I went to the first of the many street funding public meetings tonight. It was at McClure Park and was attended by many citizens (I counted 108), four television stations, four councilors (Martinson, Patrick, Christiansen and Gomez), the Mayor and a handle of public works folks.
Martinson did a good job starting the meeting with a powerpoint presentation talking about the needs for repairs and the funding options.
I hope that the public comes out and learns the details for themselves instead of just the facts that the media share. I think that anybody who keeps an open mind during the presentation will agree that something has to be done and the time to do it is now.
Something is one thing, but what's being proposed is another.
I agree with that older guy I saw on the news stations that said the property tax wasn't fair because his property never drives on the roads.
[:D]
Just read the article in the TW about Christiansen opposing any package that doesn't include south Tulsa street widening.
I understand Christiansen's desire to make his constituents happy by widening their roads, but does he actually grasp the fact that sprawl and widening roads to the burbs is what got us in this fix to begin with?
Does he understand that wide roads are a detriment to mass transit and pedestrian access? Does he realize that the solution will require a change in urban design and zoning codes to make new developments pedestrian friendly and less car-dependent?
As far as I know, there aren't that many major job centers in south Tulsa. So all of his constituents will continue to need to get downtown, and to various hospitals, office parks, universities, the airport, etc. Wide roads aren't going to help these people when gas is $5 a gallon.
Does he have the foresight to fight for reliable and efficient mass transit? For new zoning codes to help make any new development more livable and less car-reliant?
They say that nations tend to fight the previous war. (The Maginot line would have worked great for France during WWI, but in WWII, German tanks went around it and German planes flew right over it.) I think Christiansen seems to be fighting for the previous paradigm. Hope he realizes that the world is changing before it totally passes him by. We need more radical, creative solutions --and much braver leadership--than just demanding more asphalt to maintain.
The folks who moved down south saw the narrow roads when they chose to build there. If they want to widen them, that's fine with me. But they should pony up for the cost. Why should the rest of the city pay a stupidity tax to support unsustainable development that will simply add to the drain on Tulsa's resources? (expanded utilities, fire, police, roads, etc)
The future will be about driving less, not more. Do we want to plan for that future? Or just become more and more obsolete by continuing to "do what we've always done?"
The link below is the World's coverage of last night's meeting. Seems pretty dumb to go out to tout a package without being able to reveal all the details.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080604_16_A8_hInthe996223
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
The link below is the World's coverage of last night's meeting. Seems pretty dumb to go out to tout a package without being able to reveal all the details.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080604_16_A8_hInthe996223
Seems they're trying to fulfill the legal requirements without the meat.
If they don't know how this is funded yet, it's going to be hard to pull it off without blind luck.
But, if they do know and aren't saying, well, that's something else entirely.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
The link below is the World's coverage of last night's meeting. Seems pretty dumb to go out to tout a package without being able to reveal all the details.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080604_16_A8_hInthe996223
Seems they're trying to fulfill the legal requirements without the meat.
If they don't know how this is funded yet, it's going to be hard to pull it off without blind luck.
But, if they do know and aren't saying, well, that's something else entirely.
Pretty sure it's been laid out pretty clear. It relies on extending the V2025, Third Penny and 4 to Fix sales taxes and slight increases in Utility rates starting in about 2013.
In other words, relatively no new taxes. Utility rates always go up anyway.
Tulsa took your money, Tulsa spent your money...
Now rather than the city/county doing the belt tightening, it is again time for the citizens to do it... Again.
I want to support Mass Transit but the clannish attitude of some downtowners is starting to put me off.
I hope to attend one of the street funding meetings but missed the first one. I did attend the "What About Rail" presentation. I liked it except for the attempted extortion to park my car. (No other way to get there, yet.) I haven't seen any plans for Mass Transit to make it feasible to leave my car at home, near 111th & Memorial, yet I am expected to pay for it. Then the downtown clan tells me to pay for my own road improvements as well as for downtown.
At some time or another, Tulsa chose to annex the property in what is now SE Tulsa. I expect it was for the potential tax base. It certainly wasn't for existing utilities, police, fire protection, roads. In exchange for paying taxes to Tulsa, it is reasonable to expect city services. South Tulsa has been paying a stupidity tax to support downtown. In exchange we get no Mass Transit and get told to stuff it when we ask for road improvements.
It is not reasonable to assume that "all" of SE Tulsans work downtown. I guess a formal definition of SE Tulsa is required to determine if there are any major employment centers. I consider the Saint Francis health complexes to be SE Tulsa. The 71st street corridor should also qualify as SE Tulsa. At least none of the downtowners admit to going there. There may not be a single employer of huge numbers of people but there are lots of employers with small numbers of people.
Others have already said that the role of the automobile has to change but that it is not going to go away. I can agree with that. Provide me with a way to get from 111th & Memorial to the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr Airport (the one by Jenks) in a time and cost comparible to my auto and I would probably take it. I might even use a bus if gas gets much higher. It would have to be more than $5/gal. My 20 mile round trip at 20 mpg and $5/gal would only be about $100/mo for gas. (Remember to deduct vacation and holidays if you are checking my math.) I realize others are not so fortunate. Give me light rail and I'll take it now. No parking lot door dings. No worrys about hail storms. No sliding on snowy roads. Not putting up with idiot drivers trying to merge with 65 MPH traffic while entering the turnpike at 45 MPH and then passing you as if you were a turtle a mile later. And so on.
There is no Downtown Clan. There is no MidTown Elite. There is no SouthEast Clan. Those are not helpful groupings and tend to create hardening of views without much analysis. A few outspoken people from those areas do not represent us all.
You make a good point that much of the traffic out south is not going downtown or even north of 71st. Daytime traffic is brisk out along Memorial to 117th because of the retail expansion around Bixby and the tons of medical clinics. A lot of back and forth traffic from BA, Glenpool, Jenks as well. The needs out there are not maintenance or repair but streamlining of the traffic flow. Widening of some streets will help that out. Closer in to town the roads are abysmal. They need serious repair and rehab.
As long as the two lifestyles of suburban and urban are so different I can understand the reticence to fund each other. My opinion is, I'll hold my nose and vote for limited widening if you'll close your eyes and vote for road repair and mass transit.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There is no Downtown Clan. There is no MidTown Elite. There is no SouthEast Clan. Those are not helpful groupings and tend to create hardening of views without much analysis. A few outspoken people from those areas do not represent us all.
You make a good point that much of the traffic out south is not going downtown or even north of 71st. Daytime traffic is brisk out along Memorial to 117th because of the retail expansion around Bixby and the tons of medical clinics. A lot of back and forth traffic from BA, Glenpool, Jenks as well. The needs out there are not maintenance or repair but streamlining of the traffic flow. Widening of some streets will help that out. Closer in to town the roads are abysmal. They need serious repair and rehab.
As long as the two lifestyles of suburban and urban are so different I can understand the reticence to fund each other. My opinion is, I'll hold my nose and vote for limited widening if you'll close your eyes and vote for road repair and mass transit.
Well said!
I don't think this needs to be a polar issue. The problems exist. They affect us all. We need to fix them. . . and we need to keep an eye on how efficiently the money is spent!
This is an opportunity for our leaders to prove their worth through fiscal responsibility or be replaced.
Lets give them the rope they need, and the support necessary to climb up the gallows or out of the pit.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There is no Downtown Clan. There is no MidTown Elite. There is no SouthEast Clan. Those are not helpful groupings and tend to create hardening of views without much analysis. A few outspoken people from those areas do not represent us all.
You make a good point that much of the traffic out south is not going downtown or even north of 71st. Daytime traffic is brisk out along Memorial to 117th because of the retail expansion around Bixby and the tons of medical clinics. A lot of back and forth traffic from BA, Glenpool, Jenks as well. The needs out there are not maintenance or repair but streamlining of the traffic flow. Widening of some streets will help that out. Closer in to town the roads are abysmal. They need serious repair and rehab.
As long as the two lifestyles of suburban and urban are so different I can understand the reticence to fund each other. My opinion is, I'll hold my nose and vote for limited widening if you'll close your eyes and vote for road repair and mass transit.
I certainly hope there are no real clans in the various districts. I was just trying to get someone to stand up and say enough of this divisiveness. Thank you.
The fact that Public Works is doing an audit, in preparation for the 2 Billion..... will surely bring people together in a customary Tulsa fashion.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080605_16_A11_hSomet79213
I know this was mentioned in the "Discussion" section....but it will surely play a part in the credibility of this project..
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/document.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
The fact that Public Works is doing an audit, in preparation for the 2 Billion..... will surely bring people together in a customary Tulsa fashion.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080605_16_A11_hSomet79213
I know this was mentioned in the "Discussion" section....but it will surely play a part in the credibility of this project..
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/document.jpg)
I love that bumper sticker. Print it and I'll buy some.[:D]
That sticker has been getting spread around by e-mail all over the city. I dunno who is responsible but really it's not accurate IMO...
It oughta read
Tulsa.
Support something. Anything.
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
That sticker has been getting spread around by e-mail all over the city. I dunno who is responsible but really it's not accurate IMO...
It oughta read
Tulsa.
Support something. Anything.
I'll do something like that... I support a real audit of the Public Works Department.
I support a real "Fix the Streets" package that doesn't get spent on the widening of streets.
Such a thing is not street repair... it is street construction.
You want to "support something. Anything" flip the line to the people that do not question.
a hint....TyPro'sBy the way Welcome to Tulsa Now
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
You want to "support something. Anything" flip the line to the people that do not question.
a hint....TyPro's
/me rolls his eyes as hard as he can...
Tomorrow evening at 6:30.... anyone and everyone will have a chance to see, hear, and question the "Streets" package.
This "Town Hall" will be the "Citywide version"..
The meeting is being held at the City Council meeting room at the Francis Campbell building.
5th and Denver.
We will see just how this one plays out.
Friendly Bear.... I know you are out there.. You need to give them a "dose of tax based logic..?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/document.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I did attend the "What About Rail" presentation. I liked it except for the attempted extortion to park my car. (No other way to get there, yet.)
Parking was free in the garage next to the Depot for the "What About Rail" event. They left one exit completely open(the "arm thingy" was up!), so that people could park for free and attend the event. If you tried to go out the wrong exit, all you had to do was tell the attendent that you were at the rail event, and they would have directed you to the free exit.
I don't see any extortion there. There's also always plenty of free on-street parking in the evenings downtown.
Certainly, in the future, I hope you'll be able to make it downtown using affordadble, fast and efficient transit. But downtown denizens are the furthest thing from "clannish." In fact, I would say that they are among the most welcoming and open-minded folks in town. (Downtown regulars may have the advantage of being more comfortable with the one-way streets and structured parking options. Hopefully, better signage in the future will make these things more "user-friendly" to those who are not intimately familiar with downtown.)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I did attend the "What About Rail" presentation. I liked it except for the attempted extortion to park my car. (No other way to get there, yet.)
Parking was free in the garage next to the Depot for the "What About Rail" event. They left one exit completely open(the "arm thingy" was up!), so that people could park for free and attend the event. If you tried to go out the wrong exit, all you had to do was tell the attendent that you were at the rail event, and they would have directed you to the free exit.
I don't see any extortion there. There's also always plenty of free on-street parking in the evenings downtown.
Certainly, in the future, I hope you'll be able to make it downtown using affordadble, fast and efficient transit. But downtown denizens are the furthest thing from "clannish." In fact, I would say that they are among the most welcoming and open-minded folks in town. (Downtown regulars may have the advantage of being more comfortable with the one-way streets and structured parking options. Hopefully, better signage in the future will make these things more "user-friendly" to those who are not intimately familiar with downtown.)
As I remember, the garage across from the main entrance had a big sign that said "monthly parking only" or words to the effect that I shouldn't park there. Maybe I missed a sign. An open gate is not necessarily an invitation to free parking if you are not a regular. The map for the event showed several surface lots. I thought that after hours maybe $2 should be fair but the time cutoff for the parking fee looked like I would have to pay $5 for just a couple of hours. I don't rememeber the exact numbers. That was beyond my threshold of interest. I did find a spot on the street a block or two away so I parked there.
One way streets don't bother me. We lived on one in suburban Philadelphia, PA when I was a kid. Just go around the block if you need to. Of course, $4.00/gal gas makes that less attractive.
From an outsider's point of view, downtown is kind of like a store. Business from the suburbanites like me will come when there is a specific product I want at a price and convenience level I am willing to pay.
Sorry for throwing us off on a tangent...Back to the Streets package...
I went to the public meeting on Monday night. They make a pretty good case for the streets package...especially when you see the comparisons between what we spent on the streets in the 80's vs. today. (Today, we spend half as much/year--not adjusted for inflation--and have twice as many lane miles!)
I absolutely believe that street widening needs to be funded SEPARATELY from repair and maintenance. (They didn't really talk about widening in the presentation.) Tulsa used to have special assessments to help pay for street widening (until the late 60's, I think) and it's too bad we got away from that method.
If your house needs a new roof, and you have a limited budget, you don't spend your money expanding the kitchen! You take care of the basic structural needs of the house first. It's ridiculous to suggest that widening roads in the far reaches of the city is as important as fixing what we have.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Sorry for throwing us off on a tangent...Back to the Streets package...
I went to the public meeting on Monday night. They make a pretty good case for the streets package...especially when you see the comparisons between what we spent on the streets in the 80's vs. today. (Today, we spend half as much/year--not adjusted for inflation--and have twice as many lane miles!)
I absolutely believe that street widening needs to be funded SEPARATELY from repair and maintenance. (They didn't really talk about widening in the presentation.) Tulsa used to have special assessments to help pay for street widening (until the late 60's, I think) and it's too bad we got away from that method.
If your house needs a new roof, and you have a limited budget, you don't spend your money expanding the kitchen! You take care of the basic structural needs of the house first. It's ridiculous to suggest that widening roads in the far reaches of the city is as important as fixing what we have.
There is no question that the roads need fixing in some areas of Tulsa. The question is who pays and how much. The prevalant attitude among the vocal group in this forum is that all of Tulsa pays for the repairs but only the direct beneficiaries of road widening should pay for that. Politics being what they are, the best way to get everyone to pay for road repairs (that they may never drive over) is to allow for some road improvements that others may never drive over. I expect INCOG has some real numbers on the percentage of people that live in the city limits and immediate suburbs that never drive over the worst roads to work downtown. It would be interesting to see them. Just to play the devil's advocate, how about a special assessment for road repairs? I originally thought the repairs and improvements were separate issues too. Then I realized that support for one would not result in support for the other.
I think Gaspar and Waterboy have the right attitude. Hold your breath and let's help each other.
My main concern is that they want the money,,, ok WE want the streets fixed, BUT they arent putting in a process to fix them the way we want them fixed.
Its the vote that gives us the power to have influence on how the money is to be spent. When I hear about widening streets in South Tulsa yet not a peep about half mile streets, One must be very concerned that if we do vote at this time to give them the money to "fix" the streets,,, will they do it right?
I also dont hear anything about pedestrian friendly and bike friendly streets, its all about cars, there is no fairness and balance. What about mass transit and how that fits into the streets issue?
If they are not considering those issues now, havent in the past,,, when will they? Its the power of the vote that gives us some leverage. Otherwise its going to be same ol same ol. If what they are arguing about now any indication of what their mindsets are on the issues, that gives me absolutely NO comfort that they are going to do the right thing with our money after we give it to them.
Yes we want the streets fixed, but no I do not want to give them a blank check.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
My main concern is that they want the money,,, ok WE want the streets fixed, BUT they arent putting in a process to fix them the way we want them fixed.
Its the vote that gives us the power to have influence on how the money is to be spent. When I hear about widening streets in South Tulsa yet not a peep about half mile streets, One must be very concerned that if we do vote at this time to give them the money to "fix" the streets,,, will they do it right?
I also dont hear anything about pedestrian friendly and bike friendly streets, its all about cars, there is no fairness and balance. What about mass transit and how that fits into the streets issue?
If they are not considering those issues now, havent in the past,,, when will they? Its the power of the vote that gives us some leverage. Otherwise its going to be same ol same ol. If what they are arguing about now any indication of what their mindsets are on the issues, that gives me absolutely NO comfort that they are going to do the right thing with our money after we give it to them.
Yes we want the streets fixed, but no I do not want to give them a blank check.
I am sure you are making your wishes known to the decisionmakers. That is about all you can do now. There are so many disparate opinions on how the money should be spent and whose interests are to be met, that I cannot envision what process in such a short period of time would give a fair shake to them all. You could push for a later date for a vote to coincide with the general election to analyze those interests. But a negative vote accomplishes none of them.
Now is the time that you put faith in the people you elected. Make note why you elected them and remember the next time you have to choose. Like Gassman said, "give them the rope to either climb out of the pit or up the gallows".
Until we finally utilize the internet to accurately poll local Tulsans for what they want from their officials using something similar to our forum voting, we will only be getting the opinions and influence of those loudest voices who have the ear of our councilors and mayor.
Looks like the widening is going to be included--to the tune of a $120 Million investment in sprawl--business as usual. Sprawl til you crawl, Tulsa...
TW Article 6-13-08 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080613_16_A1_pncase13592%22)
The TW article lists 5 of the 8 areas that will be widened. For our $120 Million, so far, they've identified 5 miles of streets. If each of the 8 widening projects is 1 mile long, that will be 8 miles of street widening for $120. Or $15 Million per mile. (Not counting the millions that have already been spent to build and maintain those roads in the past.)
Please don't tell me that we can't afford rail transit. With rail, once you've got the lines, all you ever add are more cars to the train. Cost to expand is minimal.
"To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Ask Public Works for a streets solution, and you get big, wide streets. Ask an urban planner for a streets solution, and you get streets that accomodate alternative transit, pedestrians, cyclists, AND cars.
Anybody down in District 8 noticing the price at the pump? Enjoy those big, wide streets...while you still can!
The World story specifically says there would be only five widening projects, four of which are in Christiansen's District 8.
I am reminded of a denizen of New York in the 1920's who was asked about graft and its effect on the boroughs. He said there was both "good" graft and "bad" graft. Good graft is when your borough head (councilor) takes your campaign contribution and promises to get you a new sidewalk in front of your store if he is elected and you get the sidewalk. Bad graft is when he promises it but never comes through.