Seems there's more to the story yet.
This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.
Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.
Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.
I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.
They really know how to ruin a good thing.
I have to say the demise of DTU makes my mouth water, is that what this would amount to?
However, the idea of the demise of DTU by a more screwed up little bureaucracy makes my stomach churn.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Seems there's more to the story yet.
This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.
Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.
Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.
I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.
They really know how to ruin a good thing.
Thats old news and has been part of the plan since the beginning. Its also a big part of what many people consider to be one of the potential positives. Whether you like the rest or not, a lot of people like the idea of getting rid of DTU. How do you come to the descision that its a negative and how would it be a rip off?
Why do wrinkle and conan assume the worst?
The current contracts and providers have been questioned and researched and now that there will be a new funding formula, services will probably be changed as well.
It all sounds like progress to me.
Those two need an attitude change, IMO.
Not buying it.
I've spoken in favor of replacing DTU on this forum. I was not asking for this.
Do any of you understand what's really happening here?
I'm for dumping the whole thing and letting them go to Jenks over this.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Seems there's more to the story yet.
This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.
Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.
Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.
I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.
They really know how to ruin a good thing.
Thats old news and has been part of the plan since the beginning. Its also a big part of what many people consider to be one of the potential positives. Whether you like the rest or not, a lot of people like the idea of getting rid of DTU. How do you come to the descision that its a negative and how would it be a rip off?
This trust is set up as a private, for-profit business with government backing and guarantees. And, it's a total hands-off operation, untouchable by even government once it's established, at least as written.
I'm for replacing DTU, but not this way.
It needs big changes yet if it's going to fly. Otherwise, pack it up and ship if off to Jenks where it's a totally PRIVATE offering.
Limit the trust to ownership and operation of the ballpark and the immediate (one-block perimeter) area only. It's supposed to run the ballpark, not downtown.
Government gone wild. Wholesale sellout of public interest.
Linky linky? Can we get some context for what's being discussed here?
Replay your TGOV for today's Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting.
Agenda Item 12 (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=000A5355&num=2%22)
Wonder what it would take in the form of initiative to require a public vote to authorize acceptance of the 'benefit' of this 'Public Trust'?
If they have no public backing, they can play with themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wonder what it would take in the form of initiative to require a public vote to authorize acceptance of the 'benefit' of this 'Public Trust'?
If they have no public backing, they can play with themselves.
Call Drew Reese (sp?) and ask him.. He is a pretty stand up guy.
I have had dealings with him through the LaFortuna and the current administration... I have never found his answers to be
tipped towards anyone or any project.
I suspect that wrinkle has a dog in this hunt by his feigned outrage.
Are you with DTU?
The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.
The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.
The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.
It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.
This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.
You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.
The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.
The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.
It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.
This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.
Dude, wait. You appear to be saying that the Ballpark Trust is also taking over downtown maintenance from DTU. I never saw anything in the paper about this. Did I miss something obvious, or is this a new development?
And don't be too quick to point fingers. I don't fully trust those involved in this plan("them," since we've never quite figured out who "they" are). "They" have been too secretive throughout this entire process for no good reason, and that makes me not trust "them." This goes for the World not printing the names of donors until Martinson did it for them; the Mayor attempting to ramrod a flawed Trust Agreement through the city council; the TDA cutting off negotiations with prior engaged developers; Manhattan Construction getting the contract by being a donor without a public bid process; and HOK being chosen as architect before the plan was ever made public.
I've never before bought into the idea that the public decision-making process Tulsa might be fundamentally flawed, but watching the way this plan has gone forward has forced me to rethink some of my prior assumptions about how business is done here. City Hall is either being far too secretive in this thing or is simply administratively inept; either way, they've lost the benefit of the doubt in my book.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.
This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.
You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.
Who's to say this isn't a move to save DTU's bacon? The city can only contract with DTU one year at a time, but this new trust could sign a 40-year contract with DTU and there's nothing city elected officials could do about it.
As far as I know, the council has to vote on DTU's contract, just as they vote on the Chamber's annual contract and INCOG's annual contract. Curious that this trust is going to take over downtown services just as city elected officials finally seem to be serious about opening downtown services to competitive bidding.
If the trust indenture doesn't specify exactly which block and lot numbers the trust can hold, the council should vote it down.
Better yet, let the donors take their $30 million and build the ballpark as a totally private venture -- no trust, no assessment, no city involvement other than selling the TDA land to the Drillers for a dollar.
I totally agree that this could lead to a longer term contract for DTU. It could pick them or could pick any other vendor.
That is why there is a committee looking at the existing contract and assessing the needs of the future.
But read the backup documentation on Thursday's council agenda. There is a major change in the trust indenture...now all issuance of debt has to be approved by the council. It also adds new members representing small downtown property owners. The terms are also from two to five years in length.
I am saying that whatever is done in the future will have to be done in public and will probably be discussed in depth on this forum. I would much rather that public pressure that to how it is being done now.
It ain't just about the ballpark. The whole downtown needs maintenance and promotion. This is a chance to do it better.
Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?
DTU thing is old news. Existing system is done entirely behind closed doors. Why can they put up a huge sign for a mediocre farmer's market on taxpayer's dime and do crappy renovations that are never as promised yet they can't manage to sweep the streets in front of Mcnellies (one of the jobs they're actually SUPPOSED to do)... EVER.
Vote Status Quo if you are for brick pavers, glarebombs, limited public seating, crappy fountains, dirty streets, and organizations spending your money everyday and disclosing nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I suspect that wrinkle has a dog in this hunt by his feigned outrage.
Are you with DTU?
The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.
The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.
The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.
It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.
This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.
You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.
Nothing feigned here.
Since ALL IDL property owned by either the City or County is paying this tax, it is all of Tulsa County which pays a large portion of the cost of this ballpark. So, if the new 'Stadium' Trust is going to maintain the area which pays for it, when are they going to get started on these roads?
BTW, nobody has yet answered how much of that burden does actually fall onto Tulsa city and county residents. I'd like that number, and the total from all IDL receipts as projected over 30 years.
Note, however, that the lifetime costs are being calculated upon an existing state of IDL development (with, perhaps the ballpark's own development included, but I doubt it). ANY new construction in the IDL improves revenues beyond that which is currently, or projected to be necessary to support a ballpark bond.
I actually like the idea of a ballpark downtown. But, the funding mechanism and the Trust document make it so distasteful as to simply make it not worth it.
Personally, I think those who filed suit on the IDL tax are going to win. It's taxation without a required vote, especially when public properties are taxed the same way, thus paid by all citizens of the City and County.
Time to slow down, take time to analyze the deal from top to bottom, in public, and make it acceptable for all. This going back to the yonder room and coming back with a new deal each time is ridiculous.
Open negotiations.
Actually, three strikes and they're out. Wasn't that three? Toss the entire thing and start over, or simply pass to Jenks. This rush to get it set is nothing but politcal leverage to get it by the public. Those involved have sights on much bigger things than what's being presented.
I like Mr. Bates idea best, pull the public support altogether and let it be a private deal, with us contributing the land for $1, including the block wide perimeter.
Set some zoning for those parcels and wait for opening day.
Try to imagine all who might jump at that, if it were to be offered.
I would.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?
...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.
Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?
...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.
Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?
A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?
...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.
Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?
A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.
Yes, because this is just like an airline. It's a for-profit business that is going to be stumped by a terrorist attack and increase in gas prices.
I like how there are dozens if not hundreds of such trusts in place and working just fine but this MUST be like the one that failed.
I don't understand why a trust formed to build and manage a municipal ballpark is also going to be tasked with contracting out maintenance services for the greater downtown area.
Are we sure this is accurate? It's being attacked and defended as though it's the case, but I'm still waiting on any actual details of this plan.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?
...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.
Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?
A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.
Yes, because this is just like an airline. It's a for-profit business that is going to be stumped by a terrorist attack and increase in gas prices.
I like how there are dozens if not hundreds of such trusts in place and working just fine but this MUST be like the one that failed.
Ok, so it has different dynamics. Here's where I start to wonder: If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits? Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties? Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?
A fixed stream of revenue combined with a for-profit venture equals: The less we do, the more we profit.
I guess none of this has really been cleared up or verified yet, just thought I would ramble on for a minute.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Ok, so it has different dynamics. Here's where I start to wonder: If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits? Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties? Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?
You're not thinking this through. Someone puts a 500,000sqft building where a parking lot once stood. This group is cleaning the same streets and sidewalks, so they have no additional workload other than a few more people likely to litter. However, they are now collecting an extra $30,000 a year to do so. Pretty good incentive I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Ok, so it has different dynamics. Here's where I start to wonder: If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits? Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties? Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?
You're not thinking this through. Someone puts a 500,000sqft building where a parking lot once stood. This group is cleaning the same streets and sidewalks, so they have no additional workload other than a few more people likely to litter. However, they are now collecting an extra $30,000 a year to do so. Pretty good incentive I'd say.
Would love to see it happen, however, downtown has plenty of empty structures that need to be filled with businesses or people before the demand will fill up the parking lots with new construction.
Add it all up, it still stinks to high heavens even with the changes. I spoke before the Council and pleaded with them to wait a week and review what they were voting on before they approved this haphazardly rushed deeply flawed public trust at the City Council meeting when they recklessly approved the Business Improvement District. I even warned them about this service contract and lack of competitive bidding at the time. The appointments to this trust still do not require traditional Council approval. Not to mention, the ability of this trust to use the power of eminent domain for private development have not been addressed and remain unresolved. Their are still unanswered questions about this trust's ability to exercise this power within the entire Inner Dispersal Loop.
The more I think about this, the more infuriated I'm becoming.
These people have anything but the best interests of Tulsans in mind with the words of this 'Trust' Agreement.
Read it yourself (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/backup_list.php?id=ZXGGO7KL894200832915%22) and see if you have any problems with it.
It also takes a full vote by BOTH the Trustees AND the current 'City of Tulsa governing body' to disolve this 'Trust', thus the Trustees have the ability to self-perpetuate this 'Trust' independently of the wishes of the City, its residents or anyone else.
This deal has gotten well out of control and either the City needs to step out of the loop or the City, via its Council, needs to write the Trust Agreement. Right now, it's being written by those who stand to benefit from what it says.
While we're on 'benefit', I'd like anyone to list what 'benefits' the declared Benefactor of this Trust actually receives, unless it goes out of business, which won't happen per the above comment. Even if it did, chances are it'd be left with a negative net worth at that time or there'd be no reason to disolve the thing.
This thing is _conceptually_ OFF and needs to be looked at and redesigned from page one.
As I've stated previously, the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority should own this ballpark, operated by whomever they contract with, such as with the arena.
That, or make it private and leave it at that.
Then, no IDL tax, no Trust, no problems.
The current Trust Agreement goes waaaay beyond lipstick and includes a leotard, fringe and glitter.
Tul-Center (aka DTU) has a contract with the City to provide certain services to downtown property owners, paid for through the Downtown Improvement District. (DTU also receives funding from their member organizations and fundraising, I believe.)
Their contract will be expiring soon. At the same time, the new Stadium Improvement District will replace the old Downtown Improvement district.
The city will issue an RFP describing the services that are needed/desired for downtown... and Tul-Center and anyone else can respond to the RFP. (In the past, their contract has simply been renewed without going out for bid.)
A portion of the money from the Stadium Improvement District will go towards providing downtown services just like in the past. Another portion of the Stadium Improvement District will go towards building the stadium. Once the stadium is built, that portion will go away, and the downtown property owners will see the percent they pay for the SID decrease significantly. (In the meantime, their property values will increase b/c of the stadium. The total $$ in the Stadium Improvement District will be greater b/c of new development spurred by the stadium, the arena and growing downtown coolness. So downtown services should increase as new tax dollars come into the district.)
Also, all downtown property owners will be paying essentially the same percentage, and should be receiving equal services (unlike today, where the businesses closest to the little fountain get more attention/services than those in the Blue Dome or Brady).
The Trust is not going to be "running downtown." They will be respsonsible for building a ballpark and developing, for the city's benefit, the surrounding area.
At least, that's how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I totally agree that this could lead to a longer term contract for DTU. It could pick them or could pick any other vendor.
That is why there is a committee looking at the existing contract and assessing the needs of the future.
But read the backup documentation on Thursday's council agenda. There is a major change in the trust indenture...now all issuance of debt has to be approved by the council. It also adds new members representing small downtown property owners. The terms are also from two to five years in length.
I am saying that whatever is done in the future will have to be done in public and will probably be discussed in depth on this forum. I would much rather that public pressure that to how it is being done now.
It ain't just about the ballpark. The whole downtown needs maintenance and promotion. This is a chance to do it better.
And therein lies part of the problem with my attitude- DTU winding up with a longer contract. This trust simply has some strange and far-reaching tentacles. I consider myself an "average citizen" and pretty much in touch with the pulse of other average citizens.
There's three or four of us on this thread who have chimed in, yourself and Grizzle included, who have or who do work downtown and we all seem to know what a pathetic little ivory tower DTU is.
If a larger entity is created only to sub-contract back to the same worthless administration at DTU, I think I will give myself a Columbian necktie. It makes zero sense, and I do understand at this point I'm simply reacting to an internet rumor regarding DTU.
I think there are a lot of Tulsans who feel that the lack of detail and lack of requests for public input are indicative of an arrogant government which thinks they always have the right answer and that citizens are too stupid to know what they really want or need. That may not be the reality but it is the image, anyhow.
If anything, I do believe our local government is being obtuse by thinking we are just a bunch of obstructionists, bent on shooting down any new publicly-funded proposal.
I think people just want a more open approach to the way new developments are being run through the city these days. I'm a supporter of the new highrise for MHA clients at Admiral & Yale, but I still think the city could have done a far better job of educating the surrounding area on what this would or would not be going in.
They are going to get the same public outcry (justly or unjustly) on projects where the majority of citizens are kept in the dark about salient details.
You might not approach it with the same view as many of us because you work around various government entities every day. Most of us do not, and for that reason, probably lack some of trust that you do have for our local government and associated bureaucracies.
I'm not saying our government is necessarily wrong on this, but they aren't doing much to foment trust from the public with actions held close to the vest.
I think it'd be incorrect to attribute ALL IDL development to the ballpark, especially as a 'benefit'.
Tulsans and Tulsa County residents have contributed (via taxes) to a wholesale redevelopment effort for downtown, including the arena, streets, housing incentives, free land, etc, etc.
To suggest none of that has an impact on future development and it's all due to the ballpark, which we will not own, but contribute most, if not all the actual cost of construction, would be shortchanging everyone.
That's true. I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already. However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.
I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better. The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.
I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars. Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook? (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.) But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night? You betcha!
Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride. I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
That's true. I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already. However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.
I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better. The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.
I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars. Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook? (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.) But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night? You betcha!
Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride. I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.
The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development. That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.
Trusts like this also brought the PAC to downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
That's true. I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already. However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.
I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better. The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.
I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars. Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook? (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.) But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night? You betcha!
Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride. I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.
We don't have to throw caution, accountability, transparency and good government out the window to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, that has been the push on this rush job from the start. I see no harm in the Council taking an extra week to explore any remaining uncertainties or unanswered questions surrounding this Trust. There are still undeniable flaws and potential pitfalls pertaining to the structure, scope, authority and jurisdiction of this trust that could be avoided by a closer inspection, examination, discussion, and deliberation of this trust document.
Personally, I would like to see Charter Change that would require a vote of the people to create any new Authorities, Boards, Trusts, or Commissions.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Trusts like this also brought the PAC to downtown.
Thats more apples and oranges comparing....
The trust for the PAC didn't have as much out reaching power and also the PAC was for a different good to feel good ..
I think the PAC is an excellent example.
Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.
The only difference is the audience.
One is ballet, one is baseball.
I certainly believe that the baseball stadium will achieve the same success as the PAC.
This Ballpark fiasco is just another shining example of the new kind of energy fueling Tulsa, where we're greedy, godly, golden drillers who live by the golden rule- those who have the gold, make the rules.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/TaylorCEO.jpg)
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/makelifebitter-2copy.jpg)
Intoxicate the 918, Kool-aid for everyone!
Stay gold, pony boys & girls.
I am all for recycling...but you have posted these same pictures now over a dozen times. We get it, you learned photoshop.
You could at least try to spell all the words correctly.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think the PAC is an excellent example.
Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.
What revitalization? The block to the east is surface parking. Half of the block to the south is surface parking. The PAC itself sits on the site of the historically significant Hotel Tulsa. The new hotel -- now called the Crowne Plaza -- wasn't built specifically for the PAC, but as part of the overall Williams Center, an urban planning disaster.
I've enjoyed many great performances in the PAC, but let's not overstate its contribution to downtown revitalization. The PAC was there for more than two decades without any nearby restaurants or nightlife.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Tul-Center (aka DTU) has a contract with the City to provide certain services to downtown property owners, paid for through the Downtown Improvement District. (DTU also receives funding from their member organizations and fundraising, I believe.)
Their contract will be expiring soon. At the same time, the new Stadium Improvement District will replace the old Downtown Improvement district.
The city will issue an RFP describing the services that are needed/desired for downtown... and Tul-Center and anyone else can respond to the RFP. (In the past, their contract has simply been renewed without going out for bid.)
A portion of the money from the Stadium Improvement District will go towards providing downtown services just like in the past. Another portion of the Stadium Improvement District will go towards building the stadium. Once the stadium is built, that portion will go away, and the downtown property owners will see the percent they pay for the SID decrease significantly. (In the meantime, their property values will increase b/c of the stadium. The total $$ in the Stadium Improvement District will be greater b/c of new development spurred by the stadium, the arena and growing downtown coolness. So downtown services should increase as new tax dollars come into the district.)
Also, all downtown property owners will be paying essentially the same percentage, and should be receiving equal services (unlike today, where the businesses closest to the little fountain get more attention/services than those in the Blue Dome or Brady).
The Trust is not going to be "running downtown." They will be respsonsible for building a ballpark and developing, for the city's benefit, the surrounding area.
At least, that's how I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.
Fred Dorwart told Tuesday's Council committee meeting that the trust would be providing downtown services. Medlock had audio, and it was reported in the World.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
That's true. I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already. However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.
I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better. The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.
I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars. Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook? (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.) But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night? You betcha!
Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride. I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.
The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development. That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.
That is exactly how it happens.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think the PAC is an excellent example.
Built with a combination of public and private funds in a downtown area designed to be a magnet for growth. It spurred rvitalization of some existing buildings and led to some new buildings including a hotel.
What revitalization? The block to the east is surface parking. Half of the block to the south is surface parking. The PAC itself sits on the site of the historically significant Hotel Tulsa. The new hotel -- now called the Crowne Plaza -- wasn't built specifically for the PAC, but as part of the overall Williams Center, an urban planning disaster.
I've enjoyed many great performances in the PAC, but let's not overstate its contribution to downtown revitalization. The PAC was there for more than two decades without any nearby restaurants or nightlife.
Glad you brought that up. I love the PAC, but for years I have attended performances and then gotten in my car and driven back to South Tulsa with the rest of the patrons. Only recently have there been any offerings to keep me in the area.
I don't think you can attribute ANY development to the PAC. Making a connection to the hotel is even a stretch.
Only by freeing up the development process around a project can you encourage development. Introducing layers of bureaucracy will freeze that area for a long time. Trust oversight still represents bureaucracy, no matter how much lipstick you put on it! [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development. That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.
A. They are adding the surrounding area to keep Steve Kitchell out and to guarantee the land doesn't sit there like the land around the BOK Center has.
B. That is nothing like what happened to the Aquarium. The Aquarium went to Jenks because the people at Riverparks wanted to dictate how the aquarium would be built, operate, and what size it could be. Jenks offered free reign and 12x the amount of land.
If you read the trust indenture...
The surrounding land that the trust wants to include outside the ballpark is basically a strip of land between Detroit and Elgin and Archer and the expressway.
One 300 foot wide strip of land between the ballpark and Spaghetti Warehouse.
Can anyone name the current businesses in that stretch of land?
I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
If you read the trust indenture...
The surrounding land that the trust wants to include outside the ballpark is basically a strip of land between Detroit and Elgin and Archer and the expressway.
One 300 foot wide strip of land between the ballpark and Spaghetti Warehouse.
Can anyone name the current businesses in that stretch of land?
I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.
The Trust Indenture needs to include a map with these boundaries and legal description as an Appendix.
Really pretty simple.
As of now, there is no such limitation, or even a definition in any form of that you describe.
It should also NOT include a specific area adjacent to the rail tracks as future transportation entity domain for mass-transit.
It should also NOT include the IDL services contract, which should be contracted by the City of Tulsa.
Also, what happens when any particular IDL property owner fails to pay their assessment?
The collections and distribution of the assessment revenues is a City of Tulsa function, not the Trust. That portion dedicated to the stadium is sent to the Trust. The IDL services portion is paid to whomever is contracted for those services by the City of Tulsa per the contract, the balance can be used by the City for other IDL benefit.
Here's the link (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/backup_list.php?id=ZXGGO7KL894200832915%22). Show me where it says what you claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The Trust Indenture needs to include a map with these boundaries and legal description as an Appendix.
As of now, there is no such limitation, or even a definition in any form of that you describe.
I respectfully disagree. It is spelled out clearly where the boundaries are. I don't disagree that a map would be helpful, but downtown Tulsa is fairly easy to understand to me.
The language say North Detroit street to the west, the railroad right of way to the south, the IDL to the north and the Greenwood district to the east. I think that is easily understood.
It should also NOT include a specific area adjacent to the rail tracks as future transportation entity domain for mass-transit.
Why would you think that the transportation entity of the future would not work with the ballpark? Are you just expecting trouble or grasping at straws?
It should also NOT include the IDL services contract, which should be contracted by the City of Tulsa.
The city currently manages the contract with DTU. Your idea is to keep doing it the way we have been doing it. I disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Here's the link (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/backup_list.php?id=ZXGGO7KL894200832915%22). Show me where it says what you claim.
Article 3 paragraph one. The first paragraph under "purpose and powers of the trust".
Am I missing something...or are you?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The Trust Indenture needs to include a map with these boundaries and legal description as an Appendix.
As of now, there is no such limitation, or even a definition in any form of that you describe.
I respectfully disagree. It is spelled out clearly where the boundaries are. I don't disagree that a map would be helpful, but downtown Tulsa is fairly easy to understand to me.
The language say North Detroit street to the west, the railroad right of way to the south, the IDL to the north and the Greenwood district to the east. I think that is easily understood.
It should also NOT include a specific area adjacent to the rail tracks as future transportation entity domain for mass-transit.
Why would you think that the transportation entity of the future would not work with the ballpark? Are you just expecting trouble or grasping at straws?
It should also NOT include the IDL services contract, which should be contracted by the City of Tulsa.
The city currently manages the contract with DTU. Your idea is to keep doing it the way we have been doing it. I disagree.
Here's the link (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/backup_list.php?id=ZXGGO7KL894200832915%22). Show me where it says what you claim. It only says "the Trust shall acquire only real property located in the area bounded by" those boundaries. It's POWER should be limited to that physical region as well.
The IDL services contract IS CURRENTLY held by DTU. That can easily change, but handing all IDL responsibilites to this Trust is DEFINITELY the wrong move. They can write 40-year contracts to whomever they wish and nobody could do anything about it.
Why do you think the City and a future transportation entity would not work with the ballpark? Besides mass transit is NOT a ballpark function. It's a City function.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Here's the link (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/backup_list.php?id=ZXGGO7KL894200832915%22). Show me where it says what you claim.
Article 3 paragraph one. The first paragraph under "purpose and powers of the trust".
Am I missing something...or are you?
I'd say you are.
If an IDL business wanted to complain about the services being provided, who would they complain to and what actions are possible?
Now, DTU can be held responsible by the City of Tulsa. If this Trust becomes responsible, they dictate what happens, and what doesn't, and could tell Mr. Businessman to sit on it and spin, and no one could do a thing about it.
Seems to me this agreement should also stipulate and define what happens to the public streets included in the defined area. If the city is to abandon those, there's a process for that, and a process for an entity to request such.
That should happen before any streets are torn up.
I'm guessing Wrinkle is pointing more to Article 3 Section 2 which gives the trust the ability to contract to maintain other properties. Either way, RM is right, this trust as written only gives them control and duties over a couple of blocks and does nothing for the rest of downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm guessing Wrinkle is pointing more to Article 3 Section 2 which gives the trust the ability to contract to maintain other properties. Either way, RM is right, this trust as written only gives them control and duties over a couple of blocks and does nothing for the rest of downtown.
That's not what it says:
Article III, Paragraph 2:
"(2) In addition to the foregoing purposes and powers, the Trust shall have the further
purpose and power to engage in other projects related to the Tulsa Stadium
Project and approved by a vote of hvo-thirds of the Trustees,
including any
maintenance and improvement of property either owned directly by the Trust or
under maintenance or improvement contract with the Trust."
UPDATE: That's funny, the above was Cut-N-Pasted from Acrobat, but the original document says "two-thirds", not "hvo-thirds".
...wonder what else it changes.
Oh geez, call altrusimsuffers, adobe is controlled by George Kaiser.
Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility. Show me the paragraph where it says the city is going to contract everything inside the IDL to the trust?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Oh geez, call altrusimsuffers, adobe is controlled by George Kaiser.
Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility. Show me the paragraph where it says the city is going to contract everything inside the IDL to the trust?
Just an observation.
It was specifically stated as the intent during the committee meeting on Tuesday.
The Trust agreement wording allows it to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.
It's raining alright, but it ain't hail. It's a golden shower, a drenching high pressure spray from those in power and the public is getting hosed.
I rather be p*#%ed off, than smile and get p*#%ed on. Then again, I'd rather be an honest naysayer, than a dishonest cheerleader.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I tire of those who act like the trust is going to reign hail over all the world.
It's raining alright, but it ain't hail. It's a golden shower, a drenching high pressure spray from those in power and the public is getting hosed.
One of your more colorful posts to date....
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Again, It states in Article 1 that the property OWNED will be within set limits. Anything under "maintenance or improvement contract" is a future possibility.
Just to be clear, that's not what it says. It says "...the Trust shall acquire only real property located in the area..."
That would limit the Trust from purchasing property outside the defined region. But, as we both know, most land held by Trust in this town is GIVEN to them.
Basically, any one of Tulsa's many other Trusts, or the City itself could simply pass land to the Trust. And, this practice IS commonplace. Remember, the land at Air Force Plant No. 1 was passed to TAIT from the City in this manner, as was much of the land now held by TDA, TAA, TIA et al.
This limitation extends only to REAL property, as in land or buildings. If the Trust wanted to, say, buy a baseball team, it wouldn't prevent that, or an out of town soccer club, for example.
Is that what we were asking? Or, did we want a Trust to build and operate a baseball stadium, giving them all rights to the very best potential development areas surrounding it, and ownership of the ballpark itself to do so? Or, something else entirely?
They've kind of taken full advantage of an opening here to do almost anything/everything they ever wanted or might think of in the future.
Fox News reported yesterday (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=9ba3662a-1ba1-4f05-a094-b5abc09481ef%22)that TDA had acquired the land for the homeless project at 10 N. Yale via a TDA-Owned LLC called "Good Neighbor Real Estate Investments, LLC".
Offhand, I'd question the ability of any Trust to use public funds for startup corporate entities of any type, especially LLC's since the ownership data can be obscured.
Kind of defeats the purpose of the Trust.
It may be interesting to do a FOI on all Corp's and LLC's established by Trusts in this town. You can bet this wasn't the first time. Of course not, Great Plains Airline was one.
Haven't heard much about today's U&EDC meeting and the "Stadium Trust". A few sound bites with no stated outcome.
The documents attached to the Agenda Item 10 were unchanged from those which were to be presented at last Thursday's Council meeting.
It appears these same documents will be presented at next Thursday's Council meeting and voted upon.
If so, there is no substantial reason to approve receipt of this 'benefit' by the Council as the proposed Trust remains unsatisfactory. For starters, there is little 'benefit' which can be claimed, unless you're one of the 'donors'.
At this point, I recommend disbanding this effort entirely and beginning a new process.
As I've stated previously, this arrangement is _conceptually_ incorrect and needs to be scrapped.
If it risks 'donors' 'contributions', so be it.
I'd also move for a reconsideration vote on the IDL tax which was to have provided the public portion of the funding for this ill-conceived plan. In spite of this taxing method being of questionable legal status, and which will be contested in court, it should be withdrawn.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a dead issue since 'donors' and our City's leadership have demonstrated little interest in satisfying public concerns.
Only our Council can save us from this obtuse, unfair and ill-conceived plan.
Today's the day...
No words on any revisions to the "Trust" agreement. No change of opinion here.
This fiasco needs to stop here.
That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...
I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.
The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.
Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.
I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.
Let's play ball.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...
I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.
The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.
Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.
I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.
Let's play ball.
Your integrity is coming into question, RM. Do you just make up stuff to suit your claim, or are you just a cheerleader for the Trust?
You're wrong that I was against this from the start. I was not. In fact the move from the original site to the current site was welcomed and applauded.
It's mostly this "Trust" Agreement and the acceptance of the so-called 'benefit' of the Trust with which I have problems. It's designed to do much more than build and manage a ballpark and develop the utra-prime real estate of adjoining parcels.
It's Version 33 of a document they wanted signed at Version 1.0 and which still remains very one-sided.
As I stated, the _concept_ being proposed is obtuse, unfair and being foisted upon the public as the only solution. It is not.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
That is three posts in a row for wrinkle...
I have high hopes that the trust will be approved tonight. I think the administration has been working with the council to answer their questions. There have been many changes from the original proposal.
The council has done due diligence. The Mayor has raised private dollars to offset building costs. The team is ready to sign. We baseball fans are getting excited.
Don't listen to wrinkle. He was opposed to it from the start, probably only because the mayor was behing it. He opposes the new streets plan, even though it is very similar to the one that he advocated, because it is the mayor's plan.
I "trust" that the council will approve the ballpark trust agreement at tonight's meeting.
Let's play ball.
Your integrity is coming into question, RM. Do you just make up stuff to suit your claim, or are you just a cheerleader for the Trust?
You're wrong that I was against this from the start. I was not. In fact the move from the original site to the current site was welcomed and applauded.
It's mostly this "Trust" Agreement and the acceptance of the so-called 'benefit' of the Trust with which I have problems. It's designed to do much more than build and manage a ballpark and develop the utra-prime real estate of adjoining parcels.
It's Version 33 of a document they wanted signed at Version 1.0 and which still remains very one-sided.
As I stated, the _concept_ being proposed is obtuse, unfair and being foisted upon the public as the only solution. It is not.
Name one thing that Kathy Taylor has done that you have been for.
I didn't think so.
Did you read the last comment? I applauded the change of site.
If you want two, I applauded her decision to not destroy the existing arena.
If you want three, I applauded her stand against the backroom antics of TMUA.
...do I need go on, or are you guys just wrong?
Thank you wrinkle...I was wrong about you. You do see greatness in the mayor.
Now if we can only get you to like baseball...
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Thank you wrinkle...I was wrong about you. You do see greatness in the mayor.
Now if we can only get you to like baseball...
Wouldn't consider it 'greatness', just making the proper decision at the proper time.
Baseball is fine. Not a big fan here, but certainly willing to accommodate those who are.
$30 Million in public funding to what amounts to a private operation to own and operate the asset, and exclusive rights to own and develop all important parcels surrounding the thing would seem to be enough. But, not by this agreement. It goes well beyond that. Too far.
$25M in public funding.
Couldn't help but ponder a moment of what this is really about. If you think it's baseball, you've missed it altogether. Baseball is only the leverage. Find something the public wants and leverage it into _cashflow_.
It's cashflow which is the objective here, not baseball. Build a baseball stadium, twelve blocks of intense retail/commercial/residential development. Whatever, just build. It generates cashflow.
That cashflow means subcontracts, to building contractors, roofers, equipment suppliers, material outlets.
It's oil for the machine.
The Trust Agreement is control. Who gets to say what gets done, who gets paid and where the money goes.
This Trust Agreement leaves you all completely out except as baseball ticket purchasers and providers of half the initial cost.
You get to spend a bunch of tax dollars supporting them, they provide you with baseball.
Face it, what's different about this deal and a completely private one where a developer decides to build a ballpark and develop the surrounding property, then ask for a $30 million tax credit or public handout?
...nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
$25M in public funding.
If the public owned this ballpark, to whom would the Drillers be paying their $5 million consession?
RM the original trust plan was a joke. There's a reason the council kept spiking it. This one still has flaws but it's at least acceptable.
I'll point out that you immediately suggested bias when I criticized the original plan. I don't know what Wrinkle's story is, but not everybody who sees the flaws in a trust plan is biased against Taylor.
Although I've been incredibly unimpressed by the way she has handled this whole thing . . .
Besides all that, it is clear to me, if yet unclaimed by those involved, that the ballpark is really the $25-$30 million public cost, while the "donors" $30 will be used to develop the surrounding properties.
So, we're really buying our own ballpark, then giving it to the 'donors'. And, providing them exclusive ownership to surrounding properties to develop at their whim.
If Ms. Kitty had put up a $30 milllion bond issue to build a ballpark, do you think it would've passed?
Couldn't our EDC and TDA work a deal on the surrounding properties by negotiation with local developers to bring about a development of particular interest to the City?
Sure they could.
This Trust agreement is a power grab, in addition to a public give-away of property, rights and involvement.
Half the money, none of the say.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Besides all that, it is clear to me, if yet unclaimed by those involved, that the ballpark is really the $25-$30 million public cost, while the "donors" $30 will be used to develop the surrounding properties.
So, we're really buying our own ballpark, then giving it to the 'donors'. And, providing them exclusive ownership to surrounding properties to develop at their whim.
If Ms. Kitty had put up a $30 milllion bond issue to build a ballpark, do you think it would've passed?
Couldn't our EDC and TDA work a deal on the surrounding properties by negotiation with local developers to bring about a development of particular interest to the City?
Sure they could.
This Trust agreement is a power grab, in addition to a public give-away of property, rights and involvement.
Half the money, none of the say.
It's fascism disguised as philanthropy.
The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust. The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project. What part of that is not clear?
I like the changes that have been made to the trust. They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.
Let's approve the dang thing and play ball. If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.
Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team. Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita? I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.
It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
RM the original trust plan was a joke. There's a reason the council kept spiking it. This one still has flaws but it's at least acceptable.
I don't disagree. But the council did take their time and worked to get some better terms. That is the way for the process to work.
This agreement is now acceptable. The public investment has oversight and the project should benefit Tulsa. The process worked.
If you are against the project now, it is either because you don't like baseball or don't like public trusts.
But the reality is, that baseball brings a very good demographic to downtown. Young families every night of the week during the summer will fill our downtown. That will be good for downtown.
Yes, you can be suspicious of trusts and authorities. Yes, there have been some abuse of public confidence by some of them. The same is true for any political group handling taxpayer money. For every fairgrounds trust or housing authority trust in the news I can match you with the PAC, library trust or parking authority trust that does a remarkable job without fanfare or controversy.
But this stadium trust has agreed to be completely open in their meetings and allow city of Tulsa approval of all expenses and complete city council approval of all debt.
Most trusts are totally formed with public dollars exclusively. This one is starting with 30 million dollars in private funds. It needs to be formed now or they won't be able to complete the work in time for the start of the 2010 season. Screwing around forever will accomplish exactly what the critics of Tulsa keep saying. Tulsa, do something...anything.
Let's get this stadium built before we run out of time and run off the investors.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust. The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project. What part of that is not clear?
I like the changes that have been made to the trust. They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.
Let's approve the dang thing and play ball. If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.
Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team. Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita? I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.
It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.
I asked long ago in this thread for anyone to post any 'benefit' the City receives from this. No one has posted a thing. Fact is, there is none directly. The 'benefit' is related to the cashflow of construction, jobs, etc. along with whatever future sales tax may be garnished, less ticket sales since no tax is collected for them.
All those things happen no matter how the deal is constructed. IF it were a private deal, those very same benefits would happen for the City. So, why not make it fair?
Even though I consider the wholesale give-away of all surrounding land and the stadium itself to a Trust excessive, I could live with that if that's all it were.
The Trust should be in a role of operating the stadium, perhaps go so far as to actually own it (though, I've repeatedly suggested our Public Facilities Authority should actually own the thing, then contract operations to the Trust or another entity). IF we wanted this Trust to have more control, we could pass them the surrounding land and allow them to control its' development, though another option would be for EDC/TDA to negotiate with a number of developers for what our city planning, with public input, deems appropriate. Those decisions are proposed to be made by the Trust exclusively, as currently written.
It really is structured as a private development with public money paying half the cost. The one thing which distingushes it from a private development is the government protection and guarantees made via this Trust. Best of both worlds. Risk-free private development and no liabilities.
But, it goes beyond that, with stated expectations of this Trust expanding its' role to include other aspects, including the potential for team ownership or purchase, which may/not be the Drillers or baseball for that matter. And, they're hoping to be the authority for all the IDL area to "help redevelope downtown", starting with the IDL Services contract currently held by DTU.
Their power should be limited to a much larger degree than that.
Bingo! At last someone gets it. It didn't just happen to Wichita. It also happened to El Paso. Both cities, with good but not new stadiums, are now reduced to independent league teams (teams with no ties to major league teams). When the new El Paso Diablos team first started a couple of years ago, the ownership was asking the locals to house the players -- apparently wages weren't high enough to pay rent. Tulsa does outdraw El Paso and Wichita. I read that when the Wranglers moved to Sprindale to become the Naturals, their attendance increased 216%.
What if the accusations against the donors cause them to pull their money off the table? Would the Drillers have any real interest in staying here, even with the possibility of a Jenks location?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
The City is the sole beneficiary of the trust. The trustees do not benefit from it, despite the fact that they're donating 30 million to the project. What part of that is not clear?
I like the changes that have been made to the trust. They've resolved all the issues that I had with it, in the beginning.
Let's approve the dang thing and play ball. If the council dithers around on this any longer, there won't be time to build a stadium before the opening of the 2010 season.
Wichita, meanwhile, has a stadium, but no team. Could we lose the Drillers to Wichita? I don't know, but I bet that if they had philanthropists willing to donate $30 million to the success of their city, they wouldn't be trashing them at every opportunity.
It's going to be a ridiculous embarrassment if this thing fails.
In the same way that the PAC benefits Tulsa. It provides a venue, owned by the city, that brings events, culture and entertainment to Tulsa. It attracts visitors and tax dollars. It makes Tulsa a cooler place than say, Topeka, KS, which lacks a venue for high-caliber national touring productions. It improves the quality of life for Tulsans who enjoy the arts, or simply want to live in a city with a variety of entertainment options. It allows us to retain professional artists, dancers and musicians, who would otherwise leave Tulsa for other cities. It offers a place where school kids can see their first symphony or stage production, and possibly inspire them to pursue dreams of a more vibrant future than working at a call center. (My only complaint about the PAC is its 70's architecture, and the loss of the historic Tulsa Hotel that was demolished for it.)
In this case, the benefit will be a ballpark and surrounding developments to compliment the area. It will transform an empty lot into a place where you and your kids can enjoy 80 home games a year from spring until fall. It will provide an outdoor venue for concerts and events. Perhaps it will expose kids to their first glimpse of gorgeous, historic architecture, and make them dream of something cooler than the SuperWalmarts they see every day. It will definitely spur downtown development, which, again attracts and retains tax dollars in the city of Tulsa... And it allows us to keep a Tulsa tradition in Tulsa, reather than losing the Drillers to another city.
You can call me a dreamer if you want. I like people who see an empty lot and imagine a ballpark. I don't like people who see a mouse turd and imagine an unscalable mountain. And I'm definitely getting tired of MIDGET thinking: "Mediocre Is Definitely Good Enough for Tulsa."
NOT.
Everyone can relax because it's a done deal.
But honestly, if you can't see that there's an unstated but clear quid pro quo operating for the "donors" beyond simple altruism, you're either naive or willfully blind.
The people who donated did so because it got them a seat at the profitable table of stadium district development. They paid for control. And they're still getting that control, albeit less than they originally hoped for. It's quite possible that this is the only reason Mayor Taylor was able to make $30 million appear out of thin air.
And you ask, why not? Why shouldn't they control it?
Because of what happened to Will Wilkins and Novus. This set of control freaks intends to push out the little guy. They've made clear there is no room for the kind of entrepreneur who has been the ONLY ONE keeping Tulsa's core alive. These "philanthropists" are crashing the downtown party and taking it over. At least we'll have a nice ballpark.
Here is the equivalent for those of you who aren't grasping Wrinkle's point. Remember Global Development Partners, who wanted to build a similar development in the East End using the Nordam site? What if they had come to the city saying, "Hello city. We're going to create this beautiful development and control how it looks, but all the other property owners in downtown have to pay half." We might think about their offer--we might even make it happen--but at least we'd see it for what it was, which would be a subsidized business arrangement.
Now granted, in this case it won't be the Trust itself that profits. But the builders and developers they choose to create this Stadium District surely will. And we are handing control over to this Trust, thereby reducing accountability for the use of public funds. In this project, to donate is to gain control. To gain control is to gain benefit. Pay to play. Quid pro quo.
I want a stadium downtown as much as anyone and made more noise about it on this forum than anyone. But that's not blinding me to the flawed manner in which Mayor Taylor and the donors have decided to make it happen. I just hope she doesn't read this and start crying again because we're not all "coming together."
Excelent work Wrinkle and Floyd......Some of the others need to take off the Rose colored glasses....
I disagree with the argument that all this is being done so some donors can make even more money. That might be true for some, but I truly believe that most of the money is being donated because they want to build a stadium that revitalizes downtown. Be cynical all you want. I disagree.
I hope this trust does what it is intended to do. Build a beautiful stadium, surround it with new restaurants and nightspots, and make downtown a welcoming place for families again.
How long until we hear about our taxes going to these downtown roads?????
Hehe I did get a chuckle at Henderson talking about this is something for North Tulsa and in North Tulsa finally[}:)][}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
How long until we hear about our taxes going to these downtown roads?????
As a downtown employee, I can assure you ever inch of street in downtown has already been under construction and completed in the last 3 years. [:D]
Hurray!
Good job to all the councilors for doing the research to get this trust in the right agreement.
Now we can build a stadium that brings the northeast corner of our downtown to life. This is going to spur lots of new stuff.
Play Ball!
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hurray!
Good job to all the councilors for doing the research to get this trust in the right agreement.
Now we can build a stadium that brings the northeast corner of our downtown to life. This is going to spur lots of new stuff.
Play Ball!
I am sure someone will come up with something else in a year or so that will be needed, to spur growth that you'll still be waiting on.
Chuckie ain't signed on the dotted line yet [;)]
Do you wanna bet he signs it?
Give me a break. The contract got approved by the city at 8pm last night and you go on a public forum before 8am the next morning and say it ain't signed by both parties yet.
Your point is...you want to imply something is not going to happen when you know it is.
Sorry. your negativity is lame. Stop being against everything.
Good news.
I just hope the delays have not pushed back the opening date.
Thank goodness they finally got this going. Not the perfect way to have done this perhaps, but they made a looot of changes that made it ok imo. I hope they announce an official start date to get construction going and really hope we get to see some finalized stadium plans real soon. We should see some announcements for new developments going in around the ballpark within the next 4-5 months.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
How long until we hear about our taxes going to these downtown roads?????
Hehe I did get a chuckle at Henderson talking about this is something for North Tulsa and in North Tulsa finally[}:)][}:)]
True dat. I thought that was complete B.S. It will be interesting to see if any of the developers brought in to develop the areas around the stadium will be small minority owned businesses or if the tenants will be small minority owned businesses.
I believe hope the stadium lives up to my expecation of this being the best thing to happen to downtown that 30 years of DTU has failed to accomplish.
I still cannot comprehend why it is so essential for this city to make everything so damned difficult and appear to benefit an ever-tightening inner-circle. How they don't see that marginalizing guys like Will Wilkins in favor of trusts made up of much more prominent Tulsa entities smells like corruption to the common person is puzzling. I don't know if it's arrogance or being obtuse.
I agree with whomever said it, they leveraged baseball to get what else they wanted. Our options, if we wanted baseball downtown, were narrowed down to:
A) The Trust
B) The Trust
C) The Trust
D) All Of The Above
I'm thrilled as hell that downtown is getting the Drillers. I'm really ashamed we've been put through a Mickey Mouse system of conditional philanthropy to get them there.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you wanna bet he signs it?
Give me a break. The contract got approved by the city at 8pm last night and you go on a public forum before 8am the next morning and say it ain't signed by both parties yet.
Your point is...you want to imply something is not going to happen when you know it is.
Sorry. your negativity is lame. Stop being against everything.
Sorry I didn't see the news that the city signed the "in principal" agreement.
Bring the ballpark but stop the politics and schemes. This was another example of why we have limited river development. The pie has to be sliced by a certain person and only certain people get a slice depending on who got to cook it up. or something nutty like that[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I believe hope the stadium lives up to my expecation of this being the best thing to happen to downtown that 30 years of DTU has failed to accomplish.
I still cannot comprehend why it is so essential for this city to make everything so damned difficult and appear to benefit an ever-tightening inner-circle. How they don't see that marginalizing guys like Will Wilkins in favor of trusts made up of much more prominent Tulsa entities smells like corruption to the common person is puzzling. I don't know if it's arrogance or being obtuse.
I agree with whomever said it, they leveraged baseball to get what else they wanted. Our options, if we wanted baseball downtown, were narrowed down to:
A) The Trust
B) The Trust
C) The Trust
D) All Of The Above
I'm thrilled as hell that downtown is getting the Drillers. I'm really ashamed we've been put through a Mickey Mouse system of conditional philanthropy to get them there.
The Mayor holds the ultimate responsibility for the fiasco of how this was handled. It's time to start holding her accountable for her public disservices.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you wanna bet he signs it?
Give me a break. The contract got approved by the city at 8pm last night and you go on a public forum before 8am the next morning and say it ain't signed by both parties yet.
Your point is...you want to imply something is not going to happen when you know it is.
Sorry. your negativity is lame. Stop being against everything.
I am sure glad no one was in a hurry for the council to finish their part....
Ok, so old news... What happens now? When we gonna see some detailed renderings?
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you wanna bet he signs it?
Give me a break. The contract got approved by the city at 8pm last night and you go on a public forum before 8am the next morning and say it ain't signed by both parties yet.
Your point is...you want to imply something is not going to happen when you know it is.
Sorry. your negativity is lame. Stop being against everything.
I am sure glad no one was in a hurry for the council to finish their part....
Did I miss it ... Gosh I would have thought I'd have seen a dove release or something to let me know it's been signed ,after all that pre-hoopla BS
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
How long until we hear about our taxes going to these downtown roads?????
As a downtown employee, I can assure you ever inch of street in downtown has already been under construction and completed in the last 3 years. [:D]
I believe the Mayor even made the comment that with all the city money that has been spent on downtown roads, it was very fair for downtown to start pitching in a bit more than the rest of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you wanna bet he signs it?
Give me a break. The contract got approved by the city at 8pm last night and you go on a public forum before 8am the next morning and say it ain't signed by both parties yet.
Your point is...you want to imply something is not going to happen when you know it is.
Sorry. your negativity is lame. Stop being against everything.
Did I miss it yet?
Any new renderings available? I assume design work is progressing (who is the architect BTW?) and a construction date is close to being set?
The silence is defening. I suspect real trouble with funding, besides contracts.
Besides, when the Courts rule the IDL tax unconstitutional, they'll need a new funding source anyway.
The new "I'm sorry park" that was given funding in exchange to allow the ballpark to be built in the same area might be a snag to future business growth in the location.
Lamson expects to play ball downtown in 2010 and is moving forward with the PR for it. There was a story in the World two weeks ago about credit issues: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081005_11_A1_hTurmo537557
But the players are still in the game. If Lamson had any intention other than moving downtown, I don't think this graphic would be on the front page of the Drillers website:
(http://tulsa.drillers.milb.com/images/2008/09/19/AONzrmbZ.jpg)
Don't believe me? Well then don't bother buying season tickets . . .
http://www.planbbranding.com/feedback/Drillers_Tickets.html
I expect they'll find a way to get it done. That lawsuit is going to get thrown out--besides, there's no injunction anyway. The Trust is free to move forward. Wouldn't shock me if BOK ends up buying the municipal bonds.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Lamson expects to play ball downtown in 2010 and is moving forward with the PR for it. There was a story in the World two weeks ago about credit issues: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081005_11_A1_hTurmo537557
But the players are still in the game. If Lamson had any intention other than moving downtown, I don't think this graphic would be on the front page of the Drillers website:
(http://tulsa.drillers.milb.com/images/2008/09/19/AONzrmbZ.jpg)
Don't believe me? Well then don't bother buying season tickets . . .
http://www.planbbranding.com/feedback/Drillers_Tickets.html
I expect they'll find a way to get it done. That lawsuit is going to get thrown out--besides, there's no injunction anyway. The Trust is free to move forward. Wouldn't shock me if BOK ends up buying the municipal bonds.
Cool logo. And you say BOK, do you mean Kaiser?
I was thinking BOK as an investment by that institution. I really don't know how much muni-bond investing BOK does but I think plenty of banks purchase bonds. Kaiser himself could do it too. They're more or less the same entity. I just mean, Taylor expressed concern that the issued bonds would be purchased . . . I very much doubt that would actually be a problem. What is slightly more concerning is that the Trust might have to issue the bonds at a higher interest rate than planned, because of the tight market. This would have an affect on financing. But if they only have to bump the rate a half point or so it shouldn't make a great deal of financial difference for the project.
Oh and here's a story from a few weeks ago on KJRH, about the stadium design. In the video they interview one of the HOK guys.
http://www.kjrh.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=32d16bd2-312d-4990-8e7a-8c13deb7d05c