the cut. It looks like almost all of those got thrown out except for Ewing's proposal. I love Gilcrease but $69 million is far too much! I agree with Aquaman that this is mostly a welfare package for big organizations who are always trying to get more public money. Even after huge infusions of cash, most will still run at a deficit for the foreseeable future (thus, no return on investment, not to mention only those organizations would see any benefit). Furthermore, those are established organizations which already have the means/connections to raise donations. I thought this was about boosting game-changing ideas which would enhance the economy and might not have a chance otherwise. Most of the game-changing ideas were thrown out (such as the raised sports complex in the parking crater which had the support of TCC) and included a parking garage and mixed use buildings. They also threw out the Pearl District Canal which could create a unique urban mixed-use space which could help downtown grow east to expand towards Cherry St/TU.

One of the best, most unique and potentially valuable projects was the Art Deco museum and that seemed to be cut very early on. I interact with people visiting Tulsa frequently and one of the most common things people ask about and are interested in is Art Deco architecture and buildings like the Boston Avenue United Methodist church. There are Art Deco tour maps of Tulsa and in other cities where this was prominent (LA, Miami Beach & Chicago). Tulsa should build on this.

The Sports Complex and Art Deco museum are both ideas which will 1) Add something new ("game-changing") 2) enhance the economy, especially downtown 3) create another destination in downtown and 4) aren't part of multi-million dollar revenue organizations (Thus have more of a need for Vision money).

The Tulsa Zoo and Gilcrease are already very good. Improving those does not add anything new. The Airport repairs need to be funded by private investment or an alternate tax revenue stream (public infrastructure). They need to throw out the south dam. I really wanted them to make this a good package, but I see at least a dozen reasons I will vote no.

I think they kept most all of the worst options to please the powers that be and threw out any actual innovative ideas (besides Ewing's transit hub which is neat). Then they refuse to throw out the South dam. This looks like another failure. I would be frustrated if I had put the work some of them did just to end up with such a horrible combo of projects. Everyone I know is still adamantly against the River Tax just like in 2007, especially Tulsans paying for Jenks/River Spirit/Bixby's dam. How could they be so foolish to repeat this again?  
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 01:47:34 pm by TulsaGoldenHurriCAN » Logged
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601



« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2015, 02:02:53 pm »


Air National Guard, $9.4 million


Why is this even in there? They are heavily funded and part of a branch which gets tens of billions per year. Why would this be a part of the "Vision" package!? I know several who have worked there and they laugh at how they do very little work and get paid better than 90% of people and how it takes "an act of congress" to get them fired and are quite prideful with how many dollars of fuel/etc they waste. Maybe manage your workforce better.

Yet another reason to vote no.
Logged
Dspike
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2015, 02:37:11 pm »

On the public safety portion, the first World article notes: "The public safety proposal is designed as a permanent tax." So the concern that it will expire is misplaced. The concern that what was originally promoted as a temporary tax (Vision 2025) is becoming a permanent tax is accurate.
Logged
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12009



« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2015, 02:59:12 pm »

I'm very disappointed in this.

A friend is back in Tulsa for a project.  She lives outside Denver.

She mentioned how real estate costs have exploded in the Denver area.  I asked her if she knew why.

She read an article that 500 - 800 people are moving to Colorado a day.  (her info, not mine)

The biggest reason for the housing boom is that young college graduates are finding a cool place to live and then finding a job...

Gosh...why isn't that happening in Tulsa?
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28709



« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2015, 03:51:39 pm »

I'm very disappointed in this.

A friend is back in Tulsa for a project.  She lives outside Denver.

She mentioned how real estate costs have exploded in the Denver area.  I asked her if she knew why.

She read an article that 500 - 800 people are moving to Colorado a day.  (her info, not mine)

The biggest reason for the housing boom is that young college graduates are finding a cool place to live and then finding a job...

Gosh...why isn't that happening in Tulsa?

The boom has been on-going on the front range for at least 15 years.  The climate is ideal for chip manufacturing and other high tech, it’s cheaper than California to live there (at least it was, not sure if that’s the case now), cheaper to operate there than California, fairly central location for rail, truck, and air, major hub airport...yadda...yadda...yadda.  And then there’s quality of life.  You are an hour or two from a year ‘round recreation mecca.

All that said, I cringe any time I must drive through Denver or Colorado Springs.  In many ways I’m thankful Tulsa has not grown at the rate of these two cities or Austin.  We will eventually settle in Co. or NM, but it won’t be one of the more populated areas, that’s for sure.

Tulsa has opportunities to improve our hip factor and quality of life.  The proposal to remove parts of the IDL and the Elm Creek project were two items I felt were real game changers (even though I hate that cliche’) which took some seriously innovative thinking.  Tulsa is turning the corner on becoming more progressive in terms of development but we need better vision leading the whole show, not Mr. Golly Gee Good Ol’ Boy Bartlett.  He either has no appreciation for how real growth can happen or he simply doesn’t care and goes for low-hanging fruit like developing park land thinking that further diluting the sales tax collection base is somehow going to lead to prosperity.

Dspike was at a Typros Government Crew gathering where I spoke about the mall proposal on Turkey Mountain.  When I did an informal poll of what was a more important consideration of “livability”: green space and recreation or shopping, it was overwhelming for green space and recreation.

I wish our leaders would pay closer attention to what potential future citizens of Tulsa consider to be their priorities.  
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Townsend
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12009



« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2015, 04:00:52 pm »


Dspike was at a Typros Government Crew gathering where I spoke about the mall proposal on Turkey Mountain.  When I did an informal poll of what was a more important consideration of “livability”: green space and recreation or shopping, it was overwhelming for green space and recreation.

I wish our leaders would pay closer attention to what potential future citizens of Tulsa consider to be their priorities.  

Green space and recreation don't fill the wallets of those on committees or lobbying those on committees making decisions.
Logged
AquaMan
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4043


Just Cruz'n


« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2015, 04:06:08 pm »

And Bartlett is at least a white, male, republican. This reddest of the red reputation has a stultifying effect on governance.
Logged

onward...through the fog
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org