quote:
the [Tulsa Development] authority is not subject to the city's ethics ordinance.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080917_11_A9_hATuls631529
I've been hit or miss lately, but has this been discussed? The findings on the Brady development was that the vote did not violate ethics rules because the TDA is not subject to ethics rules?
Good to know as we approve another massive trust.
Amazing how Tulsa can take something I'm excited about (downtown ball park) and make it into something I have some reservations about.
Current odds of activity involving this trust and the additional development land that appears to be malfeasance?
I give it a 75% chance.
When will Tulsa learn that utter transparency and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is the only way to gain the public trust? Trust in the faith based form of the world, not the creation of a phantom financial entity controlled by the aforementioned non-trusted politicians.
/frustrated
Why's it called "Tulsa development" if it's for the good of the state?
spelling edit
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
the [Tulsa Development] authority is not subject to the city's ethics ordinance.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080917_11_A9_hATuls631529
I've been hit or miss lately, but has this been discussed? The findings on the Brady development was that the vote did not violate ethics rules because the TDA is not subject to ethics rules?
Good to know as we approve another massive trust.
Amazing how Tulsa can take something I'm excited about (downtown ball park) and make it into something I have some reservations about.
Current odds of activity involving this trust and the additional development land that appears to be malfeasance?
I give it a 75% chance.
When will Tulsa learn that utter transparency and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is the only way to gain the public trust? Trust in the faith based form of the world, not the creation of a phantom financial entity controlled by the aforementioned non-trusted politicians.
/frustrated
This is exactly why I have a problem with Tulsa wanting to raise taxes everytime people turn around. They are not good stewards of the money they have and they use it to finance their dirty political games.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Why's it called "Tulsa development" if it's for the good of the state?
spelling edit
Good question. I also wonder that their mission is to prevent blight. Most of their empty undeveloped lots look a lot like blight to me.
If you are pissed about this your anger should be directed squarely at the Mayor, after all it was her puppet who doesn't dance without Queen Kathy pulling her strings in the legal dept who came up with this opinion.
But there is a "misconception" that the Tulsa Development Authority is a public trust with the city as its intended beneficiary, the opinion states.
Although the city certainly benefits from the authority's efforts, Hudson states, it was created by state law to benefit the state, rather than the city, in carrying out urban renewal projects to prevent and eliminate blight.
BTW, if this is a State authority why does the Mayor make these appointments with Council approval, instead of the Governor making these appointments with approval from the state legislature?
I am so glad the voters were smart enough to keep Deidre Dexter off the bench.