|
swake
|
 |
« Reply #315 on: February 15, 2016, 09:50:36 pm » |
|
I would really like to see where you got those statistics. They are similar to the ones I found where they had the city growing by about 1,000-2000 per year during those years or about 1% growth. Which is really slow but at least growing. But when I looked at a demographic breakdown it showed that the white population was declining, the black population remained steady and pretty much the only growth was in the Hispanic community. Then if I look at what has happened nationally in the last couple of years with the slowdown in Hispanic migration and locally with oil hitting the rocks... my guess would be that 2015 saw what growth we had go below 1% and would guess that this year might see us hit negative numbers again. This is one instance where I would be super happy to be wrong however.
These are official US Census and BLM numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LandArchPoke
|
|
« Reply #317 on: March 17, 2016, 07:45:58 pm » |
|
Arkansas River improvements impact study has been released http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/economic-impact-study-shows-big-possibilities-for-vision-s-river/article_5ef0c40d-b2cd-5946-8bc9-6eca158dce90.htmlLink to PDF: http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/ef/8ef58401-c250-57a2-b064-a1c12cfb6781/56eb1b4d080ca.pdf.pdfInterested to see what people think. Personally, I think not one point is very applicable to what Tulsa is proposing. It's saying OKC's MAPS was the reason it's economy grew at X rate so that will mean Tulsa's economy has the potential to grow at X rate with Vision = $$$ economic impact. The other "river" investments they looked at are more comparable to what impact the Gathering Place/Parks in general have - not dams. They are very different. Building parks and civic building near a waterfront does create economic impacts, as it provides places for commerce. Simply building damns to add water, doesn't - you still need the places for commerce in order to get some economic benefit. Which in my opinion is what's been lacking with this proposal is there hasn't been enough emphasis on improvements to the public spaces next to the new "water in the river". Also there is not a single mention/analysis of the potential development impact along the two proposed "lakes". How difficult would that have been? That's what everyone been wanting to know... if we build these dams how much new sq. ft. of real estate could go along the banks. That = $$ in property taxes, $$ = in sales taxes, xx new jobs, etc. That = $$$ in estimated economic impact/ X.X% ROI. These other cities could (and do) have a lot more vacant waterfront land than Tulsa does. We have very distinct/limit development opportunities along both proposed lakes that these other cities don't. Outside of the concrete plant and the city facility where is there large infill potential along Zink Lake? Outside of were the Simon outlet mall is proposed and some smaller parcels, where is there large infill potential along the Jenks lake? Making a general assumption that the OKC River improvements/MAPS drove all job growth in OKC is blatantly wrong and bogus, and deriving an economic impact number from that for the Arkansas River improvements is even more bogus. I'm glad that this is being broke into 3 votes. I will be voting NO on public safety. Likely voting YES on the other 2, but this study doesn't make me feel any better about the Jenks lake - I think Tulsa is being taken advantage of in % we are paying for and will see very little ROI from that area. Zink lake, I see the need for it with the Gathering Place and the potential westbank redevelopment areas and just creating a better sense of place around the downtown area. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TeeDub
Guest
|
|
« Reply #318 on: March 20, 2016, 12:20:00 pm » |
|
So the city committed people to additional monies without ever checking? http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/03/dead-dam-vision-fox23s-spiked-st.htmlLast week, a local TV station spiked a well-researched news story about funding problems for the proposed south Tulsa / Jenks low-water dam and the awareness of Tulsa elected officials of the problem before they voted to put the proposal on the ballot. The story's sudden withdrawal hints at pressure by local power-brokers, panicked that the public will become aware of the flimsy foundation of the "Vision Tulsa" sales tax proposal. According to multiple documents, including internal e-mails, Tulsa city leaders knew the south Tulsa-Jenks dam had fallen through, yet Tulsa city leaders not only kicked off their Vision Tulsa campaign in late February as if nothing had happened, they continue to campaign for the two-dam system while working on alternative plans for the river at city hall. But after FOX23 reported that the Creek Nation was going to set up an endowment, members of the Creek Nation began to contact FOX23 saying they were not aware of the multi-million dollar commitment Tulsa officials had allegedly assumed they would be fine with. The tribe’s own internal news agency quoted Creek Nation representatives to Tulsa as saying they were not informed of the plan to set up the endowment and partner with Jenks and Tulsa on the dams.Multiple sources close to the Vision Tulsa project who have been asked not to be identified have simply said city leaders assumed the tribe would be on board without consulting them of their plans before they presented them to voters as a done deal set in stone.The first officials meeting to discuss an endowment happened on February 11th, and days later, the tribe officially notified city leaders they were out of the Vision low water dam plan. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #319 on: March 20, 2016, 01:20:24 pm » |
|
There was also briefly something in the news about some proposed tax changes at the state level that would allow local areas to, I believe it was, raise property taxes (as the state has lowered some taxes) if they wanted for police/safety? This could greatly impact one part of the Vision package as well, but it too seemed to appear, then vanish from the news cycle. I was thinking we would hear a lot more about it but haven't. It may be that this could be an alternative to using Vision money for Police and Fire and enable it to be used as it was intended, for "vision" type stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
davideinstein
Guest
|
|
« Reply #320 on: March 20, 2016, 01:37:04 pm » |
|
It just seems like the transit vote is the only safe bet, but I want the Gilcrease to get the funding.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vashta Nerada
|
|
« Reply #322 on: March 21, 2016, 03:17:41 pm » |
|
So the city committed people to additional monies without ever checking? http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/03/dead-dam-vision-fox23s-spiked-st.htmlLast week, a local TV station spiked a well-researched news story about funding problems for the proposed south Tulsa / Jenks low-water dam and the awareness of Tulsa elected officials of the problem before they voted to put the proposal on the ballot. The story's sudden withdrawal hints at pressure by local power-brokers, panicked that the public will become aware of the flimsy foundation of the "Vision Tulsa" sales tax proposal. According to multiple documents, including internal e-mails, Tulsa city leaders knew the south Tulsa-Jenks dam had fallen through, yet Tulsa city leaders not only kicked off their Vision Tulsa campaign in late February as if nothing had happened, they continue to campaign for the two-dam system while working on alternative plans for the river at city hall. But after FOX23 reported that the Creek Nation was going to set up an endowment, members of the Creek Nation began to contact FOX23 saying they were not aware of the multi-million dollar commitment Tulsa officials had allegedly assumed they would be fine with. The tribe’s own internal news agency quoted Creek Nation representatives to Tulsa as saying they were not informed of the plan to set up the endowment and partner with Jenks and Tulsa on the dams.Multiple sources close to the Vision Tulsa project who have been asked not to be identified have simply said city leaders assumed the tribe would be on board without consulting them of their plans before they presented them to voters as a done deal set in stone.The first officials meeting to discuss an endowment happened on February 11th, and days later, the tribe officially notified city leaders they were out of the Vision low water dam plan. Some discrete inquiries seem to indicate Michael Bates' analysis is correct, at least with regard to tampering with the media's integrity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #323 on: March 22, 2016, 08:01:52 am » |
|
I'm disappointed. City Officials certainly allowed We the People to believe the Creek funding was secured. Less than full disclosure.
Also very disappointed Fox 23. It appears the pulled the story because of politics, not because it was inaccurate in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
swake
|
|
« Reply #324 on: March 22, 2016, 08:42:45 am » |
|
Tulsa, Jenks and Creek leaders clarify dam funding plans http://www.fox23.com/news/tulsa-jenks-and-creek-leaders-clarify-dam-funding-plans/173298123City of Tulsa officials say they have a backup plan if the city cannot deliver on promises included in the tax package they are asking voters to renew.
City officials said they hope to pass the Vision 2025 plan that would build two low-water dams, but they need financial help from the Creek Nation to make it all happen.
One of the dams would be located at Zink Lake and the other would create a south Tulsa lake.
George McFarlin with Citizens for a Better Vision said voters need to know that if they pass the Vision renewal, the dams are not a sure thing.
“There is no promise from the Muscogee Creek Nation,” McFarlin said.
McFarlin said a letter written to Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett from the Creek Nation said they are “unable to commit resources.”
Councilor G.T. Bynum, on the other hand, said some people just misunderstood the letter.
Bynum said the plan has always been for city leaders to discuss funding with the Creek Nation only if the Vision extension passes.
"No one has ever agreed to do it for sure," Bynum said.
Thompson Gouge with the Creek Nation confirmed Bynum’s claims. He said no one has agreed to fund the project, but he guaranteed the Creek Nation will talk about the funding.
In order to clear up confusion about the project’s funding, Jenks, Tulsa and Creek Nation officials released a joint statement.
“If approved, the Creek Nation looks forward to discussing how we can continue to partner on the Arkansas River Corridor,” the statement read.
City officials said if Jenks and Tulsa both vote for the project, but the Creek Nation decided not to fund it, the Zink Dam would still happen, but the south Tulsa dam would not.
The City Council would then decide how to spend the money allotted for the south Tulsa dam, or officials may end the tax early.
FOX23 asked officials if a commercial promoting the dams in connection with the Vision extension was misleading.
"I think if they vote for it, we have a chance to get it done," Bynum said. "If they don't, there's zero chance it happens."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #325 on: March 22, 2016, 08:49:36 am » |
|
This has always been the approach, it’s been twisted into a bait and switch by people chronically against any improvement taxes and due to seriously piss-poor communication from the city. It was also pointed out that if Jenks and/or the Creeks would not commit to funding that this part of the project would be left out and there would be no assessment for an unbuilt project. i.e. the assessment for this part of the package would end early if the south dam were not built. I am aware there is a possibility of someone else stepping up to make it a reality should Jenks and the Creeks not participate.
They city put such a tight deadline on this and started rolling this out before many loose ends were tied up like the economic impact numbers it looks and sounds like a cluster at times.
I give city an “A” for the ideas in the package and a “C-" or a “D” on their communication and method of selling it to voters.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 08:53:39 am by Conan71 »
|
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
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #326 on: March 22, 2016, 09:55:53 am » |
|
The current advertising touts 18,500 jobs created by the dams. That seems pretty....puffy. They may have included the impact of The Gathering Place, the casino and the dams to get there. Even then, hard to imagine that they will be anything more than hourly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
swake
|
|
« Reply #327 on: March 22, 2016, 10:16:36 am » |
|
This has always been the approach, it’s been twisted into a bait and switch by people chronically against any improvement taxes and due to seriously piss-poor communication from the city. It was also pointed out that if Jenks and/or the Creeks would not commit to funding that this part of the project would be left out and there would be no assessment for an unbuilt project. i.e. the assessment for this part of the package would end early if the south dam were not built. I am aware there is a possibility of someone else stepping up to make it a reality should Jenks and the Creeks not participate.
They city put such a tight deadline on this and started rolling this out before many loose ends were tied up like the economic impact numbers it looks and sounds like a cluster at times.
I give city an “A” for the ideas in the package and a “C-" or a “D” on their communication and method of selling it to voters.
Added to that, there's been a change in Administration at the Creek Nation. There's a new Chief that wasn't part of the deal when Tulsa, Jenks and the Creek Nation were talking. He's never taken a stand and why should he spend the political capital within the tribe to back the dam deal before the vote? If the vote is "yes", then he can deal with getting support on the council to get funding. There's no upside for him to do it now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #328 on: March 22, 2016, 12:00:05 pm » |
|
The current advertising touts 18,500 jobs created by the dams.
I'd love to see where those numbers come from. If you want water in the river because it looks pretty, fine. But the economic development angle baffles me. This will not create a waterfront with tons of land ready to be developed - there just isn't much land along the stretches of the river that will be "filled" with water that is available to be developed. 18,000 jobs? Lets look at our current employers... 8000 @ St. Francis Health System 3000 @ The Port of Catoosa 2000 @ BOK 1000 @ Bama Pie 820 @ Direct TV 700 @ Williams Employees in Tulsa 500 @ Helmrich and Payne 500 @ Creek Nation 400 @ EMSA 350 @ Linde 300 @ Goodwill Industries 250 @ Pennwell 250 @ Ramsey Winch 225 @ Spartan 200 @ Pepsi Bottling So we can get rid of all of those companies and just build two dams? Who knew! I say we build 20 dams and add 180,000 jobs! Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
Townsend
|
|
« Reply #329 on: March 22, 2016, 12:07:59 pm » |
|
So we can get rid of all of those companies and just build two dams? Who knew! I say we build 20 dams and add 180,000 jobs!
Ridiculous.
It's not the truthfulness of what you're saying...it's what you can get people to believe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
