I've been hearing a lot about OKC's MAPS 3 that the public is voting on Dec. 8 and wonder when Tulsa will do something to complement the original Vision 2025. What should be included? I personally think river development, like what was proposed with the failed river plan, should be a big part along with the downtown streetcar line.
Quote from: SXSW on November 30, 2009, 09:24:08 PM
I've been hearing a lot about OKC's MAPS 3 that the public is voting on Dec. 8 and wonder when Tulsa will do something to complement the original Vision 2025. What should be included? I personally think river development, like what was proposed with the failed river plan, should be a big part along with the downtown streetcar line.
More taxes? Education comes first. Who wants to be like OKShitty?
Probably around 2016. That's when the V2025 tax will expire. It's also when a significant amount of street work will be complete, the development in the area surrounding the ballpark should have taken off, and the arts projects in the Brady will come online. It's going to be at least that long because of the ill will that the handling of the ballpark project has engendered--it'll be a while before that dissipates.
I'd make education and infrastructure the priorities. Schools, sidewalks, parks, boulevards and canals. And housing--I'd say an expanded version of the Vision 2025 housing fund, to focus on the entire core of the city rather than only in the IDL, would contribute toward continued infill in areas like the Pearl, Uptown and Whittier Square. And of course, continued downtown housing projects.
I don't know if it's too early to start talking about Vision 2025 Part 2 or not but it's certainly fun to dream. The first question in my mind is: will it be a regional or local effort this time around?
In any case I hope many of the Tulsa projects are those that implement the vision established in PlaniTulsa. My wish list would be urban oriented including elements like:
- re-enforcing the downtown housing fund
- a new library/children's museum/plaza on the east side of downtown (Nordam site) or how about around Veterans Park - and set aside land for a concert hall for the TSO on that same plaza
- context sensitive redevelopments of some of our more urban arterial streets as well as some context sensitive expansions of our further out arterials that have not yet experienced heavy commercialization or those that are primarily lined with residential subs
- local support for the State school for performing arts in or very near the Brady District
- build an underground parking facility on the surface lot east of the PAC and SE of City Hall and lease the surface for private development - use the excavated ground to build a monument hill up in Brady Hgts upon which we can erect a statue of George K.
- fixed rail or very well established rubber tire transit downtown connecting Veterans Park cultural center (as provided above) with TCC, downtown, Brady Dist, OSU-Tulsa and Brady Hgts
- I think investing in universities as well as K-12 education can't be a bad thing for long-term Tulsa - even if partering with a private TU
- Do something about the pending quiet zone downtown and extend it outside the IDL
FOTD- OKC included schools in either MAPS I or II, they've upgraded a lot of facilities. Still doesn't improve the quality of education, but man, they got some nice school buildings to continue the status quo.
Tulsa needs to learn how to sell it to the voters before doing anything or else it is a waste of time.
I would like to see more funding to stimulate projects similar to the Mayo Hotel. Maybe they can get someone to do something with the old Tulsa Club building.
Vision2025 paid municipalities to tear out their streetlights and replace them with those junk Acorn lights, and left them to figure out how to pay the much, much higher electric bill. No wonder the Utilities were so generous with their V2025 campaign support.
Much like a heroin dealer giving out free samples. A little investment goes a long way.
Quote from: FOTD on November 30, 2009, 10:26:33 PM
More taxes? Education comes first. Who wants to be like OKShitty?
OKC just wrapped up the $700 million MAPS for Kids project, so technically, education did come first. And, BTW, tax rates won't change. But you can continue your hatred for OKC if it makes you feel better.
I am personally proud of OKC's and Tulsa's progress each time I make a trek to Oklahoma from here in Hellston.
^ Houston/"Hellston" > OKC/Tulsa
I thought I heard where Vision 2025 will officially end in 2016 (13 years from passage in 2003) and then it will be up to the voters to renew it. Vision 2025, is that correct? If so we have 5 years to discuss (and debate) what should and shouldn't be included. It should be fun for all. :)
Quote from: SXSW on December 15, 2010, 11:34:02 AM
I thought I heard where Vision 2025 will officially end in 2016 (13 years from passage in 2003) and then it will be up to the voters to renew it. Vision 2025, is that correct? If so we have 5 years to discuss (and debate) what should and shouldn't be included. It should be fun for all. :)
Good idea. OK, who's gonna pull the first worm out?
I got a plan to build three islands in the river...
I seriously doubt that a county wide vote to increase taxes will be successful anytime in the near future. This is even harder to sell since our last streets package keeps the V2025 tax rate going after it expires.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 15, 2010, 03:18:22 PM
I got a plan to build three islands in the river...
I wanna divert the river away from tulsa because it is so toxic, fill in the bed and put in lots and lots of surface parking.
Quote from: carltonplace on December 15, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
I seriously doubt that a county wide vote to increase taxes will be successful anytime in the near future. This is even harder to sell since our last streets package keeps the V2025 tax rate going after it expires.
A citywide vote then? That is how the river tax should've been done, as it won in Tulsa itself but not in the rest of the county. I would hope the next project is more transit-oriented. If marketed correctly it will pass.
Quote from: custosnox on December 15, 2010, 09:10:12 PM
I wanna divert the river away from tulsa because it is so toxic, fill in the bed and put in lots and lots of surface parking. highway/weekend racetrack
Quote from: custosnox on December 15, 2010, 09:10:12 PM
I wanna divert the river away from tulsa because it is so toxic, fill in the bed and put in lots and lots of surface parking.
At the Keystone dam we should use the turbine system to mix Swiss Miss (with the little marshmallows) into the water and install large geothermal heaters to heat it up so that we can have the worlds first River of Hot Coco run through Tulsa. We should then rename the city to Wonka land and plant some candy trees.
We need to get an estimate for the environmental study first.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 16, 2010, 09:13:30 AM
At the Keystone dam we should use the turbine system to mix Swiss Miss (with the little marshmallows) into the water and install large geothermal heaters to heat it up so that we can have the worlds first River of Hot Coco run through Tulsa. We should then rename the city to Wonka land and plant some candy trees.
We need to get an estimate for the environmental study first.
No go...least terns.
Good thinking though.
Quote from: Townsend on December 16, 2010, 09:14:57 AM
No go...least terns.
Good thinking though.
Those are delicious. Better than quail. Serve with a Peruvian Mole sauce made from Tulsa River Coco.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 16, 2010, 09:13:30 AM
At the Keystone dam we should use the turbine system to mix Swiss Miss (with the little marshmallows) into the water and install large geothermal heaters to heat it up so that we can have the worlds first River of Hot Coco run through Tulsa. We should then rename the city to Wonka land and plant some candy trees.
We need to get an estimate for the environmental study first.
We need a grant for the estimate......
Quote from: carltonplace on December 15, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
I seriously doubt that a county wide vote to increase taxes will be successful anytime in the near future. This is even harder to sell since our last streets package keeps the V2025 tax rate going after it expires.
You are confused a bit, The City of Tulsa increased the sales tax rate within the City of Tulsa by 2/12ths of a penny on a date which coinsides with the end of the current 4 to Fix sales tax not the .6% which is for Vision 2025.
Vision 2025 idea offered to fund airport complex improvements
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120612_11_A1_Thelat990812 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120612_11_A1_Thelat990812)
QuoteThe latest idea being floated to fund millions of dollars in airport industrial complex improvements is a full-blown Tulsa County Vision 2025 Part Two tax package, multiple sources have told the Tulsa World.
The package, which could appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, also would have money for other projects, possibly including low-water dams in the Arkansas River and the OKPOP Museum in the Brady District, among others.
Even though the current 0.6 cent Vision 2025 sales tax doesn't expire until Dec. 31, 2016, an advance funding mechanism could be used to begin Part Two projects right away, if approved by voters.
This appears to be a potential consensus reached by city, county, Tulsa Metro Chamber and area leaders who have been meeting privately about the various airport industrial complex funding ideas on the table, sources said.
It allays two fears that have been expressed about other ideas in that it would not raise the tax rate and it would not tie up a future Vision 2025 effort solely for airport-related improvements.
The package likely would include the $254.4 million figure cited for the airport industrial complex that would, in part, benefit American Airlines and other tenants through facility upgrades.
It also would have $75 million for a "deal-closing fund" that conceivably would be overseen by a new county authority to offer incentives to businesses that locate or grow in the region.
What else it would contain remains to be seen. A projects list might be culled from the enVision Summit, which was held in April and sponsored by the chamber and County Commission.
County Commissioner Karen Keith declined to talk specifically about a possible Vision 2025 extension, saying discussions are ongoing about the best way to raise funds to maintain and attract jobs in the aviation maintenance industry.
"We are still trying to figure out the best option to save those jobs," Keith said. "Absolutely no decision has been made."
County Commissioner Fred Perry, meanwhile, said he doesn't think a consensus exists regarding a possible tax extension.
"There are multiple options out there," Perry said, "And I am still looking at A, whether to do anything at all, and B, if we do anything, what is the best option."
County Commissioner John Smaligo said his focus continues to be on creating jobs without increasing taxes.
Smaligo said he has not made up his mind about a Vision 2025 extension that would include new projects.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett and Council Chairman G.T. Bynum both declined to comment about the latest proposal.
Tulsa Metro Chamber CEO Mike Neal said, "There are so many ideas floating around right now; I have no idea what to comment on."
A full-fledged Vision 2025 Part Two is the fourth idea to surface.
Regional leaders began meeting months ago in the wake of American Airlines' bankruptcy to think of ways to preserve local jobs.
The conversation evolved into keeping the airport industrial complex facilities maintained and marketable, regardless of who occupies them.
Chamber officials originally pitched the possibility of a 0.4 cent sales-tax increase to fund airport-related improvements and a "deal-closing fund."
As an alternative, Smaligo suggested a limited extension of Vision 2025 so there would be no net tax-rate increase.
In response, Bynum and Councilor Blake Ewing offered for consideration a $90 million proposal involving the county's using a 0.167 cent sales-tax share, which the city is now collecting, for airport improvements.
Their proposal did not include a "deal-closing fund" provision. Bynum and Ewing have said they are against that idea.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120612_11_A1_Thelat990812
I am very skeptical of the "deal closing fund". I doubt if its effective. It seems like bribe money to me.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 12, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
I am very skeptical of the "deal closing fund". I doubt if its effective. It seems like bribe money to me.
Supposedly the money is only to be used for infrastructure improvements and not direct subsidies, but they want to keep it unassigned as they don't know what kinds of road/water/sewer an incoming business might need.
I'm weary as well, but just wanted to spell it out.
I'm more concerned that they may slap together a V2025 Mark 2 without all the time and consideration put into the last one. Anyone who has been here more than a few years knows what happens to rushed infrastructure improvement programs:
River Tax
The Tulsa Project
Tulsa's Time
etc.
If they are gunning for Nov. 6, it will be another pile like the '07 river tax and will go down in flames.
Lesson apparently has not been learned.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 02:12:29 PM
If they are gunning for Nov. 6, it will be another pile like the '07 river tax and will go down in flames.
Lesson apparently has not been learned.
Agreed. They need to sneak this one in there quietly. A secret September vote or something.
Quote from: Townsend on June 12, 2012, 02:23:33 PM
Agreed. They need to sneak this one in there quietly. A secret September vote or something.
And robo call those not on "the list" that the vote has been moved to Sunday.
I third the sentiment above.
I'm already disappointed in how this was rolled out/leaked/floated.
This just totally smacks of the way the river vote thing was handled, where most of the general public was confused about what they were or were not voting for.
Getting Vision 2025 extended or Part 2 or whatever should be a slam dunk. It's been a smashing success in about any way you can measure it. If this second phase is clearly communicated and it has a solid/well-thought-out plan, it would pass easily.
If there is a muttled message about "extending" versus "part two" and other talk of starting things before the current tax is done, then I project confusion and failure.
I just hope that cooler/smarter heads prevail and they do this the right way to maintain our momentum.
Where are all the TNF tax haters?
Quote from: Jeff P on June 12, 2012, 02:34:05 PM
I just hope that cooler/smarter heads prevail and they do this the right way to maintain our momentum.
No sweat. "Tulsa County, where cooler/smarter heads prevail and they do this the right way to maintain our momentum." TULSA COUNTY!!!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 02:36:33 PM
Where are all the TNF tax haters?
I hate Texas. Is that good enough?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 02:36:33 PM
Where are all the TNF tax haters?
That's advocating hate, Clown.
Politicians never cease to amaze me. I felt the river tax was a tax in search of project. Rarely do good ideas come from this sort of mentality. In Bartlesville, there is a property tax measure that was used for school improvements several years back that is about to expire, and the ideas just keep getting floated, just hoping one will stick. First was a School Board plan that was all over the map crazy that went down in flames. Now the city is moving in hoping to get some new facilities out of the deal. I will have to say the later plan is far more reasonable and appropriate, but I still don't know if that will happen either.
It's like they all sit in a room trying to think up a way to keep the funding coming and they forget to think about what is actually good for the community.
I'm not saying all taxes are bad, because they aren't. But this sort of thinking is definitely a bad thing.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 02:45:37 PM
It's like they all sit in a room trying to think up a way to keep the funding coming
We don't sit that much. Mostly we dance.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 02:43:39 PM
That's advocating hate, Clown.
You moron....hate against a tax is not prejudice nor is it discrimination. Lured you out, just couldn't get your confession. Saving it for the box?
Relax
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 02:48:42 PM
You moron....hate against a tax is not prejudice nor is it discrimination. Lured you out, just couldn't get your confession. Saving it for the box?
Sounds like I tweaked the Clown's nose.
Didn't we already vote to take over the V2025 tax once it sunsets in order to "fix our streets"? For COT residents this would be an additional tax, not simply an extension of an existing tax.
I wonder who at AA is spearheading this thing?
Quote from: carltonplace on June 12, 2012, 04:19:54 PM
Didn't we already vote to take over the V2025 tax once it sunsets in order to "fix our streets"? For COT residents this would be an additional tax, not simply an extension of an existing tax.
I wonder who at AA is spearheading this thing?
I think that was just the portion that was to be used for Boeing
Quote from: Jeff P on June 12, 2012, 02:34:05 PM
I third the sentiment above.
I'm already disappointed in how this was rolled out/leaked/floated.
This just totally smacks of the way the river vote thing was handled, where most of the general public was confused about what they were or were not voting for.
Getting Vision 2025 extended or Part 2 or whatever should be a slam dunk. It's been a smashing success in about any way you can measure it. If this second phase is clearly communicated and it has a solid/well-thought-out plan, it would pass easily.
If there is a muttled message about "extending" versus "part two" and other talk of starting things before the current tax is done, then I project confusion and failure.
I just hope that cooler/smarter heads prevail and they do this the right way to maintain our momentum.
Definitely. A failed vote on Vison 2025 pt. II could really poison the well for years to come. Rushing a package through for consideration in November ignores the lessons from two failed Tusa Projects and the river project.
The regional municipal leaders (elected and staff along with county and area chambers) have been discussing this for months. They are working to make it a county wide package. Early polling numbers are very good for passage.
Needs to be in November. Otherwise, the younger and "left leaning" voters that typically check yes for quality of life type of initiatives won't come out to vote.
There will be a nice surplus of V2025 I funds once it runs out. As part of the additional money pledged towards the BOK Center those funds go to the suburbs first. That will help get a deal passed.
The biggest obstacle will be the "deal closing fund."
Quote from: rdj on June 13, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
The regional municipal leaders (elected and staff along with county and area chambers) have been discussing this for months. They are working to make it a county wide package. Early polling numbers are very good for passage.
I think that is the concern - packages created from the top down have struggled in the past. If we are going to tie up future Vision 2025 monies for another decade or so, it seems important that the public has input and buy in, not just political leaders. Rushing this to try and ride the coat tails of a presidential year voter demographic seems, at best, ill conceived and presumptive.
I wasn't agreeing with the process. Only pointing out what I knew from discussions with suburban leaders.
TW FB post:
QuoteThe commissioners scheduled the vote Thursday morning after hearing details of a proposed $748.8 million package of economic development and quality-of-life projects to be funded with the proposed tax extension.
Quote
Tulsa County commissioners will vote Monday on whether to call a Nov. 6 election on Vision2 - an extension of the 0.6 percent Vision 2025 sales tax through 2029.
The commissioners scheduled the vote Thursday morning after hearing details of a proposed $748.8 million package of economic development and quality-of-life projects to be funded with the proposed tax extension.
The extension would start when the current tax expires Jan. 1, 2017, although bond sales on the economic development half of the program could make funding available for those projects soon after voters approve it.
"I think that the proposal seemed to be positively received today, and it seems like each of us is ready to make a decision on Monday," Tulsa County Commissioner John Smaligo said after the meeting.
Later in the day, the Vision2 proposal was formally unveiled at the BOK Center.
"We want everyone to understand that Vision2 is direly needed, and it will make our region the region we want it to be," said Don Walker, co-chairman of the Vision2 campaign.
Officials chose to announce Vision2 at the BOK Center for a reason: The arena has been the centerpiece of the Vision 2025 program.
"Look around us, right here in this room," said Walker, president and CEO of Arvest Bank. "This facility is one of our key results of Vision 2025."
The first element of the Vision2 plan is $386.88 million for economic development - improvements on key industrial sites at Tulsa International Airport and a $52.942 million closing fund to offer final incentives to companies considering locating in the area.
A second $361.92 million package would go to quality-of-life improvements to be selected by the county and each of its cities.
The quality-of-life money would be apportioned to communities in the county according to population. Spending plans will grow from public discussions and should be determined well in advance of a vote on the package, campaign organizers said.
The resolutions to be considered by county commissioners on Monday would set the date for the election, the tax rates being proposed and the general purpose for which the funds will be used.
The resolutions do not include the community projects to be funded in Vision2.
Organizers of the Vision2 campaign said Thursday that they would like to see community projects listed before the proposed election but that each city will control how its vetting process is handled.
"It is important that each individual community and each individual city council in each of the suburban communities, as well as the city of Tulsa, has its respective discretion and its respective public process to determine what the local projects will be," said Mike Neal, CEO and executive director of the Tulsa Metro Chamber.
During their morning meeting, commissioners also agreed to consider a second resolution Monday outlining how the county intends to spend the $92 million it is projected to receive from Vision2.
Those proposed projects include $38 million for a juvenile justice center and family court facility; $25 million for roads and other infrastructure; $12 million for Expo Square; $10 million for levee improvements; and $7 million for parks and recreational facilities.
"This is a good opportunity for us to take care of a lot of issues for the county but that are also very critical for economic development," Commissioner Karen Keith said.
The two propositions presented to commissioners total $748.8 million, $900,000 more than initial descriptions of the package size. The difference is the result of a press release rounding error.
A key element of the economic development package is $254 million in improvements for three city-owned manufacturing facilities at the Tulsa airport-industrial complex, said Jim Fram, senior vice president of the Tulsa Metro Chamber.
The improvements will deal with fundamental engineering problems and equipment needed to create state-of-the-art industrial facilities, he said.
The three facilities - currently in use by American Airlines, Spirit AeroSystems and IC Bus - date back to the early days of World War II and are in dire need of fundamental repairs, including roofing, wiring and air conditioning, Fram said.
The package also includes high-tech equipment to allow the facilities to have useful lives long into the future regardless of the tenants, he said.
Before any of the money is spent on the facilities, the county will negotiate long-term contractual job commitments, Fram said. The contracts will include "clawback" provisions, allowing the county to recoup costs if the commitments aren't met, he said.
Even if the current tenants leave the facilities, the renovated buildings will be attractive lures to other employers, he said.
Walker said there is a false perception that the tenants of the buildings haven't spent any of their own money on the facilities. American Airlines alone has spent some $445 million on its Tulsa facilities, but the community needs to make a major investment now to protect its assets and the 11,000 jobs in the airport complex, he said.
Rich Brierre, executive director of the Indian Nations Council of Governments, said the project is structured so that the bonds for the economic development projects could be sold soon after the election, allowing for quick implementation.
Bonds for the quality-of-life projects wouldn't be sold until after the tax goes into effect, unless local governments want to pay additional financing costs and move their projects forward, he said.
Brierre said a senior rebate that was part of the Vision 2025 program will also be part of the Vision2 proposal.
Qualifying Tulsa County residents over the age of 65 currently receive $18 rebates on the sales taxes they've paid. If the new package passes, they would be eligible for $24 rebates starting in 2017 to adjust for increases in the cost of living, Brierre said.
More than 24,000 people take advantage of the program every year, Tulsa County Treasurer Dennis Semler said.
About Vision2
Proprosed election date: Nov. 6
Amount: Extension of 0.6 percent Vision 2025 sales tax through 2029
Proposition 1: Economic development
Airport industrial complex buildings and infrastructure - $122 million
Airport industrial complex equipment - $132 million
Closing fund - $52.942 million
Bond costs and interest - $79.938 million
Proposition 2: Quality-of-life improvements
Tulsa County - $92 million
Tulsa - $157.92 million
Bixby - $11.3 million
Broken Arrow - $44.1 million
Collinsville - $3 million
Glenpool - $5.9 million
Jenks - $9.2 million
Owasso - $14.38 million
Sand Springs - $10.1 million
Skiatook - $1.16 million
Sperry - $643,894
Bond costs and interest - $12 million
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20120810_16_A1_ULNSeo547283
What a crock of sh!t. How much more are we as citizens going to dole out to the corporate welfare recipients AGAIN? And are there not more pressing needs for our community?
Shameful.
The only part of the last package I was adamantly against was the set-in-stone decision to purchase and install the poorest quality municipal streetlighting we could have possibly found.
There should have been a study, or at least a public portion of the decision process.
Decisions like that are more than just a one-time expenditure, seeing how the electric bill for things like Acorn-style lights come every month, in perpetuity.
Quote from: patric on August 10, 2012, 11:07:12 AM
The only part of the last package I was adamantly against was the set-in-stone decision to purchase and install the poorest quality municipal streetlighting we could have possibly found.
There should have been a study, or at least a public portion of the decision process.
Decisions like that are more than just a one-time expenditure, seeing how the electric bill for things like Acorn-style lights come every month, in perpetuity.
I bet we could take the deal closing fund and apply it to better quality street lighting and accomplish more in operational savings than we will gain from pimping our city.
I usually vote yes on these issues. I am willing to pay a little more to live in a better community. I also trust the leadership currently serving the county.
$748.8 million is sure a lot of money however. I will need to do a little homework on the specific projects.
That's the problem. As of now there isn't much to study and ultimately County officials won't be deciding how a large chunk of this money is spent. We know what $ will go to fix up the city owned buildings at the airport for aerospace tenants and to create a closing fund. After that, there are few specifics. Tulsa and surrounding towns will be allocated money based on population and then each one has to determone what projects to use it on. The Tulsa mayor wants to use a large portion of Tulsa's share to expand the Gilcrease Expressway (Did OKC have to pay for moving I40 or its major highway loops?). The reality is, there is very little time to finalize any project list to have on the November ballot.
V2025 had a specific set of projects and moneys allocated to each. Voters knew what they were voting on, what to expect once it passed and could hold officials responsible as the projects werer completed. This feels rushed and will have little accountability because we don't have a measuring stick to use to determine if the projects promised are getting done.
I get that the airport improvement issues may have a short fuse, but locking down this sales tax for another 20 years without a clear idea of how the money is going to be spent is a good way to get the whole package voted down (whatever the merits are on the airport improvements). This strikes me as a repeat of the Susan Savage approach that was rejected twice by voters.
Tulsa's an old southern city decaying away because there were too few benefiting from what they've paid for a better standard of living. Many were mistaken to place building new property a priority while the lines that brought safe water to their homes failed. The streets will continue to be funded through an ongoing extension of sales tax.
What next do the reactionaries who run this town have in store for us? Airport? Locks and dams? Waterway improvements?
Maybe if the Chamberites can illustrate how $750 million to American Air has been paid back or even a cost/benefit analysis portraying how that amount of money invested subsequently rippled through the economy and benefited the population as a whole. Show me the money. Where are the teaheads upset about their taxes? I guess these environmental and infrastructure issues do not directly effect them and therefore "out of sight, out of mind." And, I guess they do like socialism after all....
This Vision thingy needs to be halted until we are shown what really lies ahead and what lies behind...
Just went through parts of it, and I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Teatown. :o
It's basically a ton of money confiscated from tax payers to benefit American Airlines. They get the benefits immediately, but it's not until 2017 that any projects for the community start, and there's no real ROI analysis.
Basically, it's a quick scheme to stroke AA.
Let me tell you something. . .American Airlines has shown no intension of changing the way they do business or provide improved service to their clients. They are dyeing of their own cancer (as are many other carriers). Unless we see a significant change in that, it would be foolish for us to invest in them on a national or local level. I have no problem incentivizing business to encourage investment and growth in our community, but I do have a problem incentivizing a bad or failing business.
As for the "Vision2025" moniker, that is very misleading. It is obviously intended to make people feel like this is another "Phase" or expansion of the Vision program. They are using the success of that program to brand a corporate welfare scheme. $749 million dollars will do far more good in the pockets of Tulsa citizens then in the hands of bad business.
Pull up the contract on the bus company and view the bottom line.
Then the AA contract's bottom line. Apply the commercial rate for leasing buildings and grounds to non-brother-in-law ventures. Adjust the present lease rate the companies should pay to pay off the bonds sold to make the improvement. And spare those retirees, depending on SS and pensions that inflation has destroyed the purchasing powers.
Sales taxes are the most cruel tax the was ever imposed on the aged. The rebate system on the sales taxes are a farce as it was brought up before the council that most of the rebate request came from the south of the city.
Remember that many of the employees that are being subsidized do not even live in the county therefore they will not pay taxes in Tulsa county. Tulsans are being ask to tax themselves to provide jobs the residents of other cities/counties.
Or just buy both of the companies and join the bankruptcies we are promoting.
Quote from: shadows on August 10, 2012, 06:58:42 PM
Sales taxes are the most cruel tax the was ever imposed on the aged.
They don't need to be. Things like food, clothing, and prescription drugs should be exempted from sales tax.
Oklahoma typically doesn't have the highest tax rate on much of anything but we tax everything in sight. I have no idea how a populist state got to be where we are. By the way, it was this way l-o-n-g before the Republicans took control of the state government.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 10, 2012, 09:29:18 PM
They don't need to be. Things like food, clothing, and prescription drugs should be exempted from sales tax.
Oklahoma typically doesn't have the highest tax rate on much of anything but we tax everything in sight. I have no idea how a populist state got to be where we are. By the way, it was this way l-o-n-g before the Republicans took control of the state government.
True enough. Its like they have always embraced the concept of "we'll make it up on volume" which is of course a joke in the business world. They tax everything and have very little chance of enforcing collections but what they do get is gravy I guess.
A good example is forcing canoe and kayak owners to title, register, pay fees and sticker their small craft. The rules for doing so are pretty arcane and ignored by most owners who rarely use their boats anyway. Its the fishermen who must pay because they are regular users and on the bigger rivers and lakes. The idea is that if your boat is stolen they can track it down for you (fat chance) and the fees pay for those fish and game people you rarely see who can't seem to stop bow fishermen from shooting game fish off the pedestrian bridge.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 11, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
A good example is forcing canoe and kayak owners to title, register, pay fees and sticker their small craft.
I believe the only benefit I get from registering my airplane with the State of Oklahoma is the privilege of sending them some money each year. Fortunately, my plane is old enough it qualifies for the minimum rate.
QuoteIts the fishermen who must pay because they are regular users and on the bigger rivers and lakes.
If you have an outboard motor (above a certain size?) on your boat, it must also get a big ugly sticker. I remember hearing someone in a tag agency once, who moved here from another state which didn't separately register the motor, trying to get legal in Oklahoma. What a mess.
QuoteThe idea is that if your boat is stolen they can track it down for you (fat chance)
You have that one nailed.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 10, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
I bet we could take the deal closing fund and apply it to better quality street lighting and accomplish more in operational savings than we will gain from pimping our city.
That seems like a realistic goal, but first we would have to break the city's habit of having the electric utility specify what we need for streetlighting.
The old "it needs to be a minimum of 100 Watts" is absurd and obsolete.
Here's a way to think about this: We are essentially paying a years worth of salaries for 6,350 employees ($40,000/year average) in "Infrastructure Improvements" and "Equipment". In reality this is a small drop in the bucket for AA, and they will take anything and everything we will give them and give nothing back in return.
What kind of infrastructure are they even talking about? I assume it's meant to go towards hangers and basically give free rent to AA, like what was done in a smaller way in the first Vision Package. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but we'll see.
I fail to understand where we are going to get much back from this. The deal closing fund also seems like a back up plan for when/ if AA lays off a bunch of workers or ships a large chuck of maintenance oversees that basically shutters the Tulsa campus like every other US based airline has done. Why would we be throwing $200 Million into a black hole essential?? I would rather take the wait and see aspect on this and then take that $200 Million and make it a much larger deal closing fund to replace and diversify our economy after AA downsizes.
Or better yet, take that $200 Million and put it towards transit and encourage redevelopment in the city and grow our tax base, or even better yet take that $200 Million and invest into OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa and our other universities and help them create partnerships with businesses to encourage higher quality job growth.
If we are going to dump all this money into AA/airport we need to have some sort of agreement that they expand direct flight services to and from Tulsa. Work on making our airport more of a regional hub/small focus city for AA that will directly have a financial benefit to the city and our other businesses. This bending over and grabbing our ankles for AA needs to stop.
I believe the airport money is to build new hangers and taxiways for other airport businesses.
That being said, I'm currently a no on both halves because I don't see the airport argument compelling and will not vote in support of the other half until I see specific projects.
How is a bus manufacturing company connected with aerospace at the airport?
How would one get the job of selling a company on moving into a half-mile long building, the GSA was giving to Tulsa with the production machinery, at a cost of a dollar a year for decades?
What was the fee for finalizing such to the person at closure?
I am sure such person, as he sits on the beach of the south sea island, thinks often of the aged and unformatted that live in Tulsa who are hot in the summer and cold in the winter who count their pennies to survive. The keeping the ongoing taxes, plus additional taxes is a further burden on those with limited incomes. This group of citizens is contributed enough for the promise of quality-of-life and now other groups seek to take from their meager incomes additional moneys to create jobs.
Since the warming trend has set in then all that snow removal equipment can be used to haul those green valueless unassigned notes that can be spent at their pleasure.
I know a nice warm island where your Social Security check will get you a decent standard of living. Don't worry, there's plenty to complain about, so you won't get bored.
Quote from: shadows on August 12, 2012, 07:57:11 PM
How is a bus manufacturing company connected with aerospace at the airport?
There is air inside the buses and space for people to ride.
;D
Quote from: LandArchPoke on August 11, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
In reality this is a small drop in the bucket for AA, and they will take anything and everything we will give them and give nothing back in return.
That is the potential problem. I won't mind helping if we can be reasonably assured of something favorable to Tulsa and Tulsa employees in return. And, FWIW, I have no interest in helping AA bring DFW area employees here to displace Tulsa employees. That may be a contract thing but I am not interested. Let DFW area people send some money here if they want to save their jobs.
The top things I don't like about this:
1) 3/4 of a billion dollars in taxes thrown together in a few weeks?
2) Using a 1/4 of a billion dollars of this to appease/please AA?
3) Wanting to use a large portion of Tulsa's share for the Gilcrease Expressway?
4) Not having any city with the county being able to provide any details on how they would spend this money they didn't ask for?
5) Wanting to take this to ballot without each dollar accounted for?
6) Taking this to ballot with no oversight (that I have seen anyway)
I don't mind so much spending to upgrade the physical buildings at the airport, but I dislike buying tools to American's specifications. They may well not be here very long.
Why on earth is a river bridge for the Gilcrease Loop a priority? The highways in the area carry very little traffic. The reason the state doesn't want to pay to build a northwest loop is it's not needed. Just because it's been a line on a map for a long time is not a reason to spend a ton of money.
Spend the money on two streetcar lines. One that connects TU, The Pearl, downtown and then out to Cherry St, Utica Square, Brookside and the new River park. And another that runs from OSU Tulsa through downtown to OSU Medical and the west bank. Work on infill in the city, not more and more highways that drive development further outward.
I got a good idea....spend the money on the public welfare through infrastructure improvements. Our lazy councilors and Mayor need to define our real future needs and quit letting the Chambermaids dictate their priorities. Really surprised Blake's already become "one of them."
I am focused on quality of living issues but it seems to be the minority view. Most people are concerned about "things to do" and supplying funds for corporate welfare. The Gilcrease should be a toll road.
Tulsa's tax rate is way too high to compete with other cities for new jobs.... besides, our air and water quality are abysmal.
Personally I'm sour on any county wide initiative, there are plenty of things that we need in the city; the county is already fixed (after two 4 to fix initiatives and one round of V2025).
I agree with the above. We need transportation in this town: quick circulator routes between nodes. We need smart parking options in downtown.
I just returned from Spokane, WA and was impressed with their tight urban downtown, bicycle lanes, jogging trails, River park, retail, hotel and transit options. Their downtown is packed with people.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 13, 2012, 03:04:17 PM
Personally I'm sour on any county wide initiative, there are plenty of things that we need in the city; the county is already fixed (after two 4 to fix initiatives and one round of V2025).
I agree with the above. We need transportation in this town: quick circulator routes between nodes. We need smart parking options in downtown.
I just returned from Spokane, WA and was impressed with their tight urban downtown, bicycle lanes, jogging trails, River park, retail, hotel and transit options. Their downtown is packed with people.
Spokane's more international...Tulsan's will NEVER abandon their cars. Wish we would. It might help with the air quality. But as a priority, public transportation is wishful thinking.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 13, 2012, 03:04:17 PM
Personally I'm sour on any county wide initiative, there are plenty of things that we need in the city; the county is already fixed (after two 4 to fix initiatives and one round of V2025).
I agree with the above. We need transportation in this town: quick circulator routes between nodes. We need smart parking options in downtown.
I just returned from Spokane, WA and was impressed with their tight urban downtown, bicycle lanes, jogging trails, River park, retail, hotel and transit options. Their downtown is packed with people.
I could get behind buying up surface lots downtown and building garages. Sell the lots to bidder with most urban design plan
Quote from: swake on August 13, 2012, 03:25:00 PM
I could get behind buying up surface lots downtown and building garages. Sell the lots to bidder with most urban design plan
It works the other way around..."build it and they will come" theories do not justify financial expenditures for the lenders. You think the city will buy up raw land? Sounds like socialism or even communism.
The only land you'll see the city buying might be the land where the Gilcrease Expressway goes.
Sweet, I wonder what crazy thing owasso would use a part of the V2 funds for this time. I mean the city of character thing is pretty played out and honestly I am tired of it... like when they had accountability or something like that up during the period where one of the city officials got busted for DUI.
Why are they working to complete the Gilcrease loop? Have I missed a massive flow of traffic somewhere? The benefit of something like that is to miss a traffic headache and the only traffic headaches we have right now are caused by construction. Also you want to use it as a straight path around a city... and technically you have to hop on 244 from 44, hit highway 11, stop at a stoplight etc... I am not sure what is the benefit of that.
I guess there is a reason I am just a peon. I don't have the vision (no pun) needed to see the benefits that these people are obviously seeing.
I am down for the street cars though. That would be pretty awesome.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on August 13, 2012, 04:24:49 PM
Why are they working to complete the Gilcrease loop?
Is someone close to the mayor a large property owner in the area?
You know..."they".
I think it's about balanced growth....We have hit the wall south and east is a bastion of hard rock.
I do not think it has to do with Screwy's friends...he may not have many left. He did have incentive to get the Creek done that way, but the Gilcrease is a long promise unfulfilled by our city leaders.
Trolley's are for trolls.... :D
The city desk jockeys went through thousands of dollars of tax monies planning an industrial park along the Mingo road joining the airport to the east with a third runway and railroad tracks. They blew it up on all the jobs it would create. After the carnival grandstanding ballyhoo they expected a land rush for a private investor to gab the ball and run. The general consensus of private investors was “NOT WITH MY MONEY”.
It is now being submitted by the good old city desk jockeys again but this time they we will tax the necessities of life (quality-of-life if one pleases) on the very limited incomes need to sustain the life in the city they build by the sweat of their brows. The time has come to recognize this struggle to maintain the very essentials that are becoming beyond their reach.
The cities are conducting a bidding war to entice the 9% of the job in production of goods for sale and diverting the public thinking that the quality-of-life can be accomplished in a service economy. If the city thinks they can outbid other cities in this borderline communism then it is well on its way.
They want the Gilcrease Loop in good part precisely because of what the comprehensive plan process pointed out that we are running out of quick, easy, sprawl type development land in the city. The Tulsa Hills area has given us a reprive but after that it would be the Gilcrease loop area. Thing is they also said that we would grow more and faster as a city if we took the quality, urban infill route.
As for Tulsans not wanting pedestrian/transit friendly development. Hogwash. It's just that we make it illegal in 90% of the city such that even in the areas like downtown where you can try to build it, your fighting against everything else. And we don't support pedestrian/transit friendly development with the infrastructure like we do car oriented development (aka Gilcrease Expressway). Plus I have known plenty of Tulsans who love urban living... most of them eventually leave, and others that like it and want to move here don't because we don't have any good urban areas. So it's not a really a fair assessment to say that Tulsa's dont want urban living or non car oriented lifestyles when we make it illegal to build it and then run off everyone that does want it lol.
Arteest, they love their cars more than their legs, more than sharing a ride, more than waiting for a bus, and more than fighting the extreme elements.
But I like your imagination.
You seem to be a bit negative towards the comprehensive plan and the Gilcrease.
The land for the Gilcrease has been bought, cleared and made ready by the county for years. The idea is that it will make the Berryhill area a part of the loop around the city. Convenience. You can drive from Chandler/Berryhill to downtown, northwest or SS pretty easily. Also, the stretch from 23rd and Southwest Blvd to Chandler has become increasingly industrial with lots of tractor trailer traffic that could cut across the Gilcrease exprwy bridge to deliver product easier than negotiating that weird assemblage of roads from the trash burner to the Holly refinery. It would lighten traffic at 23rd and SW blvd as well as on the new bridges being built currently that tie into 244.
Its a promise made that has never seemed to be important enough to finish. Maybe if the planners made it monorail capable....
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 13, 2012, 09:07:47 PM
Arteest, they love their cars more than their legs, more than sharing a ride, more than waiting for a bus, and more than fighting the extreme elements.
But I like your imagination.
You seem to be a bit negative towards the comprehensive plan and the Gilcrease.
Arteest, they love their cars more than their legs, more than sharing a ride, more than waiting for a bus, and more than fighting the extreme elements.
So do I for the most part..... IN Tulsa. Get me, and most other Tulsans into a good quality, pedestrian/transit friendly environment, and they will walk all over the place. Bet if I offered the random person a free ticket to stay in some European city for a couple of weeks, or NYC, or Disney World, etc. and said "Just a warning though, you won't be able to use a car and will walk a LOT." I don't doubt one bit that they would still snatch that ticket out of my hand.
Most people really don't mind walking, they don't like walking in Tulsa because we make it a miserable experience to try and do so.
As for the Comprehensive Plan, I love what we came up with. What I was pointing out was that during the process they crunched the data and showed 3 different growth scenarios. 1. Doing what we are doing now with some tinkering around the edges. 2. A fairly progressive, urban/pedestrian friendly growth mode. 3. One somewhat inbetween the first two. Then as one example they showed the population increases we could reasonably expect depending on which growth mode we chose, and even in what parts of the city or not, we could expect to see growth in the different scenarios. #1 had the slowest population increase for the city. #2. The largest, and #3 somewhat inbetween. Everyone involved voted and we chose the #2 scenario. And thats the scenario we are now trying to decide whether or not we will implement. And I am all for it being implemented. The problem is, we seem to be heck bent on moving forward with our usual old plans, or gutting with a thousand cuts plan #2, and thus actually implementing scenario #1.
As I now understand it, American has been leasing space at the airport all this time. They own nothing. From the city's perspective what safeguards are there to keep American from leaving anytime or if so being compensated in some manner? After all, renters rent because they want the flexibility of not being tied to one place. Why else would AA not want to own something that would be near impossible to sell for fair market value.
I have always felt that cities were caught in between a rock and hard place. Obviously I don't think the city should be offering corporate welfare to anyone. But if they don't, some other city will. Maybe after every city goes bankrupt once that will come to an end.
It's less egregiously awful when the subsidy is at least not going to support the competitors of existing taxpayers.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 14, 2012, 07:28:29 AM
Arteest, they love their cars more than their legs, more than sharing a ride, more than waiting for a bus, and more than fighting the extreme elements.
So do I for the most part..... IN Tulsa. Get me, and most other Tulsans into a good quality, pedestrian/transit friendly environment, and they will walk all over the place.
Heck, just paint some bike lanes on the streets. That's a start.
TTC, you are correct: Tulsans in the boomer range and older love their cars. But the younger demos GenX and Millennials are increasingly attracted to alternate transportation that is not a personal, expensive car.
Based on Driving 15,000 miles annually (Source AAA)
Small Sedan $6,735
Medium Sedan $8,780
Large Sedan $11,324
Sedan Average $8,946
SUV 4WD $11,360
Minivan $9,504
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 10, 2012, 09:29:18 PM
They don't need to be. Things like food, clothing, and prescription drugs should be exempted from sales tax.
Oklahoma typically doesn't have the highest tax rate on much of anything but we tax everything in sight. I have no idea how a populist state got to be where we are. By the way, it was this way l-o-n-g before the Republicans took control of the state government.
And they have been in "control" for a long time and not only has nothing changed for the better - it is arguably getting worse.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 14, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
TTC, you are correct: Tulsans in the boomer range and older love their cars. But the younger demos GenX and Millennials are increasingly attracted to alternate transportation that is not a personal, expensive car.
Based on Driving 15,000 miles annually (Source AAA)
Small Sedan $6,735
Medium Sedan $8,780
Large Sedan $11,324
Sedan Average $8,946
SUV 4WD $11,360
Minivan $9,504
We also love bicycles - at least many of us that I know. As well as walking. At this point, it is too dangerous from where so many of us live to get to the bike paths that it just doesn't work for commuting. At one time, I lived in BA and did bicycle commute for almost two years (2 to 3 days a week average, depending on weather) to near the fairgrounds - up 145th to 21st and sometimes 11th, then west to Sheridan. Would not try that now ever.
Proactive creation of infrastructure might surprise you about that. Plus, it wouldn't hurt for the destination companies to have a shower.... the company I was working for would not support at all. Offered to pay to install shower myself in an unused corner of warehouse area, and still wouldn't allow, so got sponge bath every morning.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 10:22:40 AM
And they have been in "control" for a long time and not only has nothing changed for the better - it is arguably getting worse.
You and I evidently have a different opinion of "long time". Oklahoma has been a state since 1907. When I moved here in 1971, voting Republican was merely a prerequisite for complaining about local politics.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 14, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
You and I evidently have a different opinion of "long time". Oklahoma has been a state since 1907. When I moved here in 1971, voting Republican was merely a prerequisite for complaining about local politics.
If no visible progress is made in even just a few decades, then nothing is different. And still getting worse.
What do you consider a "long time" in politics as relate to public policy improvements? (Just to get a working time definition between us.) I will submit 10 years. If 10 years has passed with no visible/measurable change/improvement, then that is a "long time". I will take it one step further and say the 20 years constitutes criminal inactivity.
Voting "yes" would be difficult even if the powers that be had identified the intended projects. Not knowing what the projects are makes this a complete nonstarter.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 13, 2012, 09:11:40 PM
Its a promise made that has never seemed to be important enough to finish. Maybe if the planners made it monorail capable....
Well... it did put Ogdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook on the map!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 01:17:17 PM
If no visible progress is made in even just a few decades, then nothing is different. And still getting worse.
What do you consider a "long time" in politics as relate to public policy improvements? (Just to get a working time definition between us.) I will submit 10 years. If 10 years has passed with no visible/measurable change/improvement, then that is a "long time". I will take it one step further and say the 20 years constitutes criminal inactivity.
Quote
http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/17361170/article-Democrats-continue-to-flee-Oklahoma-Legislature?
Democrats essentially controlled Oklahoma politics since statehood, but Republicans snatched control of the House in 2004 and the Senate in 2008. Lerblance's predecessor in the Senate, former state Sen. Gene Stipe, served for more than 50 years in the Legislature from the section of southeast Oklahoma dubbed "Little Dixie," and his name became synonymous with Democratic power.
I cannot think of any new taxes since then. Rates may have changed. Cities and counties may have added a sales tax but that is not a new tax for the state.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on August 14, 2012, 03:09:46 PM
Well... it did put Ogdenville, Brockway and North Haverbrook on the map!
This sounds like more of a Shelbyville idea.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 14, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
I cannot think of any new taxes since then. Rates may have changed. Cities and counties may have added a sales tax but that is not a new tax for the state.
And look where reducing rates is getting us. No where. Goes to the lack of visible forward progress I mentioned.
As for Stipe - well I know I have made passing remarks about that clown here before. He was not the biggest crook we have ever seen, but one with the most visibility. There are some in south Tulsa and OKC who got "term limited" out a few years ago that worked hand in hand across the aisle since the 60's to keep the money moving in the state. So they could live in Southern Hills and the kids could drive the Mercedes SL's. (I think the SL is the two seat sports car versions...??) Both Republican AND Democrat.
We love our corruption in this state and embrace it as the "manly-man" thing to do. (County commissioners...)
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2.aspx)
QuoteMayor Dewey Bartlett will host five public forums across Tulsa to receive citizen input for Vision2 projects. Other communication outlets are also in place for citizens to provide suggestions and feedback immediately.
The Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution which would give the citizens of Tulsa an opportunity to vote for an extension of the Vision2025 program on November 6. With a potential extension, the City of Tulsa must identity projects for inclusion in the new Vision2 program.
After public forums are held, a resolution will be created comprised of projects from citizen input. If Vision2 is approved on November 6, the city of Tulsa will gain financing to begin many projects outlined in the resolution immediately. While each project will vary on completion time, all Vision2 initiatives set forth by citizens would be complete by 2029.
Tulsa is home to the largest Vision 2025 project, the award-winning BOK Center. Since opening four years ago, the BOK Center has brought world class entertainment to Tulsa. The BOK Center is ranked 21st in the nation and 45th worldwide in total event ticket sales. Other highly recognized Vision2025 projects include the enhancement and promotion of the 26 miles of historic Route 66 stretching from east to west through Tulsa; and funding for neighborhoods citywide to celebrate their uniqueness and historic character.
"In 2003, voters passed Vision2025 which has enabled Tulsans to enjoy many new facilities and receive funding for various neighborhood and infrastructure projects that could not be realized without Vision2025 funding," Mayor Dewey Bartlett said. "With Tulsa potentially receiving funding for continued economic development, we want to receive feedback from citizens on how we can best invest in our community."
Public Forums:
Monday, August 27, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Tulsa Webster High School Auditorium
1919 West 40th St.
Friday, August 31, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
TCC Northeast Campus
3727 East Apache St.
Wednesday, September 5, 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.
OU-Tulsa Shusterman Center Auditorium
4502 E. 41st St.
(Come and go forum, lunch not provided)
Wednesday, September 5, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
TBD
Friday, September 7, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
TBD
Quote from: Townsend on August 15, 2012, 10:49:25 AM
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2.aspx)
GTFO.
The BOk Center shouldn't be mentioned in the same document as V2.
.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 15, 2012, 10:54:02 AM
GTFO.
The BOk Center shouldn't be mentioned in the same document as V2.
Here's a survey for you:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx)
Mayor's FB posts are getting heavier today:
QuoteToday we held a press conference to ask Tulsans for project ideas for the next Vision2 package. I'm looking forward to the five public forums we will be holding to get citizen feedback. Be among the first to give your input by filling out our online form at www.cityoftulsa.org/Vision2 (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Vision2)
Quote from: Townsend on August 15, 2012, 10:58:56 AM
Here's a survey for you:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx)
Thanks!
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 15, 2012, 10:54:02 AM
GTFO.
The BOk Center shouldn't be mentioned in the same document as V2.
.
Better get use to deferred maintenance showing up in these ever growing tax packages. People see the damage of wear and tear on buildings. Not so much our underground utilities....
Ever wonder why Aox was against 2025? I think a big part was the fact we can't keep up what we've got.
Quote from: Townsend on August 15, 2012, 10:58:56 AM
Here's a survey for you:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision-2-survey.aspx)
DO NOT FILL THAT OUT! They will compose data and manipulate it to their own purposes. Besides, the questions seem unprofessional like much of what comes out of that building.
Yes. Fill out the questionaire.
The City is making an honest effort to hear from the citizens. Attend the meetings if possible, and notify the Mayor and Council if you feel strongly about a particular project.
Don't be a clown and ignore the opportunity because of paranoia.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 15, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
Yes. Fill out the questionaire.
The City is making an honest effort to hear from the citizens. Attend the meetings if possible, and notify the Mayor and Council if you feel strongly about a particular project.
Don't be a clown and ignore the opportunity because of paranoia.
"honest" coming from government? Come now. You just like funding the Chambers Bribe solution to expanding the economic base...throwing money around is a bad idea even if bad communities are "doing the same thing".....
Why fill out a questionnaire after they've already developed the list. Bassackwards.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 15, 2012, 03:09:49 PM
"honest" coming from government? Come now. You just like funding the Chambers Bribe solution to expanding the economic base...throwing money around is a bad idea even if bad communities are "doing the same thing".....
Why fill out a questionnaire after they've already developed the list. Bassackwards.
Can't believe I am saying this, but TTC is right. This should have been occurring months ago. This is nothing more than a way to gather data for marketing of the plan that is already on the ballot. Maybe the authors figure that if there are no specifics, it can be everything to everyone.
There is a constant list of projects, but if people show up and have a good idea, it will make the list. I saw it happen years ago when golfers went to the meetings and asked about a west Tulsa golf course. Page Belcher course was born.
Go ahead and ignore the opportunity to be heard. I don't care. TeaTownClown has stupid ideas and you live in Bartlesville and can't even vote on this measure.
Sounds like another smash and grab job like the River Tax FAIL of '07.
Anyone hear anything about the progress on our streets package lately? How about keeping the public better informed on projects already in place?
I do give the V-2025 project managers props for at least trying to keep us informed of the V-2025 projects as they progressed.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 15, 2012, 04:09:13 PM
Sounds like another smash and grab job like the River Tax FAIL of '07.
Anyone hear anything about the progress on our streets package lately? How about keeping the public better informed on projects already in place?
I do give the V-2025 project managers props for at least trying to keep us informed of the V-2025 projects as they progressed.
The streets package has a great website with the status of each project:
http://www.fixourstreetslive.com/
Before any survey is filled out the information should be gathered from www.usdebtclock.org and a effort be made to protect the children and the aged who's future is intertwined with all quality-of-life. These are the ones who will not have the knowledge to project into the future cost when all governmental entities' operate on a paper economy. We have debtors in Europe and Mideast that are demanding we establish a standard.
It seems so odd that the AA bankruptcy judge would extend until December for the filling of their final reorganization papers. One can say it is coincidental and that action could not have anything with the Tulsa sales tax election extension in November.
The citizens who will be most effected by the extension is not aware of the regressive tax that will effect the needy the most. They do not realize in the inflationary environment of today that the tax increases with inflation.
I hope to take part in a couple of the meeting but why the was this not all done before? It seems very odd.
Posted by: Teatownclown
QuoteI got a good idea....spend the money on the public welfare through infrastructure improvements. Our lazy councilors and Mayor need to define our real future needs and quit letting the Chambermaids dictate their priorities. Really surprised Blake's already become "one of them."
Mr. Clown, How do you figure? If I've done anything to indicate that I support the stated list of future needs or this rushed timeframe or that I'm "one of them", it was certainly by mistake. Ask around. Ask Chamber folks if they felt like I've ever let them dictate priorities. In our meetings, (the three I was invited to) I challenged nearly every aspect of this including airport infrastructure amount and needs, deal closing fund, Gilcrease Expressway, a November vote, etc. I think it's rushed. I think it's impossible to put a solid list of projects together in this time frame. I think it's reactionary and panic driven. I think we can do better than this. That's exactly what I told them. I told them this didn't feel like us being bold and visionary. It felt like we were following, not leading. I asked them to consider other ways of funding it, to consider moving the date, to consider a phased approach to airport improvements, to do something bold and different instead of the deal closing fund, to allow for projects that will change our future...you get the picture.
A list of people who were in those meetings who will tell you what a pain in the @$$ I was: J. Smaligo, V. Vreeland, G.T. Bynum, D. Littlefield, Mike Neal, The Mayor, R. Brierre, Chris Benge, Jim Fram, Becky Frank, etc.
At least two of those people spew venom at the sound of my name. One of them stormed out of a room angry at me and another one can't even look at me without clinching his jaw.
I'm okay with a lot of things, but being accused of taking marching orders from anyone, much less The Chamber is not okay with me.
I don't like this, but it is what it is. If there's a chance of it passing (slim), I'm going to have at least done my part by pushing for items to be included in the Tulsa projects list that will actually change our trajectory as a community. I don't know what "one of them" means, but I assure you that Bynum and I were in a very different place on this thing. He's just much more diplomatic than I am.
I'm going to do my job on this thing the best way I know how, which is to solicit feedback early and often and do my best to represent the bold ideas of forward thinking Tulsans.
I applaud the effort on this thing and the desire to advance the city, but it's not how I would do it. They know that. I hope you know that too. That's not really what matters right now. Right now we have something that's going to be on our ballot in November and a few months to shape what might be on that proposal. The decision we have to make now is how we're going to respond. It's tough...and I'm trying to figure that out too. I'm glad to hear your thoughts. Thanks to you all for having the conversation. Please keep it up.
Thanks.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on August 16, 2012, 03:48:47 AM
Posted by: Teatownclown
Mr. Clown, How do you figure? If I've done anything to indicate that I support the stated list of future needs or this rushed timeframe or that I'm "one of them", it was certainly by mistake. Ask around. Ask Chamber folks if they felt like I've ever let them dictate priorities. In our meetings, (the three I was invited to) I challenged nearly every aspect of this including airport infrastructure amount and needs, deal closing fund, Gilcrease Expressway, a November vote, etc. I think it's rushed. I think it's impossible to put a solid list of projects together in this time frame. I think it's reactionary and panic driven. I think we can do better than this. That's exactly what I told them. I told them this didn't feel like us being bold and visionary. It felt like we were following, not leading. I asked them to consider other ways of funding it, to consider moving the date, to consider a phased approach to airport improvements, to do something bold and different instead of the deal closing fund, to allow for projects that will change our future...you get the picture.
A list of people who were in those meetings who will tell you what a pain in the @$$ I was: J. Smaligo, V. Vreeland, G.T. Bynum, D. Littlefield, Mike Neal, The Mayor, R. Brierre, Chris Benge, Jim Fram, Becky Frank, etc.
At least two of those people spew venom at the sound of my name. One of them stormed out of a room angry at me and another one can't even look at me without clinching his jaw.
I'm okay with a lot of things, but being accused of taking marching orders from anyone, much less The Chamber is not okay with me.
I don't like this, but it is what it is. If there's a chance of it passing (slim), I'm going to have at least done my part by pushing for items to be included in the Tulsa projects list that will actually change our trajectory as a community. I don't know what "one of them" means, but I assure you that Bynum and I were in a very different place on this thing. He's just much more diplomatic than I am.
I'm going to do my job on this thing the best way I know how, which is to solicit feedback early and often and do my best to represent the bold ideas of forward thinking Tulsans.
I applaud the effort on this thing and the desire to advance the city, but it's not how I would do it. They know that. I hope you know that too. That's not really what matters right now. Right now we have something that's going to be on our ballot in November and a few months to shape what might be on that proposal. The decision we have to make now is how we're going to respond. It's tough...and I'm trying to figure that out too. I'm glad to hear your thoughts. Thanks to you all for having the conversation. Please keep it up.
Thanks.
I would have to defend Blake on this. He was the first out of the gate asking for feedback and opinion from the people. Something very new for his district. His communications and posts on Facebook, and publicly indicated cautious neutrality on the issue. He seems to frame his stance, and formulate his strategies for leadership in the appropriate manner. First he listens to his constituency, then develops his position based on that feedback, rather than just his own convictions.
I have yet to see this from my city councilor, or any of the others for that matter. I think much of our city leadership could take a lesson from this.
We, on the other hand are quick to judge and slow to change our opinions, that of course is our right as private citizens to be as stubborn, cautious, or frivolous as we choose. As a public servant, and a new public servant at that, I continue to be impressed by Blake's responsible execution of his duties, and respect for his constituency.
Don't burn out Blake! You're the brightest bulb in the room.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 07:50:46 AM
I would have to defend Blake on this. He was the first out of the gate asking for feedback and opinion from the people. Something very new for his district. His communications and posts on Facebook, and publicly indicated cautious neutrality on the issue. He seems to frame his stance, and formulate his strategies for leadership in the appropriate manner. First he listens to his constituency, then develops his position based on that feedback, rather than just his own convictions.
I have yet to see this from my city councilor, or any of the others for that matter. I think much of our city leadership could take a lesson from this.
We, on the other hand are quick to judge and slow to change our opinions, that of course is our right as private citizens to be as stubborn, cautious, or frivolous as we choose. As a public servant, and a new public servant at that, I continue to be impressed by Blake's responsible execution of his duties, and respect for his constituency.
Don't burn out Blake! You're the brightest bulb in the room.
Too bad our federally elected parallels don't take a page from Blake's book.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 07:50:46 AM
I would have to defend Blake on this. He was the first out of the gate asking for feedback and opinion from the people. Something very new for his district. His communications and posts on Facebook, and publicly indicated cautious neutrality on the issue. He seems to frame his stance, and formulate his strategies for leadership in the appropriate manner. First he listens to his constituency, then develops his position based on that feedback, rather than just his own convictions.
Don't burn out Blake! You're the brightest bulb in the room.
That's a difficult tightrope walk he faces there. On one hand, feedback and opinion is very good to get - governing is a dynamic activity that should move around a bit. On the other, the background fact is that people elected him, at least theoretically because they agreed with his opinions, thoughts, and approach to problem solving and are looking for him to use his convictions to do the job. Tough thing to do. He seems to be doing better than average. Don't let the buzzards get ya down, Blake....
As a 1st District resident, I had high hopes for Councilor Ewing. He has exceeded my expectations. His asking tough questions about Vision 2 is only the latest example of why.
As long as it doesn't develop into a reflexive "no, we will not spend public money to improve our community" thing, there isn't anything wrong with saying no. ;)
Whoever thought it was reasonable to put this before the voters without the vast majority of the spending already assigned to specific projects ought to be smacked upside the head.
In the past elections the sales taxes was touted as "pay as you go tax and save taxes". I see that nearly a hundred million dollars in interest is reserved in the upcoming sales tax maneuvering election. Does anyone know why when prime CD's are drawing a little over 1% that such high percentage of interest is being set aside for bonds?
All propositions will not start the day following the election. Will the interest begin the next day?
Quote from: shadows on August 17, 2012, 06:47:45 PM
In the past elections the sales taxes was touted as "pay as you go tax and save taxes". I see that nearly a hundred million dollars in interest is reserved in the upcoming sales tax maneuvering election. Does anyone know why when prime CD's are drawing a little over 1% that such high percentage of interest is being set aside for bonds?
All propositions will not start the day following the election. Will the interest begin the next day?
The original Vision 2025 used a combination of Pay as you Go and borrowed money. This proposal is for spending taxes that are not scheduled to be collected until 2017-2029. To the extent any funds are to be spent prior to 2017, those funds will all have to be borrowed.
Thanks for the info: It seems that they are mixing several propositions under one ballot title. Instead of being able to vote for the propositions one likes it will be take all or nothing.
Quote from: shadows on August 19, 2012, 11:51:57 PM
Thanks for the info: It seems that they are mixing several propositions under one ballot title. Instead of being able to vote for the propositions one likes it will be take all or nothing.
Just like Washington, they sneak some turds in with the good stuff.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 19, 2012, 11:57:49 PM
Just like Washington, they sneak some turds in with the good stuff.
You can say that again.
I think we should use this as an opportunity. Members of this forum have put together a long list of pie in the sky desires for downtown and here is a pie in the sky plan to pin them to. We should pick a few of our favorites and get them included on the ballot. At least that way they are out there for future more sensible plans.
My wants:
Additional Revenue streams for downtown housing
A parking sollution that frees up the surface parking lots in the blue dome and next to the PAC/City Hall for development.
A downtown circulator
Cathedral Square
Meanwhile, in Tulsa area government...
QuoteThe Tulsa County Republican Party County Committee has voted to oppose the Vision2 extension of a county sales tax and to censure GOP Commissioners Fred Perry and John Smaligo for their efforts in behalf of the measure.
Per TW FB post.
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:15:25 PM
Meanwhile, in Tulsa area government...
Per TW FB post.
Crap! That means the local democrats will rally behind it.
Just watch the worm turn.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 03:46:25 PM
Crap! That means the local democrats will rally behind it.
Just watch the worm turn.
Think it's a good thing for a political party to try to control this?
Quote from: Townsend on August 20, 2012, 03:15:25 PM
Meanwhile, in Tulsa area government...
Per TW FB post.
Oh jeez...not a republican censure. That's serious stuff with real consequences.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 20, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
Oh jeez...not a republican censure. That's serious stuff with real consequences.
Perry's dog will now pee on his pant leg.
This brings up a question whereas the county prevails by statute and the cities are subordinate of the county by charter, Tulsa has assumed the touting of the county tax. In the upcoming election on sales taxes it seem to be the brain child of the city who derives its power from the charter that can be revoked, or is the election intertwined with the procedure the TW has encountered filing under FOI? "That is the way we have always done it"
Has this become a hybrid election of multi-propositions?
How did this get on the ballot with more or less a fill in the blank proposal? I was under the impression that things like school bond issues (county also) had to be pretty well defined to get over the hurdles of making it on the ballot.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 20, 2012, 04:04:24 PM
Oh jeez...not a republican censure. That's serious stuff with real consequences.
Sally Bell and Micheal Bates hath spoken!
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 04:41:34 PM
How did this get on the ballot with more or less a fill in the blank proposal? I was under the impression that things like school bond issues (county also) had to be pretty well defined to get over the hurdles of making it on the ballot.
...
Seems that the ballot has been reduced to;
______________________________________
CITY/COUNTY SALES TAX PROPOSITION
(circle one)
Democrat yes no Republican yes no
AA yes no
_______________________________________
Quote from: swake on August 20, 2012, 04:43:56 PM
Sally Bell and Micheal Bates hath spoken!
Sally Bell who had no problem seeking tax subsidies to build a new park and concessions from a public entity to have her rent discounted at the previous location?
Quote from: erfalf on August 20, 2012, 04:41:34 PM
How did this get on the ballot with more or less a fill in the blank proposal? I was under the impression that things like school bond issues (county also) had to be pretty well defined to get over the hurdles of making it on the ballot.
+1
Strong indication that there are big Tulsa money interests behind this. It was an attempt to engineer a fleecing.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
+1
Strong indication that there are big Tulsa money interests behind this. It was an attempt to engineer a fleecing.
This isn't Vision 2025 part II, it's River Tax '07 part II.
Unfortunately, when this thing crashes and burns on election day, it will have damaged the "Vision" brand for future use.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 20, 2012, 07:51:06 AM
I think we should use this as an opportunity. Members of this forum have put together a long list of pie in the sky desires for downtown and here is a pie in the sky plan to pin them to. We should pick a few of our favorites and get them included on the ballot. At least that way they are out there for future more sensible plans.
My wants:
Additional Revenue streams for downtown housing
A parking sollution that frees up the surface parking lots in the blue dome and next to the PAC/City Hall for development.
A downtown circulator
Cathedral Square
I like the juvenile justice center the county is working on. If we can get kids on the right track early we can reduce our crime rate. That’s a big plus. It also rejuvenates a really decrepit part of downtown with few prospects for improvement. This should be a county project.
I actually support the deal closing fund. I will qualify that with I think such funds should be made illegal at the federal level, I hate the very idea of such funds being used to win business. But, if such funds are being used by other cities we need to be able to compete.
I support infrastructure improvements to the airport aerospace facilities, but not tenant specific tools.
I would like to see some money for the river. Take the $25 million from the state, the $9 million from Jenks and some of the city of Tulsa money to fix the Zink dam and build the 106th St dam. See if the Creek Nation/River Spirit Casino will contribute as well. When the federal money finally does come do the Sand Springs dam and riverbank improvements.
Downtown/Midtown circulator trolleys. We can start with busses but have them run at night and on weekends and be much more frequent. Connect Cherry Street, Utica, Brookside, downtown, the OSU campuses, TU and TCC downtown.
The Cathedral Square park idea on the south side of downtown in the square block from 8th to 9th from Main to Boulder with a public parking garage for TCC and the churches 8th to 9th from Main to Boston. Have the school and churches give up most of their seas of mostly unused parking in exchange for free use of the garage. The school can use it during the day and the churches on Sunday. At night they can share the garage. Give away the huge surface lot sites to developers with the best and most urban plans that will build housing including some lower cost housing for students. Incorporate housing and street level retail into the garage. The churches get more and bettered secured parking and more area residents as potential church goers. The school gets more secured parking and housing for students. They both get a nearby park, and a more urban and inviting environment. If this could get rid of 4 or 5 square blocks of parking it would remake the south side of downtown.
Another downtown housing fund, but larger this time, say 20 million. Set at least half of it aside for building rehabs and conversions. No one project can get more than 10% of the money.
The East Village park on the east side of downtown with a permanent city owned downtown indoor/outdoor year round farmers market where vendors can rent stall space for reasonable rates.
The John Hope Franklin Race Riot Museum completed and endowed and given to the national park service
Funding for the POP Museum with the related public parking garage for the Blue Dome district.
If the Jazz Hall of Fame is failing have it incorporated into the POP and repurpose the Depot. The Depot is probably better suited to the Deco Museum anyway.
The Route 66 Museum completed
The deal closing fund was actually crafted by Mayor Bartlett and predates Vision2. It was thrown in to attempt to acquire Mayoral and Republican support. I don't necessarily agree with it, because it's basically bribery designed to entice project managers to do what they are supposed to do anyway. It rewards incompetence by assuming it.
Vision2 was crafted by a small group behind closed doors at the Chamber. Figure out who they were and you will have a far greater understanding of the real purpose behind Vision2. ;)
I'll give you a hint. . .the usual suspects who engage in this on a local and national level.
Another hint. . .estimated $90-$100 million in interest payments will go to the two primary bond holders.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
The deal closing fund was actually crafted by Mayor Bartlett and predates Vision2. It was thrown in to attempt to acquire Mayoral and Republican support. I don't necessarily agree with it, because it's basically bribery designed to entice project managers to do what they are supposed to do anyway. It rewards incompetence by assuming it.
Vision2 was crafted by a small group behind closed doors at the Chamber. Figure out who they were and you will have a far greater understanding of the real purpose behind Vision2. ;)
I'll give you a hint. . .the usual suspects who engage in this on a local and national level.
Another hint. . .estimated $90-$100 million in interest payments will go to the two primary bond holders.
Why would you do that?
If you've got real information that helps decision be made, go ahead and say.
I can provide you with hints of what that post made you look like.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 12:20:19 PM
Why would you do that?
If you've got real information that helps decision be made, go ahead and say.
I can provide you with hints of what that post made you look like.
Geezz, it's not rocket science.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 12:35:53 PM
Geezz, it's not rocket science.
So throw it out there.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2012, 12:41:11 PM
So throw it out there.
Nope. I'm waiting to see how fast the worm turns when people understand who is behind this.
Some Dems on this forum already know and are trying to figure out a way to reverse or soften their previous opinions of Vision2.
This will be fun. Trust me. ;)
Let me save some time. LIBERALS. DIRTY, NASTY, BUDGET BUSTING, WORTHLESS, GUN HATING, ECONOMY WRECKING, ABORTION LOVING, RINO, DEMOCRATIC, SLACKER LIBERALS!!!
Its fun to be an insider.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tulsachamber.com/general/447/board-of-directors/11
Here. Have some gaspar Kool-aid.
He don't know enough and has made assumptions about who is involved. Most people wouldn't post yet, but he is obligated to throw innuendo around to try and enrage other uninformed people.
It's always a small group behind closed doors. They control everything (once you drink the Kool-aid).
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Here. Have some gaspar Kool-aid.
He don't know enough and has made assumptions about who is involved. Most people wouldn't post yet, but he is obligated to throw innuendo around to try and enrage other uninformed people.
It's always a small group behind closed doors. They control everything (once you drink the Kool-aid).
Michael, if it wasn't intended to be a small group behind closed doors then why were those in the room required to sign confidentiality agreements?
Quote from: rdj on August 21, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tulsachamber.com/general/447/board-of-directors/11
Maybe its just me. I don't see anything unusual or sinister there. Bankers, builders, hospital heads, foundation heads, utility heads, blah, blah
I don't care if the Tulsa County Republican Party is for it or against it. I don't care if city/county/state/chamber leaders are for it. I don't care if rich Republican or rich Democrat bankers will make money off of it. I don't care if it's supported by the good 'ol boys or the Soggy Bottom Boys. Vision 2 will lose in November because it is an ill conceived and incomplete plan derrived from a rushed and flawed top down process that will be summarized as a taxpayer gift to a mismanaged bankrupt airline.
Quote from: rdj on August 21, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tulsachamber.com/general/447/board-of-directors/11
+1
Two names.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2012, 11:53:45 AM
I like the juvenile justice center the county is working on. If we can get kids on the right track early we can reduce our crime rate. That's a big plus. It also rejuvenates a really decrepit part of downtown with few prospects for improvement. This should be a county project.
I actually support the deal closing fund. I will qualify that with I think such funds should be made illegal at the federal level, I hate the very idea of such funds being used to win business. But, if such funds are being used by other cities we need to be able to compete.
I support infrastructure improvements to the airport aerospace facilities, but not tenant specific tools.
I would like to see some money for the river. Take the $25 million from the state, the $9 million from Jenks and some of the city of Tulsa money to fix the Zink dam and build the 106th St dam. See if the Creek Nation/River Spirit Casino will contribute as well. When the federal money finally does come do the Sand Springs dam and riverbank improvements.
Downtown/Midtown circulator trolleys. We can start with busses but have them run at night and on weekends and be much more frequent. Connect Cherry Street, Utica, Brookside, downtown, the OSU campuses, TU and TCC downtown.
The Cathedral Square park idea on the south side of downtown in the square block from 8th to 9th from Main to Boulder with a public parking garage for TCC and the churches 8th to 9th from Main to Boston. Have the school and churches give up most of their seas of mostly unused parking in exchange for free use of the garage. The school can use it during the day and the churches on Sunday. At night they can share the garage. Give away the huge surface lot sites to developers with the best and most urban plans that will build housing including some lower cost housing for students. Incorporate housing and street level retail into the garage. The churches get more and bettered secured parking and more area residents as potential church goers. The school gets more secured parking and housing for students. They both get a nearby park, and a more urban and inviting environment. If this could get rid of 4 or 5 square blocks of parking it would remake the south side of downtown.
Another downtown housing fund, but larger this time, say 20 million. Set at least half of it aside for building rehabs and conversions. No one project can get more than 10% of the money.
The East Village park on the east side of downtown with a permanent city owned downtown indoor/outdoor year round farmers market where vendors can rent stall space for reasonable rates.
The John Hope Franklin Race Riot Museum completed and endowed and given to the national park service
Funding for the POP Museum with the related public parking garage for the Blue Dome district.
If the Jazz Hall of Fame is failing have it incorporated into the POP and repurpose the Depot. The Depot is probably better suited to the Deco Museum anyway.
The Route 66 Museum completed
Great list.
Quote from: DTowner on August 21, 2012, 02:04:42 PM
I don't care if the Tulsa County Republican Party is for it or against it. I don't care if city/county/state/chamber leaders are for it. I don't care if rich Republican or rich Democrat bankers will make money off of it. I don't care if it's supported by the good 'ol boys or the Soggy Bottom Boys. Vision 2 will lose in November because it is an ill conceived and incomplete plan derrived from a rushed and flawed top down process that will be summarized as a taxpayer gift to a mismanaged bankrupt airline.
I have no doubt of that, however there are some that will come to realize that they can't afford to speak out against it. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 02:17:11 PM
I have no doubt of that, however there are some that will come to realize that they can't afford to speak out against it. ;)
You and Riffraff. You do more damage to your reputation when you post.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Here. Have some gaspar Kool-aid.
He don't know enough and has made assumptions about who is involved. Most people wouldn't post yet, but he is obligated to throw innuendo around to try and enrage other uninformed people.
It's always a small group behind closed doors. They control everything (once you drink the Kool-aid).
RM, Do you support the Vision2 initiative?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 21, 2012, 01:54:06 PM
Maybe its just me. I don't see anything unusual or sinister there. Bankers, builders, hospital heads, foundation heads, utility heads, blah, blah
I wasn't implying anyone on that list is sinister. I consider many people on that list to be friends and highly respect them. I was simply stating the Executive Committee and Executive Leadership of the Chamber is the best place to start when attempting to determine the beginnings of most if not all sales tax initiatives for the City of Tulsa and Tulsa County. The absolute majority of the people on that list believe they are doing the best thing for Tulsa.
I have no problem with the largest business advocacy organization in the region working very hard to influence the direction our community heads. Their board and largest investors are responsible for a large number of employees and a large percentage of the GDP of NE Oklahoma. In all truthfulness, if they weren't doing so, that might be a bigger problem in my mind.
All that said, it doesn't soften the blow that "they" have put forth a package that is ambiguous, at best, distasteful to many citizens and smacks of being rushed. The Chamber, regional mayors and stakeholders that were involved in the meetings feel they have a great reason to "rush" it and adhere to the old adage that the more voters at the polls the better the result will be there for them. I would urge the Chamber and other supporters to do a better job from this point forward in painting in less broad strokes what this package will truly fund.
Quote from: rdj on August 21, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.tulsachamber.com/general/447/board-of-directors/11
Thanks! Most if not all of these people are totally divorced from the common Tulsa proletariat. Trust me....they think they know what's best for the average Tulsan without any personal involvement in who our citizens are and the actions which might effect their living situation in a negative way. Again I will ask, where are the cost/benefit analysis on AA and the other "investments?"
I'm really not too shocked at how the entire bunch backs bribery and corporate welfare. They are part time volunteers so it's no wonder the proposal seems rushed,lazy and sloppy.
The Chamberites do have their "slaves" out there who will endear themselves by carrying the Chambers water in the hopes that sometime down the road these wannabes too can become a future part of the business network and reap personal gain....after all, it's not always what you know but who you know and those interested in future networks may need to lay valuable business connections. Little do they realize how the Chamberites will use their sorry a$$es and discard them at any hint of difference.
At one time in Tulsa, several separatist Chambers were contemplated but failed due to COT alliance with what some called the Downtown Chamber of Commerce. I rather liked the idea of America's Most Beautiful Chamber with the emphasis on quality of life, the environment, and the health and well being of our community but funding would be near impossible.
Is there a newer name for "old boys network" that now includes a few token women?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Here. Have some gaspar Kool-aid.
He don't know enough and has made assumptions about who is involved. Most people wouldn't post yet, but he is obligated to throw innuendo around to try and enrage other uninformed people.
It's always a small group behind closed doors. They control everything (once you drink the Kool-aid).
There's a logic problem, Michael, because Gas says the Chamber is largely behind this effort, and that those of us on the left will overwhelmingly support it (that if I understand the innuendo correctly.) Yet, the Chamber is nothing more than a tool of the Republican elite, you know, the monied end of the Republican party rather than the tea party extremists. Are we supposed to believe that the disorganized rabble representing the professional left will join forces with the pin-striped-three-piece-suit brigade? Perhaps this is no more than another over-heated fantasy along the lines of the "dump Joe Biden for Hillary" nonsense.
Quote from: rdj on August 21, 2012, 02:28:17 PM
I wasn't implying anyone on that list is sinister. I consider many people on that list to be friends and highly respect them. I was simply stating the Executive Committee and Executive Leadership of the Chamber is the best place to start when attempting to determine the beginnings of most if not all sales tax initiatives for the City of Tulsa and Tulsa County. The absolute majority of the people on that list believe they are doing the best thing for Tulsa.
I think it was Roger Smith who said, "what's good for GM is good for the US....".
Paraphrasing, "what's good for us in the Chamber is good for Tulsa...."
Quote from: Ed W on August 21, 2012, 04:18:39 PM
There's a logic problem, Michael, because Gas says the Chamber is largely behind this effort, and that those of us on the left will overwhelmingly support it (that if I understand the innuendo correctly.) Yet, the Chamber is nothing more than a tool of the Republican elite, you know, the monied end of the Republican party rather than the tea party extremists. Are we supposed to believe that the disorganized rabble representing the professional left will join forces with the pin-striped-three-piece-suit brigade? Perhaps this is no more than another over-heated fantasy along the lines of the "dump Joe Biden for Hillary" nonsense.
The Chamber is for the most part an excellent organization that does good things for this city. As for you comment about "Monied end of the Republican Party," you obviously are unaware of the political affiliations of many of the board members, and still even more unaware of the two organizations (not AA) that benefit the most from Vision2 in dollars.
Vision2 was not a massive chamber effort. As Mike Neal himself said, It was an effort put forth by a small group of chamber members. Two of those member's organizations have a chance to make about $100 million in interest on the bonds if it passes.
The AA piece is corporate welfare, and it represented a "crisis" that some just can't resist.
"Never let a crisis go to waste." -Rahm Emanuel, World's Worst Mayor.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 21, 2012, 02:21:56 PM
RM, Do you support the Vision2 initiative?
I haven't seen the final list of projects. Who would decide to support or oppose until there is a list of projects? I am willing to pay extra for stuff I think we need and not for those that I don't think we need.
But you seemed to have already made up your mind.
I have made up my mind on one part of it - if AA gets any part of it, I am against it. They can just put the rest of it up as another vote without AA if they want any possibility of my yes vote.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 21, 2012, 04:40:30 PM
I haven't seen the final list of projects. Who would decide to support or oppose until there is a list of projects? I am willing to pay extra for stuff I think we need and not for those that I don't think we need.
But you seemed to have already made up your mind.
I looked on the webpage for 2025, and frankly I'm astounded at the dearth of information. Sure, there's plenty about the last iteration, but there's nothing that I could see about this one.
Some of my rules (and they're kind of related if you consider the consequences):
Never give a toddler a loaded gun
Never give a teenager free rein with a credit card.
Never give government a blank check.
Another one: Always carry a knife. But I lifted that one from Jethro Gibbs.
RM sure is having a problem walking the high wire on the "for or against" over dumping three-quarters billion dollars on the desk of an undesignated trust.
The master of figures in posting throws out the millions of dollars in interest that is involved, planned and paid for in the future by the now new coming teenagers.
We should be thankful that this election is not scheduled in the mid-east.
Don't worry Ed, I'm sure the cutesy renderings with blue water, boats, unicorns, playgrounds, and oldsters playing penuchle under elm trees will be posted shortly.
Then the commercials of teary-eyed children telling us we are beasts and they will call DHS on us if we don't pass it will follow.
Quote from: Ed W on August 21, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
I looked on the webpage for 2025, and frankly I'm astounded at the dearth of information. Sure, there's plenty about the last iteration, but there's nothing that I could see about this one.
Some of my rules (and they're kind of related if you consider the consequences):
Never give a toddler a loaded gun
Never give a teenager free rein with a credit card.
Never give government a blank check.
Another one: Always carry a knife. But I lifted that one from Jethro Gibbs.
Awesome. An NCIS reference in a TNF post. I never thought that would have been possible. Well done sir.
There are people paying attention to what is posted here. I think we should seriously take on what we would like to see as part of the projects. I want to see what is planned more than what has been stated to far. So far I am a firm "no" on the vote. But with a solid plan and not blank check I can be convinced.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2012, 11:34:34 PM
There are people paying attention to what is posted here. I think we should seriously take on what we would like to see as part of the projects. I want to see what is planned more than what has been stated to far. So far I am a firm "no" on the vote. But with a solid plan and not blank check I can be convinced.
I want to add to your list:
Make Boulder Ave, Cheyenne Ave, 2nd and 5th St all two way.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 22, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
I want to add to your list:
Make Boulder Ave, Cheyenne Ave, 2nd and 5th St all two way.
+1
When us Southies come downtown for an event it becomes 2 way anyway.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2012, 11:34:34 PM
There are people paying attention to what is posted here. I think we should seriously take on what we would like to see as part of the projects. I want to see what is planned more than what has been stated to far. So far I am a firm "no" on the vote. But with a solid plan and not blank check I can be convinced.
If it were just the deal closing fund and the airport property improvements (no funds to private companies for tools, equipment, etc.), I would probably hold my nose and vote yes. The current tax does not expire for 4 years, we should take our time to develop a list of quality of life projects that are targeted to our priorities and needs (and even discuss whether a city or county tax is the best way to do it). I voted yes on both of Mayor Savages' failed projects, Vision 2025 and the River Project. As Vision 2 is currently conceived, I will vote no.
www.Vision2025.info is NOT a campaign web site. We are in the process of updating the site to provide factual materials regarding the upcoming vote.
I understand there is a temporary site up regarding the campaign but at I don't have the url.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 22, 2012, 03:48:24 PM
www.Vision2025.info is NOT a campaign web site. We are in the process of updating the site to provide factual materials regarding the upcoming vote.
I understand there is a temporary site up regarding the campaign but at I don't have the url.
Sheeesh, can't even launch a fact sheet correctly.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 22, 2012, 03:48:24 PM
www.Vision2025.info is NOT a campaign web site. We are in the process of updating the site to provide factual materials regarding the upcoming vote.
I understand there is a temporary site up regarding the campaign but at I don't have the url.
If it's not a campaign website why does it remain up? All it does is convince people that there's little of substance in this upcoming vote, yet we're smart enough to realize it wouldn't have progressed this far without an actual plan.
C'mon Ed, you have to pass it to see what's in it.
In all seriousness, I feel kind of bad for the the people who continue to work hard to make Vision2025 a success. Vision2 is simply an effort to pimp corporate welfare, and it will likely spell the end of any future "Vision" efforts.
This thing should have been framed, debated, discussed, and an ROI presented to the public long before being added to the ballot. What a freekin disaster!
Quote from: Ed W on August 22, 2012, 04:02:53 PM
If it's not a campaign website why does it remain up? All it does is convince people that there's little of substance in this upcoming vote, yet we're smart enough to realize it wouldn't have progressed this far without an actual plan.
Vision2025 is still ongoing.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 22, 2012, 04:15:25 PM
Vision2025 is still ongoing.
Really?
while you're at it, once it expires how do we get the necessary funds to maintain?
TULSA IN 2025: (https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/547155_490536624291447_529286555_n.jpg)
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 22, 2012, 04:15:25 PM
Vision2025 is still ongoing.
What projects are unfinished outside of some of the housing subsidies? I think it would be fair to say that a vast majority of the citizenry believes the first iteration of Vision projects to be complete.
Quote from: erfalf on August 22, 2012, 04:21:16 PM
What projects are unfinished outside of some of the housing subsidies? I think it would be fair to say that a vast majority of the citizenry believes the first iteration of Vision projects to be complete.
Partial funding has been provided to all accounts and full to the majority of projects however the Haikey Creek Flood Mitigation (funded but not yet constructed), Oklahoma Aquarium, Zink Dam improvements, partial funding of new low water dams, Route 66 projects, City of Tulsa-Down Town and Neighborhood projects plus release of the 5% reserve funds for various other projects, have not been completed as they are funded on a cash flow basis. The Haikey Creek project will be the next big bid advertisement, this project is currently in the final permitting process with FEMA.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on August 22, 2012, 04:42:36 PM
Partial funding has been provided to all accounts and full to the majority of projects however the Haikey Creek Flood Mitigation (funded but not yet constructed), Oklahoma Aquarium, Zink Dam improvements, partial funding of new low water dams, Route 66 projects, City of Tulsa-Down Town and Neighborhood projects plus release of the 5% reserve funds for various other projects, have not been completed as they are funded on a cash flow basis. The Haikey Creek project will be the next big bid advertisement, this project is currently in the final permitting process with FEMA.
So, is the rumored $200 million giveaway to American Airlines in this next thing?
And the 60 million or so of "interest" payments to a couple of prominent locals?
For the sake of Vision2025, I think it's important that the people of Tulsa don't associate Vision2 with it. Unfortunately, "Vision2" implies a connection or continuance.
Perhaps we can simply suggest that the small group at the chamber re-brand it. I have a few suggestions:
ShutUpnTakeIt
TulsaTithe
AirWelfare
Myopia2025
Tulsolindra
LivinOnTulsaTax
AWashingtonDealForTulsa2025
WeLostMillionsInMortgageIntrestSoHelpABrothaOut2025
WeThinkYou'reStupidandWillVoteForAnythingAsLongAsWePromiceToPlantATree2025
That's all I got. It's early, and I'm not that creative until after my coffee.
I don't like this "process" at all. I took the survey thingey, or tried to take it several times, and each time something didn't work right.
And more importantly, so you put your ideas out there,
"Who is reading them?"
"Who, if anyone, is tasked with taking all the different ideas and making a final list?"
"Are they making a final list based off of the numbers of supporters for a certain idea?"
"If we get thousands of people to mention that they want a downtown circulator route and or the Tulsa Art Deco Museum, Would it really make any difference?" "Or would we still see things on the list that fewer people want and or even that many are against?"
There is no clear and transparent process out there, that I can see, showing how my, or your, voice will actually matter in a fair way.
If the "descision makers" put in place by the citizens and their representatives want to put something up to a vote, fine. But if they say they want our input to make the list,,, then I think it only right that we are able to see that that input is Fairly and Transparently, taken into account and not "picked through,,, naaa I don't like that, yea that sounds ok lets add that,,, style" leaving out actual numbers or extent of support for each item. Until I know that, I really don't feel it's worth pushing for, promoting and organizing for what I and others say they would like, nor do I even feel fully comfortable putting out my own opinions, because, "Will it REALLY matter?". If you say it will,,, How? Whats the fair and transparent, measurable process thats being used?
I recommend that you fill out the survey and be heard.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision2-survey.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision2-survey.aspx)
Here we go again...
Enid Senator files Lawsuit over Tulsa Bond Projecthttp://kwgs.com/post/enid-senator-files-lawsuit-over-tulsa-bond-project (http://kwgs.com/post/enid-senator-files-lawsuit-over-tulsa-bond-project)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A state senator from Enid is suing to stop a $25 million state bond issue to fund improvements to Tulsa's Zink Lake Dam.
Republican Senator Patrick Anderson filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Oklahoma County against the Oklahoma Capital Improvement Authority, Tulsa County, the City of Tulsa, Tulsa's River Parks Authority and others. He claims the use of a state bond issue on the project is unconstitutional and is asking a judge to prevent it.
City of Tulsa spokeswoman Kim MacLeod says she was unaware of the lawsuit and that city officials typically don't comment on pending litigation.
Anderson claims the bonds were originally approved by the Legislature in 2009 to match $50 million in federal funding that never materialized.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 23, 2012, 08:36:46 AM
I recommend that you fill out the survey and be heard.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision2-survey.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision2/vision2-survey.aspx)
Like Artist, twice I took the time to type out a number of potential projects I think should be considered (no, I do not have the detailed cost estimates the survey asked me to provide). Each time when I hit "submit" I received an error message and the survey stopped. I don't think I will waste the time on a third try.
Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2012, 09:06:39 AM
Here we go again...
Enid Senator files Lawsuit over Tulsa Bond Project
http://kwgs.com/post/enid-senator-files-lawsuit-over-tulsa-bond-project (http://kwgs.com/post/enid-senator-files-lawsuit-over-tulsa-bond-project)
Some in the Okla. legislature believe it is unconstitutional for the State of Oklahoma to provide any money to Tulsa.
Quote from: DTowner on August 23, 2012, 09:11:40 AM
Like Artist, twice I took the time to type out a number of potential projects I think should be considered (no, I do not have the detailed cost estimates the survey asked me to provide). Each time when I hit "submit" I received an error message and the survey stopped. I don't think I will waste the time on a third try.
I just sent in some ideas and it worked fine.
Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2012, 09:39:47 AM
I just sent in some ideas and it worked fine.
Try only filling out the top part and the comments and leave the bottom part empty.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2012, 07:09:15 AM
For the sake of Vision2025, I think it's important that the people of Tulsa don't associate Vision2 with it. Unfortunately, "Vision2" implies a connection or continuance.
Perhaps we can simply suggest that the small group at the chamber re-brand it. I have a few suggestions:
ShutUpnTakeIt
TulsaTithe
AirWelfare
Myopia2025
Tulsolindra
LivinOnTulsaTax
AWashingtonDealForTulsa2025
WeLostMillionsInMortgageIntrestSoHelpABrothaOut2025
WeThinkYou'reStupidandWillVoteForAnythingAsLongAsWePromiceToPlantATree2025
That's all I got. It's early, and I'm not that creative until after my coffee.
Sometimes I think I'm too cynical. Then I read a post like yours and I feel really good about myself.
You're looking for villains and victims instead of recognizing organizational malaise. There are many needs in Tulsa, acquired through deferral, incompetence and poor funding mechanisms, and few options for meeting them. If you have some good ideas, share them. But taking shots at those trying to do something is too easy.
I haven't decided my support yet, but if I thought there was something really tasty for Tulsa I would support it. The buildings the city owns at the airport need refurbished. Period. If AA wasn't there they would still need attention to be rent worthy. Get past that part.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 23, 2012, 10:15:21 AM
Sometimes I think I'm too cynical. Then I read a post like yours and I feel really good about myself.
You're looking for villains and victims instead of recognizing organizational malaise. There are many needs in Tulsa, acquired through deferral, incompetence and poor funding mechanisms, and few options for meeting them. If you have some good ideas, share them. But taking shots at those trying to do something is too easy.
I haven't decided my support yet, but if I thought there was something really tasty for Tulsa I would support it. The buildings the city owns at the airport need refurbished. Period. If AA wasn't there they would still need attention to be rent worthy. Get past that part.
We've already spent tons on airport structures and last I knew all the city owned buildings east of the airport terminal not occupied by AA or the Air Guard are completely rented out to the bus company and Spirit.
I think this sentence in the survey says it all:
If Vision2 becomes a reality, how do you think the money should be spent?
Here's a hint. . . Complete a survey, find out what the people want THEN create your tax and funding program based on that.
Don't just say "We're going to confiscate and spend $748 million dollars, how would you like us to spend it?"
Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this?
Here is my imaginary conversation with whoever hatched this plan:
"We want to raise your taxes."
"Why?"
"Um. . .you tell us. Fill out this survey and we will take it in consideration after we get our $748 million."
"Why the hurry?"
"We need to try and keep a bankrupt airline around?"
"Is that corporate welfare?"
"No."
"Are they taking measures to restructure and avoid collapse?"
"No."
"What else will you use the money for?"
"A deal closing fund."
"What's that?"
"It's millions of dollars that we give to businesses to help them close deals to establish in Tulsa."
"But if we bribe them, won't they continue to expect bribes and special treatment?"
"Yes."
"Won't that establish a business atmosphere where corporations move and do business here based on a continuing flow of special favors funded through taxation, instead of being attracted by what the community has to offer?"
"Probably."
"How will we fund all of that, and the graft that comes with it for generations?"
"Vision3!"
I am not surprised that you have imaginary conversations with yourself.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 23, 2012, 10:15:21 AM
Sometimes I think I'm too cynical. Then I read a post like yours and I feel really good about myself.
You're looking for villains and victims instead of recognizing organizational malaise. There are many needs in Tulsa, acquired through deferral, incompetence and poor funding mechanisms, and few options for meeting them. If you have some good ideas, share them. But taking shots at those trying to do something is too easy.
I haven't decided my support yet, but if I thought there was something really tasty for Tulsa I would support it. The buildings the city owns at the airport need refurbished. Period. If AA wasn't there they would still need attention to be rent worthy. Get past that part.
No, you don't get where I'm coming from. They created this brand "Vision2," and attached a price tag to it, then added it to the ballot. Now they are asking us what we want it spent on. It's assbackwards! If the public was engaged, and a plan formed based on the input of the community and it cost $800 million dollars and really did some nice things for Tulsa, I would very likely support it.
But a group of people meeting behind closed doors to come up with a price tag, and they are not even be able to share with the public what it pays for. . .it's beyond ridiculous. How it made it through the commission escapes me.
Chances are that you are not going to write me a check for $500 today. I can't tell you what I'm going to do with the money, but it's gonna be really nice.
Are you writing the check?
It's going to be on the ballot.
Keep an eye on it. Learn what it means. Get involved. Send in your ideas. Make an educated decision. Vote on it.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
No, you don't get where I'm coming from. They created this brand "Vision2," and attached a price tag to it, then added it to the ballot. Now they are asking us what we want it spent on. It's assbackwards! If the public was engaged, and a plan formed based on the input of the community and it cost $800 million dollars and really did some nice things for Tulsa, I would very likely support it.
But a group of people meeting behind closed doors to come up with a price tag, and they are not even be able to share with the public what it pays for. . .it's beyond ridiculous. How it made it through the commission escapes me.
Chances are that you are not going to write me a check for $500 today. I can't tell you what I'm going to do with the money, but it's gonna be really nice.
Are you writing the check?
Gaspar, we all agree that the process is flawed. This is at least the third time our local politicians have tried to rush a capital improvement initiative to the ballot and they should know the outcome by now: rejection. Sending one half baked proposal after another to the voters could snowball and soon even a fully baked proposal might suffer the same fate.
I think we should make the most out of it and participate so that we get some good ideas out there. The failed river tax still resulted in a completed QT park and the "gathering place". The failed islands still resulted in a restaurant developed on the bank and interest in the west side of the river. They've asked for feedback; nothing is lost by providing it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 23, 2012, 10:39:26 AM
I am not surprised that you have imaginary conversations with yourself.
It's the only way to get good answers.
I'm just waiting for the matching fund bribe from a certain large family trust.
Quote from: Townsend on August 23, 2012, 09:39:47 AM
I just sent in some ideas and it worked fine.
"They" must have liked your ideas.
:D
Quote from: carltonplace on August 23, 2012, 11:27:58 AM
Gaspar, we all agree that the process is flawed. This is at least the third time our local politicians have tried to rush a capital improvement initiative to the ballot and they should know the outcome by now: rejection. Sending one half baked proposal after another to the voters could snowball and soon even a fully baked proposal might suffer the same fate.
I think we should make the most out of it and participate so that we get some good ideas out there. The failed river tax still resulted in a completed QT park and the "gathering place". The failed islands still resulted in a restaurant developed on the bank and interest in the west side of the river. They've asked for feedback; nothing is lost by providing it.
That's a very good point. It just pisses me off that they think we are so stupid.
At least this opens a forum for ideas. Had they done this in the first place, they may have gotten their corporate welfare scheme funded at the tail end and squeaked it by. Now they've completely eroded any trust they may have had.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2012, 12:12:18 PM
I'm just waiting for the matching fund bribe from a certain large family trust.
+1 Don't think it won't happen. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 23, 2012, 12:14:17 PM
+1 Don't think it won't happen. ;)
Hilarious part is look how much that certain family foundation ended up spending around the river since Oct. of 2007, and how much more they have planned. All without the regressive smash and grab job on the tax payers.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 23, 2012, 11:27:58 AM
Gaspar, we all agree that the process is flawed. This is at least the third time our local politicians have tried to rush a capital improvement initiative to the ballot and they should know the outcome by now: rejection. Sending one half baked proposal after another to the voters could snowball and soon even a fully baked proposal might suffer the same fate.
I think we should make the most out of it and participate so that we get some good ideas out there. The failed river tax still resulted in a completed QT park and the "gathering place". The failed islands still resulted in a restaurant developed on the bank and interest in the west side of the river. They've asked for feedback; nothing is lost by providing it.
I think it is impossible to seperate the process from the substance of Vision2. As discussed, the process is backwards in developing the quality of life projects. However, allocating money back to every Tulsa County town on a pro-rata population basis is both a procedural flaw and a substantive flaw (in my opinion). Allocating money to towns that did not request it and telling them to come up with ways to spend it is absurd.
As you note, the procedure Vision2 is following has previuosly been tried and rejected. Rather than try to toss a few good projects on at the last moment, the message needs to be sent loudly and clearly to whoever "they" are who are behind this that this process is not acceptable. It does not matter if "they" are corrupt self-inteterestd billionaires or generous civic minded saints. This way has been tried and it has failed, and it will fail again. Running this mess into an electorate buss saw not only fails to accomplish anything, but it could do real harm to the momentum Tulsa is building on from Vision 2025.
Quote from: DTowner on August 23, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
I think it is impossible to seperate the process from the substance of Vision2. As discussed, the process is backwards in developing the quality of life projects. However, allocating money back to every Tulsa County town on a pro-rata population basis is both a procedural flaw and a substantive flaw (in my opinion). Allocating money to towns that did not request it and telling them to come up with ways to spend it is absurd.
As you note, the procedure Vision2 is following has previuosly been tried and rejected. Rather than try to toss a few good projects on at the last moment, the message needs to be sent loudly and clearly to whoever "they" are who are behind this that this process is not acceptable. It does not matter if "they" are corrupt self-inteterestd billionaires or generous civic minded saints. This way has been tried and it has failed, and it will fail again. Running this mess into an electorate buss saw not only fails to accomplish anything, but it could do real harm to the momentum Tulsa is building on from Vision 2025.
Too late. V2025 enjoys a positive connotation in taxpayer psyche. PlaniTulsa has the same positive feel. I think they are going to smear any goodwill these concepts have with this half donkeyed attempt to speed this to a November vote. The only think left is to try to get something good out of it and get our wish lists out into space.
Quote from: DTowner on August 23, 2012, 12:42:41 PM
I think it is impossible to seperate the process from the substance of Vision2. As discussed, the process is backwards in developing the quality of life projects. However, allocating money back to every Tulsa County town on a pro-rata population basis is both a procedural flaw and a substantive flaw (in my opinion). Allocating money to towns that did not request it and telling them to come up with ways to spend it is absurd.
As you note, the procedure Vision2 is following has previuosly been tried and rejected. Rather than try to toss a few good projects on at the last moment, the message needs to be sent loudly and clearly to whoever "they" are who are behind this that this process is not acceptable. It does not matter if "they" are corrupt self-inteterestd billionaires or generous civic minded saints. This way has been tried and it has failed, and it will fail again. Running this mess into an electorate buss saw not only fails to accomplish anything, but it could do real harm to the momentum Tulsa is building on from Vision 2025.
Actually, the "chicken in every pot" approach is why V-2025 passed in the first place. It was carefully planned so that every demographic in each municipality got something which appealed to them, while Tulsa got the lion's share of the projects.
What really surprised me when the River Tax was put out as a county-wide vote, is this lesson seemed lost on the proponents of that plan as there was nothing really of value to voters in Collinsville, Owasso, and only weak attempts to show Sand Springs, BA, Jenks, and Bixby that there was going to be a real benefit to them. They all seemed like outliers or afterthoughts in the plan. The other failing of that vote was they did not have a real plan put together on what and where the money would be spent other than paying way more than the concrete plant off W. 21st was worth. Not only that, they wouldn't even have the USACE feasibility and pre-permit studies done until
after that election!
How ironic that the lesson of no concrete plans for the money was lost on this bunch after that election. For being some of Tulsa's most influential people, they seem to be slow learners.
Let's not lay this at the feet of the elite and any so-called billionaires (they seem never too close to the Chambermaids). The Chambers administrators are the one's who pinch this out.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2012, 01:04:47 PM
Actually, the "chicken in every pot" approach is why V-2025 passed in the first place. It was carefully planned so that every demographic in each municipality got something which appealed to them, while Tulsa got the lion's share of the projects.
What really surprised me when the River Tax was put out as a county-wide vote, is this lesson seemed lost on the proponents of that plan as there was nothing really of value to voters in Collinsville, Owasso, and only weak attempts to show Sand Springs, BA, Jenks, and Bixby that there was going to be a real benefit to them. They all seemed like outliers or afterthoughts in the plan. The other failing of that vote was they did not have a real plan put together on what and where the money would be spent other than paying way more than the concrete plant off W. 21st was worth. Not only that, they wouldn't even have the USACE feasibility and pre-permit studies done until after that election!
How ironic that the lesson of no concrete plans for the money was lost on this bunch after that election. For being some of Tulsa's most influential people, they seem to be slow learners.
While the projects for surrounding towns helped sweeten the pot for V2025, I think the big projects were popular and probably would have passed on their own. However, giving ever town a steak in teh outcome did not hurt. But the key is the sweetner projects were thought out and based on those town's needs - the opposite of V2's approach.
I believe the River Project failed because it was premature (so soon after V2025 that the electorate had not yet seen its successes), incompletely thought out and confused with "The Channels."
It seem so quite on the creating the flush (2) fund of three quarters of a billion dollars for the elite to play monopoly with.
Looking over the resent post I cannot find if it is because some poster has ask for a duel and offered “swords or pistols”.
We gave Saddam Hussein, when he was wearing the white hat, the plates to print the $100 bills. We should ask Washington if they had any surplus plates and if so we could use them to reduce their printing debit. We have plenty of paper and that is all that it takes to create our money.
The river tax was defeated because many voters were aware of how unstable the river is, see the failure of comerical development and have seem its flow though the overburden of sand as is happing at present.
Quote from: shadows on August 24, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
It seem so quite on the creating the flush (2) fund of three quarters of a billion dollars for the elite to play monopoly with.
Looking over the resent post I cannot find if it is because some poster has ask for a duel and offered "swords or pistols".
We gave Saddam Hussein, when he was wearing the white hat, the plates to print the $100 bills. We should ask Washington if they had any surplus plates and if so we could use them to reduce their printing debit. We have plenty of paper and that is all that it takes to create our money.
The river tax was defeated because many voters were aware of the how unstable the river is, see the failure of comerical development and have seem its flow though the overburden of sand as is happing at present.
Translator...someone find a translator?
Quote from: shadows on August 24, 2012, 03:42:01 PM
It seem so quite on the creating the flush (2) fund of three quarters of a billion dollars for the elite to play monopoly with.
Looking over the resent post I cannot find if it is because some poster has ask for a duel and offered "swords or pistols".
We gave Saddam Hussein, when he was wearing the white hat, the plates to print the $100 bills. We should ask Washington if they had any surplus plates and if so we could use them to reduce their printing debit. We have plenty of paper and that is all that it takes to create our money.
The river tax was defeated because many voters were aware of the how unstable the river is, see the failure of comerical development and have seem its flow though the overburden of sand as is happing at present.
Please proof read your posts if you want to add to the conversation Shadows.
Quote from: Hoss on August 24, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
Translator...someone find a translator?
...
Have you tried one of the chartered school. Seems the public schools have not made an improvement in the testing in the past three years.
Unstable river? Not sure what you mean here.
Very novel concept about "a overburden of sand". I guess that's the spin of not enough water in the river. Maybe we would have better luck with a bond issue that promised to reduce the sand in the river? :D Truth is the river isn't as sandy as it used to be. That's one of the reasons the sand mining has declined over the years and moved further and further downstream.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 24, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Unstable river? Not sure what you mean here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the geologists took the scout troop on an excursion of the river they noted that Brookside was in the old river bed and the sand overburden was 17’ to the slate. Two miles east and a mile south of the road to the old bridge, the river in the 75 years has meandered to the north hundreds of feet. The five hundred year flood, which the corps had to open the gates or it would have breech the dirt filled Keystone Dam illustrates the river‘s power. The river left its marks on how man cannot control nature but must adapt to its rules.
Quote from: shadows on August 24, 2012, 09:41:11 PM
Unstable river? Not sure what you mean here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the geologists took the scout troop on an excursion of the river they noted that Brookside was in the old river bed and the sand overburden was 17' to the slate. Two miles east and a mile south of the road to the old bridge, the river in the 75 years has meandered to the north hundreds of feet. The five hundred year flood, which the corps had to open the gates or it would have breech the dirt filled Keystone Dam illustrates the river's power. The river left its marks on how man cannot control nature but must adapt to its rules.
And yet we have several lakes in the state that actually prove we CAN control nature. One being the Keystone Dam you speak of.
Quote from: Hoss on August 24, 2012, 10:25:34 PM
And yet we have several lakes in the state that actually prove we CAN control nature. One being the Keystone Dam you speak of.
As anyone that lived in the Tulsa area in 1984 will attest we can moderate nature, not control it.
Quote from: shadows on August 24, 2012, 09:41:11 PM
Quote from: AquaMan on August 24, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Unstable river? Not sure what you mean here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the geologists took the scout troop on an excursion of the river they noted that Brookside was in the old river bed and the sand overburden was 17' to the slate. Two miles east and a mile south of the road to the old bridge, the river in the 75 years has meandered to the north hundreds of feet. The five hundred year flood, which the corps had to open the gates or it would have breech the dirt filled Keystone Dam illustrates the river's power. The river left its marks on how man cannot control nature but must adapt to its rules.
You learned a lot on your scout trip which must have been back near the beginning of scouting. Yes, the river has meandered several miles east and west in past history and the Brookside and Bixby areas are fertile earth and a good source of well water because of that. However, the scale of the forces at work during those meanderings are no longer present and the overburden is now quite an impediment to the river's meandering even without the Keystone Dam.
If it were only the Keystone Dam that protected us we would have more reason to worry about floods. Keystone is part of a chain of flow control dams that have succeeded in limiting flooding for about 6 decades. We have adapted to the river and controlled its destiny, but I agree, nature is always the winner. We merely tame the behavior of the beast, not change its nature.
Quote from: Hoss on August 24, 2012, 10:25:34 PM
And yet we have several lakes in the state that actually prove we CAN control nature. One being the Keystone Dam you speak of.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Having seen the river over the flooding of 8 decades and followed flood plains in the recent years one must come to the conclusion that in '84 the destruction would have been less severe if the Keystone Dam not been there. Being in the weather bureau for information, looked on their radar to see the storm moving to the northwest I begin eavesdropping on their conversation. they were talking about telling the Corps to open the gates as Keystone could not hold that amount of water that was headed toward it. The corps waited several hours before opening the gates creating the flood of '84.
The Keystone capacity, by their record, has a life span whereas it becomes less efficient each day as from settlement entering into the lake.
Some one wrote "You cannot dam a flowing river"
" Or tell it where to flow"
" It will flow on forever"
" Best to show it where to go"
The Arkansas river flood was 1986, not 1984.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 25, 2012, 05:37:10 PM
The Arkansas river flood was 1986, not 1984.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for the correction. Was using the '84 posted by previous poster and not looking at the record. There have been so many major floods on the Arkansas, Bird Creek, Mingo, etc in the last century it is hard to keep up with them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 25, 2012, 05:37:10 PM
The Arkansas river flood was 1986, not 1984.
You should be careful using terms like "not". Was it really that important to correct me that you didn't even bother to look and see if you were right?
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood killed 14, injured 288, damaged or destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, and left $180 million in damages ($257 million in 1994 dollars). Mingo Creek alone accounted for $125 million of the damages.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/city-services/flood-control/flooding-history.aspx
Quote from: TeeDub on August 26, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
You should be careful using terms like "not". Was it really that important to correct me that you didn't even bother to look and see if you were right?
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood killed 14, injured 288, damaged or destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, and left $180 million in damages ($257 million in 1994 dollars). Mingo Creek alone accounted for $125 million of the damages.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/city-services/flood-control/flooding-history.aspx
From your link:
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood, the worst in the city's history, was Tulsa's watershed point.
After a muggy Sunday afternoon, a stalled cool front produced some 15 inches of mid-night rain,
centered over Mingo Creek but also extending across most of the city. The results were disastrous.
The 1986 Arkansas River Flood was a first test of the new stormwater management program. It also served as a reminder of the
finite protection of Keystone Dam. Between September and October 1986, Keystone Reservoir filled to capacity, forcing the Corps to release water at the rate of 310,000 cubic feet per second. Downstream flooding was inevitable.
Thanks for proving me correct. Sorry Teedub.
I was quite involved in both of these floods. My mother was part of the stormwater management efforts and wrote the history on the city website you cited. I spent days after each flood volunteering to go through damage areas.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 26, 2012, 05:24:59 PM
Thanks for proving me correct. Sorry Teedub.
I was quite involved in both of these floods. My mother was part of the stormwater management efforts and wrote the history on the city website you cited. I spent days after each flood volunteering to go through damage areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Seems there are errors in the floods in the 63 sq mile Mingo basin. The dated pictures I have do not qualify the internet account of the Tulsa floods.
Nice job on this list TulsaNow!
https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/08/double-vision/ (https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/08/double-vision/)
Prop One of Vision2 Focused On Airport Improvements
http://www.ktul.com/story/19388272/vision2-focused-on-airport-improvements?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/19388272/vision2-focused-on-airport-improvements?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Tulsa, OK -
Tulsa County is counting on voters to see the vision this November. Vision2 would extend the 6/10 of a penny sales tax currently in Vision 2025.
Much of proposition one of Vision2 calls for an estimated $254- million to improve the infrastructure at the Tulsa airport, replacing or repairing just about everything from the rooftop to the pavement. It would also make sure the hangers can fit new larger aircraft so maintenance work keeps coming to Tulsa. Another $53-million would go toward closing the deal to get companies here. While some are worried that this is all about convincing American to stay, Commissioner John Smaligo says that's not the case. "No, absolutely not, this is about making sure our infrastructure remains a world class facility. It's the largest non-military aerospace maintenance facility in the world," he told Tulsa's Channel 8.
Smaligo says no one's touched much of complex since World War II. He says an overhaul could attract other companies to Tulsa with world class facilities along with our willing and able workforce. Voters will have the final say in November. "I think in the end they're going to be willing to do that," said Smaligo.
I'm willing to bet that this is just one of many issues confronting the airport.
Maybe the best route would be to get a commitment from AA in return for all this city has tried to do for this mismanaged company and with that commitment go out to the private sector and find a real estate company suitor to own and retrofit those buildings based on long term pre-leasing. After all, AA will have better credit coming out of bankruptcy which should make their tenancy bankable.
The bankrupt judge disallowed the million dollar bonuses the head officials of AA voted them selves before the city had time to collect the money from the SS recipients, retirees, and working poor. These officials have worked overtime scalping the city and should be rewarded.
In view that the county would suffer if the money does not become available the aircraft repair station at the airport could move elsewhere and the city would have to find another company to lease that part of the building.
Could the citizens afford to find another leaser to lease that half of the building (with tooling) for a $1 a year?
Not interested in this one. I'm a "no" for now--if anyone cares. :o
Quote from: guido911 on September 02, 2012, 08:16:54 PM
Not interested in this one. I'm a "no" for now--if anyone cares. :o
Good luck with that.
I would rather there be two different votes, one on the airport and one on the closing fund. I think the airport would have a good chance of making it. Making it a 2025 part 2 and rushing the other items... I am voting against it.
I'm not liking what I'm seeing - or more to the point - not seeing on these projects. There's a whole lot of "trust me" in this.
And I asked about Owasso's plans on the Informed Owasso facebook page. So far....crickets.
It sure does not make sense for educated voters to be asked to approve money for special tooling for AA when AA has several operations like those in Tulsa. Even some in foreign operations on foreign soil. Tulsa could spend millions for special tooling and AA could move it anywhere in the world with their every day equipment within 24 hours. The tooling could be ready for use in their next shift by employees in their home lands. Cost of labor could be greatly reduced.
Then there is the millions of dollars for a slush fund which can be turn into a "finder's fee" to be collected by local politicians. Unless the voter has a vested interest in the operation it can turn into the bad apple cliché like Tulsa has ongoing at present. Just trust them.
Quote from: Ed W on September 02, 2012, 09:00:21 PM
I'm not liking what I'm seeing - or more to the point - not seeing on these projects. There's a whole lot of "trust me" in this.
And I asked about Owasso's plans on the Informed Owasso facebook page. So far....crickets.
Haha... Owasso and "Plan" should never be used in a sentence together when referencing the City Government. The planning in our fine city is terrible. I have had several conversations with people in the city about how the "purchase" things. No centralized purchasing office, no checks and balances, just that things are put to the city council for vote. I asked how they made sure that competition was sought, they said that it was up to the people who provide the information to the council. I have to do more than that on a $5,000 buy. I also asked how they made sure that favoritism was not given or that the people involved were not taking kickbacks.... no answer to that one.
But really, the planning is as such. Does it involve traffic? Add a stop light! Does it involve people? Character trait that coincides with the issue! Everything else? eh!
Channel Six report last night on the new part of Vision 2025 said that "The Tulsa Now Forum" was against it.
They even showed the web site page and logo. Way to go TNF.
Quote from: Ed W on September 02, 2012, 09:00:21 PM
I'm not liking what I'm seeing - or more to the point - not seeing on these projects. There's a whole lot of "trust me" in this.
And I asked about Owasso's plans on the Informed Owasso facebook page. So far....crickets.
Conan, we're on tv....watch your language! :D
Quote from: DolfanBob on September 04, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
Channel Six report last night on the new part of Vision 2025 said that "The Tulsa Now Forum" was against it.
They even showed the web site page and logo. Way to go TNF.
(http://fearless-selling.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Get-Smart.jpg)
Rodney Ray, Owasso's city manager, weighed in on the sales tax extension in today's TW:
City Manager Rodney Ray said he doesn't expect Owasso to immediately identify how it would spend an estimated $14.4 million generated by the passage of a Tulsa County Vision2 initiative.
..."I don't know how you can define and list the priorities you want five years from now when, A, you're not sure you're going to get the money, and, B, not sure those are the priorities you are going to have," Ray said in a telephone interview. "We're probably bucking the trend a little bit. I don't know that other cities are in agreement. I think there's a real rush right now to hold public meetings and everybody come together and sing 'Kumbaya' over projects that may or may not get done."
City councilor Patrick Ross (aka Moe) added that without knowing the outcome of November's election, it's preposterous to consider the tax extension in light of our current economy. Remember, Patrick has his eye on the big picture as it includes the UN attempting to take over the world, black helicopters hovering overhead, and socialists hiding under his bed.
Seriously, this proposal to extend the sales tax should die at the polls if only because it's asking us to sign a blank check for area government.
Quote from: Ed W on September 08, 2012, 08:02:28 AM
Rodney Ray, Owasso's city manager, weighed in on the sales tax extension in today's TW:
City Manager Rodney Ray said he doesn't expect Owasso to immediately identify how it would spend an estimated $14.4 million generated by the passage of a Tulsa County Vision2 initiative.
..."I don't know how you can define and list the priorities you want five years from now when, A, you're not sure you're going to get the money, and, B, not sure those are the priorities you are going to have," Ray said in a telephone interview. "We're probably bucking the trend a little bit. I don't know that other cities are in agreement. I think there's a real rush right now to hold public meetings and everybody come together and sing 'Kumbaya' over projects that may or may not get done."
City councilor Patrick Ross (aka Moe) added that without knowing the outcome of November's election, it's preposterous to consider the tax extension in light of our current economy. Remember, Patrick has his eye on the big picture as it includes the UN attempting to take over the world, black helicopters hovering overhead, and socialists hiding under his bed.
Seriously, this proposal to extend the sales tax should die at the polls if only because it's asking us to sign a blank check for area government.
What do these guys think managers and planners do? Did they misunderstand the job description? Having 5 year plans, 10 year plans and anticipating the needs of a city rather than waiting till the last minute is the function of leaders, planners and managers. Otherwise you're just managing one crisis after another.
I agree with you Ed. If your leaders are that dense, I sure wouldn't put money anywhere near them.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 08:14:09 AM
What do these guys think managers and planners do? Did they misunderstand the job description? Having 5 year plans, 10 year plans and anticipating the needs of a city rather than waiting till the last minute is the function of leaders, planners and managers. Otherwise you're just managing one crisis after another.
I agree with you Ed. If your leaders are that dense, I sure wouldn't put money anywhere near them.
Rodney is a realist. I'm guessing, but I think he knows this plan is dead in the water unless the uses for the money are spelled out clearly for the voters.
Ross, on the other hand, can be summed up as "ideology uber alles" even when that flies in the face of responsible government and common sense.
I have a cynic's view of the planning process as well. It goes something like this. First, solicit the public for their views on planning. Next, develop four plans loosely based on those views: One that's a Taj Mahal that is impossibly expensive, two more that are obviously inadequate, and a third version that the planning department wanted to implement in the first place before any public interference. Present all four plans in a public meeting for 'input' and happily discover that the only one the people want is the one they were going to get anyway.
Quote from: Ed W on September 08, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
Rodney is a realist. I'm guessing, but I think he knows this plan is dead in the water unless the uses for the money are spelled out clearly for the voters.
Ross, on the other hand, can be summed up as "ideology uber alles" even when that flies in the face of responsible government and common sense.
I have a cynic's view of the planning process as well. It goes something like this. First, solicit the public for their views on planning. Next, develop four plans loosely based on those views: One that's a Taj Mahal that is impossibly expensive, two more that are obviously inadequate, and a third version that the planning department wanted to implement in the first place before any public interference. Present all four plans in a public meeting for 'input' and happily discover that the only one the people want is the one they were going to get anyway.
Cynical but insightful. I found that process to be true through most of the river development planning. Meetings are carefully designed to direct, re-direct or muffle public input. I think some meetings use plants as well. All for pragmatic reasons I suspect but the result is a feeling of being manipulated. That is the result of a poor management style.
Rodney is missing an opportunity to develop a relationship with his electorate under a "no pressure" situation. Yes, its likely to fail, but because of that any ideas that come up from the ranks are pure, not ideological or forced. Ross on the other hand needs replaced. Are you a registered voter and available? Your community commands you!
Yes, Nathan. I am a Democrat who leans left. So I must be either Communist or Commie leaning. Socialist at the very least. We all have our purpose. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
Yes, Nathan. I am a Democrat who leans left. So I must be either Communist or Commie leaning. Socialist at the very least.
I thought the 5 year plan was part of your business training. Look forward 5 years but no farther.
QuoteWe all have our purpose. ;)
You can always be a example of what not to be. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 08, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
You can always be a example of what not to be. ;D
That's funny, 'cause I have the same thought when I look at the other end of the political spectrum too! ;)
So to summarize- Good businessmen live for 2, 5 and 10 yr plans. As role models our misspent youth, unrealized potential and squandered educational opportunities serve as road signs for the next generation (we serve as roadkill). And, only the truly flawed people are suitable for political office.
Any dissent?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 01:29:14 PM
So to summarize- Good businessmen live for 2, 5 and 10 yr plans. As role models our misspent youth, unrealized potential and squandered educational opportunities serve as road signs for the next generation (we serve as roadkill). And, only the truly flawed people are suitable for political office.
Any dissent?
I think you just made up the 10 year plan. It doesn't exist.
Quote from: Ed W on September 08, 2012, 01:03:36 PM
That's funny, 'cause I have the same thought when I look at the other end of the political spectrum too! ;)
No surprise there. :)
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 01:29:14 PM
And, only the truly flawed people are suitable for political office.
Any dissent?
Wait a minute! Didn't you just urge me to run for office? I may have one or two minor foibles - though the women in this house may insist there are many, many more - but don't listen to them. Listen to me. I never lie and I'm always right.
We can't even agree on the summary!
Nice catch Ed. No offense meant. You could be the exception that proves the rule so to speak.
Red, when I was a business student that was what they drummed into us. A short range plan (2 years or less), which was designed to accomplish the 5yr plan which fit into a long range plan (10yrs). Its probably outdated now with the immediate gratification generation. I notice the city planners seem to follow a similar framework with their comprehensive plan. Its easier to make changes to a long term plan after receiving feedback than it is to change short term plans which may already be in effect. That's why organizations sometimes look so dumb.
The better the mid and long term plans, the better the short term looks. I remember talking with execs at our local cable company back in the 1980's about the future of programming. They were already anticipating today's digital type systems where the viewer could buy his own personal programming. On the other hand, the programming my friend was pitching, NASCAR and other motorsports on their own channel, seemed like a stretch to them. They just never saw that trend coming.
So what's the tally in here. Here's me on Vision 2:
Yes: ___
No X
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
So what's the tally in here. Here's me on Vision 2:
Yes: ___
No X
No.
ixnay
No
Quote from: AquaMan on September 08, 2012, 02:24:38 PM
Red, when I was a business student that was what they drummed into us. A short range plan (2 years or less), which was designed to accomplish the 5yr plan which fit into a long range plan (10yrs). Its probably outdated now with the immediate gratification generation.
My dad (got) retired in 1984. Even by then, "the program" did not extend to 10 years. He told me details not suitable for this forum to back that up. You may have been taught that in school but it didn't exist in practice.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
So what's the tally in here. Here's me on Vision 2:
Yes: ___
No X
I am leaning towards "NO" due to lack of details, especially out of the City of Tulsa. I think the property at TUL needs to be maintained just to be a good landlord. Special deals for AA, I'm not so sure.
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
So what's the tally in here. Here's me on Vision 2:
Yes: ___
No X
No
Quote from: guido911 on September 08, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
So what's the tally in here. Here's me on Vision 2:
Yes: ___
No X
No
I was undecided until I saw all of you guys are against.
To be true to my rebel nature, I now must be for.
I was leaning "for" until the Mayor opened his yap and said that we would have years to decide what to spend the money on.
YES ___
NO X
NO
Here's where the money would go:
Proposition 1: Economic development
Airport industrial complex buildings and infrastructure - $122 million
Airport industrial complex equipment - $132 million
Closing fund - $52.942 million
Bond costs and interest - $79.938 million
Specifics from the Tulsa World story.
There is $20-25 million for upgrades to the IC Bus facility. A site that they are required to maintain and pay $1 a year in rent on. Is this really something they are asking for or need? Is there any growth potential here at all? I can reluctantly support this but is there really a demonstrated need? Are they not subsidized enough with the rent?
$12-16 million for Spirit. They pay much more in rent, a little under 650k a year. Couldn't that rent be used to pay bonds for upgrades?
American. $200 million to $210 million. An interesting nugget. They are paying $19 million a year in city bond costs, not rent. They could easily default here. They own nothing, not even the equipment at the site. They could just walk away. They likely will, they are the only airline that does the bulk of their own work. American is in middle of laying off a thousand people here and are making no commitment to hire anyone back or even keep any people. Even if they claim they will do so, the company is in buyout talks with two other airlines and the people running American today will not likely still be running it a year from now. This is a ton of money to spend with zero guarantees. This includes money for TRAINING at American. This is bad, bad, bad. For this amount of money you need iron clad commitments on the number of people employed, at what salary, with employee growth guaranteed, not loss. Maybe the hanger improvements would be ok now, but not the $132 million in equipment and training for American. If they leave who is to say what equipment the next tenant would need?
I would support a closing fund.
Proposition 2: Quality-of-life improvements
Tulsa County - $92 million
Tulsa - $157.92 million
Bixby - $11.3 million
Broken Arrow - $44.1 million
Collinsville - $3 million
Glenpool - $5.9 million
Jenks - $9.2 million
Owasso - $14.38 million
Sand Springs - $10.1 million
Skiatook - $1.16 million
Sperry - $643,894
The county will spend $38 million on the Juvenile center, I support this but I don't know what the county is going to use the other $54 million on.
Bartlett's dozen projects for the Tulsa money:
1) Arkansas River, $55 million: Rebuilding the Dam for Zink, White Water rafting facility and if the state funding comes through, the 106th St Dam
2) Tulsa Zoo, $20 million
3) Parks, $15 million: Large regional recreation center at Lacy Park with additional funding for The Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area
4) Gilcrease Expressway extension, $10 million
5) Riverside Drive park-and-ride infrastructure, $10 million: A new parking garage at Riverside Drive and Interstate 44
6) Downtown, $10 million: No defined use at all
7) Neighborhoods, $10 million: No defined use yet
8 Brownfield cleanups, $5 million: Morton Health Center, 636 E. Pine St.; the Evans-Fintube site in the 100 block of North Lansing Avenue; a former gas station at 3519 N. Hartford Ave.; Apache Circle in the 500 block of East Apache Street; a shopping center in the 2100 block of North Cincinnati Avenue; and another former gas station at 1047 E. Apache St.
9) Oklahoma State University-Tulsa medical school, $5 million
10) University of Oklahoma-University of Tulsa medical school, $5 million
11) Trails, $5 million: Nothing specific
12) OSU Medical Center, $2.5 million
1 – I support this
2 – I support this
3 – We are tearing down centers that we cannot staff or maintain and you want to build a new one and the city is in court NOW trying to tear down a center not half a mile from this park. Idiotic.
4 – Idiotic. We have built much of the Tisdale and the Gilcrease Expressways and now within 2-3 miles of these existing highways there are miles and miles of undeveloped land, and nothing at all going on there. No development at all. No one is ever going to build new homes where the kids that live in the subdivisions would have to go to northside TPS schools. It's not going to happen. This is worse than idiotic
5 – Parking garage at a park at 51st Street. This is beyond stupid.
6 – No blank checks for Dewey
7 - No blank checks for Dewey
8 – More sites for TDA to hang on to for 3-4 decades with no activity, no thank you
9 – What other cities in Oklahoma fund their public colleges? Oh wait, none? I can support this, but it becomes tiresome that OSU hits Tulsa up so much for funding and doesn't do any building at OSU Tulsa on their own. I really begin to doubt OSU real commitment to Tulsa. I worry that they see Tulsa as a competitor to the Stillwater campus.
10 – I can support this for a new college, but it's not really a significant amount of money to them
11 – Specifics would be nice
12 – I can support this for the hospital, but it's not really a significant amount of money to them
I am now a firm NO.
No money for downtown housing, no money for downtown parks, no money for downtown garages or transit. A blank check for Dewey to spend downtown that I am sure would be wasted. Lots of undirected county money. Lots of American specific money that goes basically right to their bottom line with no guarantees to us.
We have years to get this list right before the current tax expires. Let's get it right.
Who are all these masses of people I keep hearing really really really want the Gilcrease expressway funded with this?
If that ends up on the plan then I can't help but think that this was all just a BS set up.
I think there is a future need for park and ride along Riverside, but the "parking" facility should be at the Creek Turnpike or Jenks and not at I44. If a train is involved then it needs to be on the west side of the river and not built or maintained by Tulsa tax payers.
Given that we're already in the same sort of deal, I wouldn't be terribly against the AA money so long as we're buying equipment to work on 787s, their new 737s and whatever Airbuses they should be taking delivery on soon. (319 NEO, I think?) I'm fully in support of whatever maintenance needs to be done on the buildings and ramp areas. That said, if AA does actually merge with US, I don't think that airline will be long for this world. Maybe I'm just in denial, but I don't see it happening. Either way, they're not the only ones with orders in for new aircraft, and they're going to have to be maintained somewhere.
I'm incredibly annoyed by the slush fund money, though. Rebuilding Zink Dam? Ok. The park and ride is beyond stupid and the Gilcrease extension is completely unneeded, though. The existing road already gets very little traffic west of 75. Back to the drawing board, I guess. I just hate giving the impression that we're not willing to pony up for the stuff that's actually needed/useful.
Quote from: carltonplace on September 10, 2012, 09:29:58 AM
I think there is a future need for park and ride along Riverside, but the "parking" facility should be at the Creek Turnpike or Jenks and not at I44. If a train is involved then it needs to be on the west side of the river and not built or maintained by Tulsa tax payers.
The problems with the location Dewey stated:
- Riverside is not a transit corridor
- A transit corridor is being installed a half mile -> East
- People don't "park and ride" 6 miles generally
- What is he tearing down to install this?
KWGS is posting a "Smell the fart" picture of the Mayor.
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201209/Dewey%20Bartlett.jpg)
I'm assuming this is while he was coming up with ways to use our money in the V2 debacle.
The Tulsa World just posted the county plan for its $92 million share:
Juvenile justice center: $38 million
Roads and other infrastructure: $25 million
Improving Expo Square: $12 million
Levee improvements: $10 million
Parks and recreational facilities: $7 million
Full List:
Proposition 1:
Economic development
$20-25 million for upgrades to the IC Bus facility.
$12-16 million for Spirit.
$200 million to $210 million for American
Closing fund - $52.942 million
Bond costs and interest - $79.938 million
Proposition 2:
Quality-of-life improvements
Tulsa County - Juvenile justice center: $38 million
Tulsa County - Roads and other infrastructure: $25 million
Tulsa County - Improving Expo Square: $12 million
Tulsa County - Levee improvements: $10 million
Tulsa County - Parks and recreational facilities: $7 million
City of Tulsa - Arkansas River, $55 million: Rebuilding the Dam for Zink, White Water rafting facility and if the state funding comes through, the 106th St Dam
City of Tulsa - Tulsa Zoo, $20 million
City of Tulsa - Parks, $15 million: Large regional recreation center at Lacy Park with additional funding for The Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area
City of Tulsa - Gilcrease Expressway extension, $10 million
City of Tulsa - Riverside Drive park-and-ride infrastructure, $10 million: A new parking garage at Riverside Drive and Interstate 44
City of Tulsa - Downtown, $10 million: No defined use at all
City of Tulsa - Neighborhoods, $10 million: No defined use yet
City of Tulsa - Brownfield cleanups, $5 million: Morton Health Center, 636 E. Pine St.; the Evans-Fintube site in the 100 block of North Lansing Avenue; a former gas station at 3519 N. Hartford Ave.; Apache Circle in the 500 block of East Apache Street; a shopping center in the 2100 block of North Cincinnati Avenue; and another former gas station at 1047 E. Apache St.
City of Tulsa - Oklahoma State University-Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - University of Oklahoma-University of Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - Trails, $5 million: Nothing specific
City of Tulsa - OSU Medical Center, $2.5 million
Bixby - $11.3 million - Undefined
Broken Arrow - $44.1 million - Undefined
Collinsville - $3 million - Undefined
Glenpool - $5.9 million - Undefined
Jenks - $9.2 million – Undefined (but probably the river)
Owasso - $14.38 million - Undefined
Sand Springs - $10.1 million - Undefined
Skiatook - $1.16 million - Undefined
Sperry - $643,894 – Undefined
No bonding cost for prop2, so it's pay as you go which means none of these can even begin to happen until the tax starts which is still years away and some of these would not even start until after 2029. It will be 20 years until this vague list is done, 20 years!
I support the airport building improvements, but not the purchase of equipment for private companies. Sounds like we've done that for AA in the past, but it's time to stop it. I also support the deal closing fund. Since the equipment is in Prop 1, I am a "no."
I am a "no" on Prop 2 because it is too soon to be voting on this, it is unecessarily rushed, it locks up a primary source of funding for future projects until 2029, the distribution ratio is dumb (maybe it shouldn't even be a county tax), many of the projects on Bartlette's list lack specifics or are of questionable value, and too many short-term growth promoting projects are ignored. Vision 2 should build on the momentum created by Vision 2025. This is just a grab bag of goodies for various interests with little connection to what we've done or to capitalize on past success.
I hope this vote goes down so we can step back and break it up into smaller shorter term chunks that have been fully vetted by the electorate.
Quote from: DTowner on September 10, 2012, 11:48:28 AM
I support the airport building improvements, but not the purchase of equipment for private companies. Sounds like we've done that for AA in the past, but it's time to stop it. I also support the deal closing fund. Since the equipment is in Prop 1, I am a "no."
It's not purchasing equipment "for" someone else in the sense that they take ownership, or at least that's how it's worked in the past. If AA leaves, the equipment stays, unless we sell it to someone else.
Quote from: swake on September 10, 2012, 11:32:39 AM
City of Tulsa - Arkansas River, $55 million: Rebuilding the Dam for Zink, White Water rafting facility and if the state funding comes through, the 106th St Dam
City of Tulsa - Tulsa Zoo, $20 million
City of Tulsa - Parks, $15 million: Large regional recreation center at Lacy Park with additional funding for The Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area
City of Tulsa - Gilcrease Expressway extension, $10 million
City of Tulsa - Riverside Drive park-and-ride infrastructure, $10 million: A new parking garage at Riverside Drive and Interstate 44
City of Tulsa - Downtown, $10 million: No defined use at all
City of Tulsa - Neighborhoods, $10 million: No defined use yet
City of Tulsa - Brownfield cleanups, $5 million: Morton Health Center, 636 E. Pine St.; the Evans-Fintube site in the 100 block of North Lansing Avenue; a former gas station at 3519 N. Hartford Ave.; Apache Circle in the 500 block of East Apache Street; a shopping center in the 2100 block of North Cincinnati Avenue; and another former gas station at 1047 E. Apache St.
City of Tulsa - Oklahoma State University-Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - University of Oklahoma-University of Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - Trails, $5 million: Nothing specific
City of Tulsa - OSU Medical Center, $2.5 million
I am so-so on the zoo and the three medical buildings, but I like the other stuff.
The parks and brownfields money is desperately needed, the parking garage on Riverside is very smart, you gotta like the money for neighborhoods, downtown, and the trails and I really want to build the low water dams and the Gilcrease expressway.
But you guys are probably going to disagree with me.
I usually blindly accept programs that throw money at development.
I'm not able to do that on this one.
Quote from: swake on September 10, 2012, 11:32:39 AM
Full List:
Proposition 1:
Economic development
$20-25 million for upgrades to the IC Bus facility.
$12-16 million for Spirit.
$200 million to $210 million for American
Closing fund - $52.942 million
Bond costs and interest - $79.938 million
Proposition 2:
Quality-of-life improvements
Tulsa County - Juvenile justice center: $38 million
Tulsa County - Roads and other infrastructure: $25 million
Tulsa County - Improving Expo Square: $12 million
Tulsa County - Levee improvements: $10 million
Tulsa County - Parks and recreational facilities: $7 million
City of Tulsa - Arkansas River, $55 million: Rebuilding the Dam for Zink, White Water rafting facility and if the state funding comes through, the 106th St Dam
City of Tulsa - Tulsa Zoo, $20 million
City of Tulsa - Parks, $15 million: Large regional recreation center at Lacy Park with additional funding for The Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area
City of Tulsa - Gilcrease Expressway extension, $10 million
City of Tulsa - Riverside Drive park-and-ride infrastructure, $10 million: A new parking garage at Riverside Drive and Interstate 44
City of Tulsa - Downtown, $10 million: No defined use at all
City of Tulsa - Neighborhoods, $10 million: No defined use yet
City of Tulsa - Brownfield cleanups, $5 million: Morton Health Center, 636 E. Pine St.; the Evans-Fintube site in the 100 block of North Lansing Avenue; a former gas station at 3519 N. Hartford Ave.; Apache Circle in the 500 block of East Apache Street; a shopping center in the 2100 block of North Cincinnati Avenue; and another former gas station at 1047 E. Apache St.
City of Tulsa - Oklahoma State University-Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - University of Oklahoma-University of Tulsa medical school, $5 million
City of Tulsa - Trails, $5 million: Nothing specific
City of Tulsa - OSU Medical Center, $2.5 million
Bixby - $11.3 million - Undefined
Broken Arrow - $44.1 million - Undefined
Collinsville - $3 million - Undefined
Glenpool - $5.9 million - Undefined
Jenks - $9.2 million – Undefined (but probably the river)
Owasso - $14.38 million - Undefined
Sand Springs - $10.1 million - Undefined
Skiatook - $1.16 million - Undefined
Sperry - $643,894 – Undefined
No bonding cost for prop2, so it's pay as you go which means none of these can even begin to happen until the tax starts which is still years away and some of these would not even start until after 2029. It will be 20 years until this vague list is done, 20 years!
Per the yestovision2.com site, the deal closing fun is $75M and the bond fund for the quality of life projects is $12M
Broken Arrow has proposed a majority of the $44 million go toward road improvements.
5 Lane -
61st from Lynn Lane to 193rd
71st from 161st to Main
81st from Garnett to 145th
91st from Garnett to 145th
101st from Garnett to 145th
Extend Main Street from 71st to the Broken Arrow Expressway (new frontage road proposed on the south side of the expressway).
They also propose buying 35 police cars and a fire truck.
Roads and public safety...seem like some core city government projects.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2012, 12:31:22 PM
the parking garage on Riverside is very smart
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? (A long, long way before the horse)
Quote
I really want to build ... the Gilcrease expressway.
Why? I grant that North Tulsa in general has gotten the shaft over the years, but do we really need another sprawl-inducing road in a heretofore hardly used corridor? I want to see who owns the land nearby the planned route before agreeing to it. Besides, there have got to be some worthwhile quality of life projects in north and northwest Tulsa that money could be spent on.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2012, 11:54:54 AM
It's not purchasing equipment "for" someone else in the sense that they take ownership, or at least that's how it's worked in the past. If AA leaves, the equipment stays, unless we sell it to someone else.
Problem is though, if AA leaves and we can't attract another airline maintenance base or MRO shop, that equipment is now has the value of a plug nickel, assuming it's aircraft specific.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2012, 01:51:01 PM
Problem is though, if AA leaves and we can't attract another airline maintenance base or MRO shop, that equipment is now has the value of a plug nickel, assuming it's aircraft specific.
I suspect it could be sold to Lufthansa or whoever else is big in the outsourced maintenance thing. We probably wouldn't get what we paid, but I seriously doubt it would be zero.
Quote from: Townsend on September 10, 2012, 11:04:41 AM
KWGS is posting a "Smell the fart" picture of the Mayor.
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201209/Dewey%20Bartlett.jpg)
I'd think with a new kid that would be your permanent expression T.
Quote from: guido911 on September 10, 2012, 02:33:39 PM
I'd think with a new kid that would be your permanent expression T.
New kid means new kid smells. There are none. It's the solid food era that frightens me.
QuoteProblem is though, if AA leaves and we can't attract another airline maintenance base or MRO shop, that equipment is now has the value of a plug nickel, assuming it's aircraft specific.
Per the KWGS story, this may be why the Mayor is in Japan. He's said to be meeting with Mitsubishi about their aviation work here in Tulsa.
Quote from: Townsend on September 10, 2012, 02:39:05 PM
New kid means new kid smells. There are none. It's the solid food era that frightens me.
Per the KWGS story, this may be why the Mayor is in Japan. He's said to be meeting with Mitsubishi about their aviation work here in Tulsa.
Maybe while over there he can ask if they can design a fire-proof cell phone?
Quote from: Townsend on September 10, 2012, 02:39:05 PM
New kid means new kid smells. There are none. It's the solid food era that frightens me.
(http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/scared-to-death.png)
Lot's of V2 money dependant on other money arriving or allocated for 'when the time comes.'
While I like some of the ideas, this remains way too vague.
Shelve it. Take a year, make a plan, present it again.
Interesting wrinkle:
Tulsa World is reporting that AA is closing the Alliance base in Ft. Worth by mid-December.
So I read this PDF:
http://yestovision2.com/Vision2_TIA_Industrial_Complex_Requirments_and_QA_8-9-12.pdf
And read around some news articles and looking at American's site, American is basically replacing it's fleet, or rather American plans to replace it's fleet of 600 planes.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/newsroom/fleet-renewal.jsp
They are purchasing/leasing/acquiring 460 new nextgen Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 planes. That work is being done here now, but reading between the lines there are some needed equipment upgrades as the plane counts increase for the new planes. American is also buying some new 777s and 787s and from what I can tell those planes will not fit in our current hangers.
American wants us to pay for them to rework the base so that it can do the work on all these new planes or they are going to outsource the work. But they are in bankruptcy and can't guarantee anything and if there is a merger the new people running the show may scrap the whole plan.
Quote from: swake on September 10, 2012, 04:33:27 PM
So I read this PDF:
http://yestovision2.com/Vision2_TIA_Industrial_Complex_Requirments_and_QA_8-9-12.pdf
And read around some news articles and looking at American's site, American is basically replacing it's fleet, or rather American plans to replace it's fleet of 600 planes.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/newsroom/fleet-renewal.jsp
They are purchasing/leasing/acquiring 460 new nextgen Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 planes. That work is being done here now, but reading between the lines there are some needed equipment upgrades as the plane counts increase for the new planes. American is also buying some new 777s and 787s and from what I can tell those planes will not fit in our current hangers.
American wants us to pay for them to rework the base so that it can do the work on all these new planes or they are going to outsource the work. But they are in bankruptcy and can't guarantee anything and if there is a merger the new people running the show may scrap the whole plan.
So...
Hey, this is crazy
We may stay here
If you build us stuff
We'll call you maybe
My one opportunity to use that song.
I'll leave you now with my rendition of Rocky mountain high.
FWIW, it's not really "plans," they have financing in place. Supposedly Airbus is almost giving them the 319s and 321s in exchange for being a 320neo launch customer and Boeing supposedly arranged some very low pricing and excellent financing in exchange for being a launch customer for the 737NG. They've got enough cash on hand that barring another spike in fuel costs or other major operational difficulties, they should make it to the new deliveries, which will bring down costs significantly.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 10, 2012, 12:31:22 PM
I am so-so on the zoo and the three medical buildings, but I like the other stuff.
The parks and brownfields money is desperately needed, the parking garage on Riverside is very smart, you gotta like the money for neighborhoods, downtown, and the trails and I really want to build the low water dams and the Gilcrease expressway.
But you guys are probably going to disagree with me.
I truly hope you were being facetious lol.
Quote from: swake on September 10, 2012, 04:33:27 PM
So I read this PDF:
http://yestovision2.com/Vision2_TIA_Industrial_Complex_Requirments_and_QA_8-9-12.pdf
And read around some news articles and looking at American's site, American is basically replacing it's fleet, or rather American plans to replace it's fleet of 600 planes.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/newsroom/fleet-renewal.jsp
They are purchasing/leasing/acquiring 460 new nextgen Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 planes. That work is being done here now, but reading between the lines there are some needed equipment upgrades as the plane counts increase for the new planes. American is also buying some new 777s and 787s and from what I can tell those planes will not fit in our current hangers.
American wants us to pay for them to rework the base so that it can do the work on all these new planes or they are going to outsource the work. But they are in bankruptcy and can't guarantee anything and if there is a merger the new people running the show may scrap the whole plan.
I think I may have to hold my nose and vote yes on prop one.
Two is a pile of stinking poo. There is time to redo it correctly with more specifics and more money to increase the growth downtown and less for the fairgrounds and highways without cars,
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
I think "they" will learn something about this forum. "They" may not find us as easy to persuade as "they" hope.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
I am tired of carrying this alone. I assume I was going to win you all over eventually, but having help is nice.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 11, 2012, 08:30:12 AM
I am tired of carrying this alone. I assume I was going to win you all over eventually, but having help is nice.
Oh great....let me suggest East Holland for a moniker. Losers.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
Don't need any PR per say, but would be nice to have some insight as to the rational for a lot of the items on prop 2 and some more details on prop 1. I am still flummoxed about the need for a, park and ride, parking garage on Riverside for instance.
Was that something brought up in one of the town hall meetings? If not, where did it come from? If it, and some other items, were the result of the meetings, it then appears to me that "meetings" alone are not enough. Sounds like we could also use some back and forth discussions to help iron out priorities and how things fit into a larger, longer term set of outcomes and visions for the city. I could offer a great idea in a meeting, but then another person may have another very different idea to, say, solve a problem or make things better, that might work even better. But you need some discussion and give and take to determine those things. Crowds throwing out various ideas and then someone else picking from them based on their own preconceptions and prejudices seems a limitation destined to leave a lot of things open to error.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
Last member joined on the 8th. I guess we can watch for others.
Welcome to all. I'm interested to hear other's views.
Quote from: TheArtist on September 11, 2012, 09:35:34 AM
Don't need any PR per say, but would be nice to have some insight as to the rational for a lot of the items on prop 2 and some more details on prop 1. I am still flummoxed about the need for a, park and ride, parking garage on Riverside for instance.
The need precipitates from a car oriented society. 33rd Street will serve as a corridor between the River and Peoria. Place One is an ideal location for mixed use/parking garage. This is one of the few things that makes sense.
Get ready for saving AA rational.....if there is any.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
What's interesting is that we said we were not happy about how quickly that this was done (who is?) and that we tried suggesting things to make this not suck. Now it sounds like there are PR people who want to try to stop this whole "critical thinking" thing?
Maybe TulsaNow should just bill directly as a PR or Political Consultant firm. Our pitch "We will make it not suck, instead of just promising to try to make people not notice it sucks" (Just a joke, don't send us money.... or do, just don't expect anything in return, we're a non-profit ;D )
We have gotten attention from print, radio and TV because of our push for critical thinking. Need to get the notes we have in preparation for this interview posted: http://kwgs.org/post/vision2-good-idea-greater-tulsa-area-or-isnt-it
Here's a "Yes to Vision2" FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/YesToVision2 (https://www.facebook.com/YesToVision2)
Quote from: Townsend on September 11, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
Here's a "Yes to Vision2" FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/YesToVision2 (https://www.facebook.com/YesToVision2)
You didn't do that...
I'm all for calibration over manipulation. Let's hang it up and see what tomorrow brings....
V2 in 14?
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 11, 2012, 10:05:35 AM
V2 in 14?
That's better, but I think you want to space 3rd penny and V2 out a bit.
Maybe 3rd penny needs to pay for transit, facility maintenance and improvements while Vision2.1 should be a city tax for major capital projects.
Oh, and the no to Vision2 page seems to be the local GOP
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 11, 2012, 10:23:54 AM
That's better, but I think you want to space 3rd penny and V2 out a bit.
Maybe 3rd penny needs to pay for transit, facility maintenance and improvements while Vision2.1 should be a city tax for major capital projects.
Oh, and the no to Vision2 page seems to be the local GOP
3rd penny covers many other projects...doesn't it? Shifting funds around is an art at the COT Public Werks Dept.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
Prayer for the day;
Lord, please help me identify these interlopers so I can attack viciously and with a vengeance...!
RM,
Notice I haven't attacked you at all about this, or even disagreed much. Most of that list you showed sounds pretty good to me. Except for ANY money that would go to AA.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 11, 2012, 12:39:24 PM
RM,
Notice I haven't attacked you at all about this, or even disagreed much. Most of that list you showed sounds pretty good to me. Except for ANY money that would go to AA.
We are funding Alcohol Anonymous?
Thanks for being open minded about the projects. I too have real qualms about the process used to select the projects and the timing of the vote. But I don't need to know how sausage is made to eat it. I just want it to taste good.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 11, 2012, 10:51:23 AM
3rd penny covers many other projects...doesn't it? Shifting funds around is an art at the COT Public Werks Dept.
Tulsa tries to operate 2 cents for operations and 1 cent for capital. The first two are permanent, but if we want to seek to grow city services like transit and park maintenance, we will need more than the 2 cents. Let the city collect 3.6c and get the county out of the sales tax racket.
Just a thought.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 11, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
We are funding Alcohol Anonymous?
Thanks for being open minded about the projects. I too have real qualms about the process used to select the projects and the timing of the vote. But I don't need to know how sausage is made to eat it. I just want it to taste good.
Them either...
I still want the tram (ala airport style) for downtown. Cheap, easy and effective.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 11, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
I don't need to know how sausage is made to eat it.
Neither do I, but I do require that it be completed before I eat it.
Have you noticed the recent articles are now referring to this as a tax to improve the industrial park at the airport? No mention of American Airlines.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 11, 2012, 01:52:24 PM
I still want the tram (ala airport style) for downtown. Cheap, easy and effective.
I still want an electric trolley on rails in the middle of the street with convenient bus connections. That's cheap, easy, and effective. Every airport system I've seen has some sort of ridiculous guideway and requires grade separation, which is decidedly not cheap. Rails are a requirement to get the investment one would hope for out of a transit project. Rubber wheeled vehicles (in general) can change their route at any time and business owners are smart enough to know that.
I have seen some rubber wheeled electric buses that have enough battery to go off the wire for a few blocks in case of construction, traffic, or whatever. Sadly, they still scream "bus".
The only thing I'm willing to vote yes for is to take ALL of the money and fix the streets. No other projects allowed in my book. Fifty years ago the streets were great! We could have that again...and it's not normal to live with streets like this, just go to many other cities.
Then everyone will complain about the street construction for three years......we'll have a grand time griping, but eventually we won't have to pay the $ 700+ per year per car for car repairs as estimated on TV.
My transportation is in the shop now having the front end repaired again....and it's an International Harvester 2 ton truck I bought for commuting. I had a big bar welded onto the front to scrape cars that run past stop signs on side streets trying to pull out in front of me.
Quote from: OwenParkPhil on September 11, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
The only thing I'm willing to vote yes for is to take ALL of the money and fix the streets. No other projects allowed in my book. Fifty years ago the streets were great! We could have that again...and it's not normal to live with streets like this, just go to many other cities.
Then everyone will complain about the street construction for three years......we'll have a grand time griping, but eventually we won't have to pay the $ 700+ per year per car for car repairs as estimated on TV.
My transportation is in the shop now having the front end repaired again....and it's an International Harvester 2 ton truck I bought for commuting. I had a big bar welded onto the front to scrape cars that run past stop signs on side streets trying to pull out in front of me.
Except we already passed a streets package a few years ago.
Quote from: OwenParkPhil on September 11, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
Fifty years ago the streets were great!
I suspect we had less than half the lane-miles to maintain fifty years ago. The problem isn't the budget, it's the sprawl that doesn't pay for itself.
Have you seen the photos from the Beryl Ford collection? Our roads have ALWAYS sucked.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/D6469.jpg)
(http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=p15020coll4&CISOPTR=1131&action-2&DMSCALE=30&DMWIDTH=512&DMHEIGHT=480&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=51st&DMROTATE=0)
Quote from: swake on September 11, 2012, 05:09:29 PM
Have you seen the photos from the Beryl Ford collection? Our roads have ALWAYS sucked.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/D6469.jpg)
(http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=p15020coll4&CISOPTR=1131&action-2&DMSCALE=30&DMWIDTH=512&DMHEIGHT=480&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=51st&DMROTATE=0)
Well, the citizens see the roads and the roads are a political issue come elections. On the other hand, our underground pipes are out of sight and out of mind even when chloramine is dumped down them...highly corrosive. Our air is contaminated, but that is still not a political motivator.
None of this crap is designed to continue to pay for itself. Lousy future planning....
Quote from: swake on September 11, 2012, 05:09:29 PM
Have you seen the photos from the Beryl Ford collection? Our roads have ALWAYS sucked.
Memory, heart, fonder...
I would like to know what is planned for oh, I don't know, around 101st through 121st & Memorial, focused really on the highly significant and under-appreciated 111th & Memorial area. Just thinking about the folks living over there that need some lovin...
Quote from: guido911 on September 11, 2012, 06:02:30 PM
I would like to know what is planned for oh, I don't know, around 101st through 121st & Memorial, focused really on the highly significant and under-appreciated 111th & Memorial area. Just thinking about the folks living over there that need some lovin...
Big stuff, Guido. Lots of fabulous demographics in there. Huge traffic counts. White flight....
Quote from: guido911 on September 11, 2012, 06:02:30 PM
I would like to know what is planned for oh, I don't know, around 101st through 121st & Memorial, focused really on the highly significant and under-appreciated 111th & Memorial area. Just thinking about the folks living over there that need some lovin...
Ask the city of Bixby?
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 11, 2012, 05:27:10 PM
Well, the citizens see the roads and the roads are a political issue come elections. On the other hand, our underground pipes are out of sight and out of mind even when chloramine is dumped down them...highly corrosive. Our air is contaminated, but that is still not a political motivator.
None of this crap is designed to continue to pay for itself. Lousy future planning....
I think that is the corner of Union and about 51st street. I-44 would be directly south. West Tulsa has never had great roads.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 11, 2012, 07:15:56 PM
I think that is the corner of Union and about 51st street. I-44 would be directly south. West Tulsa has never had great roads.
Pretty sure that's 51st and Lewis.
Quote from: swake on September 11, 2012, 07:34:52 PM
Pretty sure that's 51st and Lewis.
It was the last time this pic was posted here:
Quote from: bugo on May 15, 2008, 08:45:54 PM
The white 62 Ford is turning from SB Lewis onto EB 51st. The black Corvair is heading north on Lewis. The DX is where Walgreens is now.
Yeah, I'll buy that. Amazing how similar the two intersections are. Back then 3 of the four corners of any major intersection were gas stations. I got a set of Anchor-Hocking glassware with a fill up of Ethyl at 25cents a gallon back then.
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 04:30:37 PM
I suspect we had less than half the lane-miles to maintain fifty years ago. The problem isn't the budget, it's the sprawl that doesn't pay for itself.
What was the population 50 years ago?
Quote from: swake on September 11, 2012, 06:39:24 PM
Ask the city of Bixby?
The west side of Memorial north of 111th is City of Tulsa. The east side of Memorial south of 101st is Bixby.
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 02:02:40 PM
I still want an electric trolley on rails in the middle of the street with convenient bus connections. That's cheap, easy, and effective. Every airport system I've seen has some sort of ridiculous guideway and requires grade separation, which is decidedly not cheap. Rails are a requirement to get the investment one would hope for out of a transit project. Rubber wheeled vehicles (in general) can change their route at any time and business owners are smart enough to know that.
I have seen some rubber wheeled electric buses that have enough battery to go off the wire for a few blocks in case of construction, traffic, or whatever. Sadly, they still scream "bus".
STOP THE PRESSES! The Mayans were right the world will end in December.
(I agree with Nathan on something.)
Quote from: OwenParkPhil on September 11, 2012, 03:47:00 PM
We could have that again...and it's not normal to live with streets like this, just go to many other cities.
I won't try to defend Tulsa streets but plenty of other cities have some pretty crappy streets too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 11, 2012, 08:06:22 PM
What was the population 50 years ago?
In 1960, the City of Tulsa was 50 square miles with about 260,000 people living within its borders. In 2011 it was 186.8 square miles with an estimated population of 396,466. Its population density is about 40% of what it used to be. Some wonder why it takes so much more tax money to provide adequate police and fire service, and why we spend far more on roads than we used to but still have crumbling infrastructure. The answer is obvious.
The usual response is, of course, more development. Unfortunately, that development is mostly low density and takes place at the edge of the city, worsening the situation further. The drive to complete the northwest part of the Gilcrease is an extension of the same failed policy. It's great for developers, but it comes at the expense of the city's budget over the long term. Even when steep impact fees are assessed to pay for the initial expansion of services, the cost of maintaining them far exceeds the revenue generated.
People want low taxes and low water bills, but they also want to live on a half acre or more and have a superhighway bounding every square mile of the city to make sure they can get to work in a timely manner. It's an untenable situation. Oddly enough, just riding the bus would help a lot by forestalling the need to widen yet more roads, which not only costs a mint in capex, but also drastically increases maintenance costs. Of course, Tulsa Transit would have to have decent service in the fringes of the city, which it most decidedly does not.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think people should get to live where they please on whatever size plot of land they please. The issue is that in many cases they expect a level of service from the city that exceeds their willingness to pay given their choice to live on the fringe of the city in relatively low density development.
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 07:39:55 PM
It was the last time this pic was posted here:
I was actually thinking Sheridan looking north from 61st until I saw your post. Looking closer, you can definitely see the curve of I-44 looking west down 51st.
Quote from: nathanm on September 11, 2012, 08:34:28 PM
In 1960, the City of Tulsa was 50 square miles with about 260,000 people living within its borders. In 2011 it was 186.8 square miles with an estimated population of 396,466. Its population density is about 40% of what it used to be. Some wonder why it takes so much more tax money to provide adequate police and fire service, and why we spend far more on roads than we used to but still have crumbling infrastructure. The answer is obvious.
The usual response is, of course, more development. Unfortunately, that development is mostly low density and takes place at the edge of the city, worsening the situation further. The drive to complete the northwest part of the Gilcrease is an extension of the same failed policy. It's great for developers, but it comes at the expense of the city's budget over the long term. Even when steep impact fees are assessed to pay for the initial expansion of services, the cost of maintaining them far exceeds the revenue generated.
People want low taxes and low water bills, but they also want to live on a half acre or more and have a superhighway bounding every square mile of the city to make sure they can get to work in a timely manner. It's an untenable situation. Oddly enough, just riding the bus would help a lot by forestalling the need to widen yet more roads, which not only costs a mint in capex, but also drastically increases maintenance costs. Of course, Tulsa Transit would have to have decent service in the fringes of the city, which it most decidedly does not.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think people should get to live where they please on whatever size plot of land they please. The issue is that in many cases they expect a level of service from the city that exceeds their willingness to pay given their choice to live on the fringe of the city in relatively low density development.
Unfortunately, housing out here is not being built on 1/2 to 1 acre lots as it used to be developed. Sanitary sewers have arrived so the lots don't need to be big enough for septic tank systems. Most new housing is at least 4 houses per acre. That appears to be about the same density as Mid-town Tulsa, maybe more dense. Cutting back to 1 house per acre would cut traffic by nearly 75%. We wouldn't need the superhighways every mile. Our residential streets are not plowed when it snows. I might miss a day or two of work once in a while but that's OK. Our residential streets here in "1 acre lot land" don't have much traffic and don't require much maintenance. Our street has been repaved (topped, not completely redone) once since we moved here in 1971 and the street is fine. I don't know how well the more densely populated neighborhood streets around here will hold up. Where I grew up, sidewalks were maintained by the homeowners so that maintenance should not be a burden on the city. I know some of you would like to cram sidewalks down my throat but I don't want them and we don't need them in our neighborhood. At 4 or more houses per acre, yes, you need sidewalks. We don't have many street lights in our neighborhood. I would like a few less streetlights so I could see the night sky better. City water is good because it helps keep fire insurance rates lower than without city water. One firehouse on 121st just east of Memorial seems to serve Bixby north of the river sufficiently. The police don't seem to patrol our neighborhood regularly but I seem them out and about on Memorial frequently. An electric trolley on rails running in the median of Memorial would be nice but I don't expect it. I am not interested in a bus for myself but it may be useful for many of the people around here. I know the transit studies have looked at densities and where people go. One of the possible routes would be from 121st and Memorial west on 121st and then follow Delaware/Riverside and then north on Peoria I think. I like the idea of the new Reasor's at 111th and Memorial (actually just south of Lowes). I wish WalMart had stayed at 91st and kept the traffic up there. I do shop at Lowes but occasionally go to Home Depot at 91st and Delaware to see if they have something different than Lowes carries. There is a bunch of stuff between 101st and 111th but I know very few of the places. I stop in Schlotzsky's a few times a year; less now that Jay's Hoagies is open at 91st and Sheridan. I'm sure I have forgotten a few city services but evidently I don't use or need them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 11, 2012, 08:11:43 PM
The west side of Memorial north of 111th is City of Tulsa. The east side of Memorial south of 101st is Bixby.
Just trying to get some help for some folks that are in real need of public funding projects. Just seeing the hours and days of road deterioration, the lack of decent medical services, the lack of grocery stores and retail shops, and just the absence of needed business screams for county support....My heart breaks for those people that really know suffering, especially as you get closer to 111th & Yale.
Quote from: guido911 on September 11, 2012, 10:39:27 PM
My heart breaks for those people that really know suffering, especially as you get closer to 111th & Yale.
What they really need is a 4 lane road (Yale) from the Creek Turnpike all the way south to the river. Then they need a bridge across the river so they can easily escape to the rural areas of Tulsa County for a break from city life and a breath of fresh air.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on September 11, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
So I learned last night that our little discussions here were very powerful in getting people and the media to discuss the elements of Vision2. Some were not happy about that. So much so that the interests that desperately want it passed have members of a PR firm that already are, or will be joining this forum to gently steer the conversation in favor of the initiative.
Welcome. We look forward to your insights. :D
We got another joiner today. This PR firm isn't very hard working.
Tulsa Councilors Want Vision 2 AssurancesQuoteTulsa City Councilors are putting together a list of Vision 2 projects to be funded...should the measure pass in November. Council Chair G.T. Bynum says they're asking for advice how to make the list as binding as possible. Since Vision 2 would tie up funding for 17 years, he wants to make sure commitments made now are honored by future elected officials.
He says there is concern future councils or mayors could 'tinker' with the list and make changes not wanted by voters.
http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-councilors-want-vision-2-assurances (http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-councilors-want-vision-2-assurances)
Well, this doesn't help the cause of V2 - study says turnpike to finish Gilcrease Expressway not feasible.
Study calls Gilcrease Expressway as a toll road unfeasible
Construction work continues on the latest leg of the Gilcrease Expressway west of the Tisdale Expressway, south of 36th Street North in Tulsa. MICHAEL WYKE / Tulsa World
1 / 2Next slide
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer & BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
Published: 9/18/2012 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 9/18/2012 7:28 AM
A study shows completing the Gilcrease Expressway as a stand-alone toll road would not be feasible due to low traffic, but that hasn't dissuaded Tulsa's mayor from seeking Vision2 tax dollars for the project.
"The goals of a turnpike are going to be different than the goals of regular highway infrastructure," Mayoral Chief of Staff Jarred Brejcha said in response to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority report.
A turnpike is an investment that must be recouped through vehicle tolls, Brejcha said
But the city is looking at a variety of broad issues, from economic development to traffic flow to public safety, in wanting to see the project completed, he said.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett has recommended the City Council consider putting $10 million of Tulsa's potential $158 million in Vision2 quality-of-life funding toward the expressway extension.
The countywide Vision2 package will be on the Nov. 6 ballot.
The Legislature in 2010 authorized the turnpike authority to study the feasibility of making some or all of the unfinished portions of the Gilcrease Expressway into a toll road.
The OTA study, which cost about $1 million and was completed earlier this year, looked at a nearly 12-mile stretch from the L.L. Tisdale Expressway to Interstate 44 near 49th West Avenue.
The study also considered various scenarios, such as completing the project or portions with four or two lanes.
All of the scenarios showed a toll road would not be self-supporting, said turnpike authority Deputy Director Tim Stewart. They would not have enough traffic to generate the net revenue needed to retire the debt.
Council Chairman G.T. Bynum said the findings of the study highlight the concerns he's had all along.
"Federal money has trickled in slowly, but no one else has been willing to commit real resources to get this done," he said.
"Why is that? Why is the Oklahoma Department of Transportation not willing to do it? Why is the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority not willing to do it? What does that say about the viability of the project?"
Bynum and Councilor Blake Ewing also have expressed concerns about the extension leading to urban sprawl. Other councilors have said the project should not be a priority with limited resources.
Councilors beginning Wednesday will hammer out the city's list of Vision2 projects, which they will vote on in the form of a resolution the following week.
The Gilcrease Expressway extension has been on the Tulsa Metro Chamber's regional One Voice legislative agenda for the past several years.
"Having a completed loop around our city would create a more efficient traffic flow, allow us to continue to grow and increase our development opportunities," said Chris Benge, the chamber's senior vice president of government affairs.
Millions of dollars have been spent acquiring rights-of-way and building the highway one portion at a time, he said.
"But ODOT has had a long-standing position of not adding new state-designated highways," Benge said, "so what that has done is limit our resources."
The mayor hopes to convince the council that allocating $10 million toward the extension would be an investment in the future, Brejcha said.
Bartlett, who is in Japan on a business-recruitment trip, is particularly interested in seeing the money put toward a bridge over the Arkansas River that the extension would need.
Still, that's a small fraction of the project's total cost.
Completing the Gilcrease as a four-lane turnpike is an estimated $857 million in 2010 dollars, Stewart said.
A scaled-down version as a two-lane turnpike is $280 million, he said.
A third alternative was a two-lane road from West 21st Street, heading north across the Arkansas River and U.S. 412 ending just north of West Edison Street, according to the study. The cost was $144 million, according to the study.
A fourth alternative was a two-lane road along the same route as the third alternative, but with a simplified interchange on U.S. 412. The cost was $110 million, the study indicated.
Stewart said the figures only include construction and could increase as time passes.
The project always has been one, Brejcha said, that will need multiple funding sources, which is why the Mayor's Office is talking to area municipalities, tribes and other entities to be partners.
The project's feasibility was studied as if it would be a stand-alone turnpike - not sharing in other turnpike revenues.
The OTA cross-pledges its toll revenue so high traffic turnpikes help support toll roads with fewer vehicles. The tolls are used to retire debt used to build and expand the turnpikes, patrol the roadways and perform maintenance.
Just because the OTA's study indicates the Gilcrease Expressway extension would have low traffic as a toll road, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be well traveled as a free highway, Benge pointed out.
"The traffic count would be lower because you would be charging people," he said. "And as a stand-alone project, it would require a much higher toll."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120918_16_A1_Astudy907963
QuoteAll of the scenarios showed a toll road would not be self-supporting, said turnpike authority Deputy Director Tim Stewart. They would not have enough traffic to generate the net revenue needed to retire the debt.
Move some of the current funding from the unused turnpikes in West Oklahoma to this unused turnpike?
Quote from: Townsend on September 18, 2012, 12:01:36 PM
Move some of the current funding from the unused turnpikes in West Oklahoma to this unused turnpike?
Nope, that road to rural OK is one way.
Quote from: DTowner on September 18, 2012, 11:48:47 AM
The Legislature in 2010 authorized the turnpike authority to study the feasibility of making some or all of the unfinished portions of the Gilcrease Expressway into a toll road. The OTA study, which cost about $1 million and was completed earlier this year, looked at a nearly 12-mile stretch from the L.L. Tisdale Expressway to Interstate 44 near 49th West Avenue.
The study also considered various scenarios, such as completing the project or portions with four or two lanes. All of the scenarios showed a toll road would not be self-supporting, said turnpike authority Deputy Director Tim Stewart. They would not have enough traffic to generate the net revenue needed to retire the debt.
I think you guys are missing the big picture here...
A MILLION DOLLARS to pay for that study!!!!
A report to say there ain't going to be enough cars going on that road to generate $857 million to pay for the road. That is 10,000 cars a day, seven days a week, each paying two dollars, for 117 years.
We spent a million dollars for that. A million dollars.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
I think you guys are missing the big picture here...
A MILLION DOLLARS to pay for that study!!!!
A report to say there ain't going to be enough cars going on that road to generate $857 million to pay for the road. That is 10,000 cars a day, seven days a week, each paying two dollars, for 117 years.
We spent a million dollars for that. A million dollars.
You smelled that smell too?
Definitely a pile!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 18, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
I think you guys are missing the big picture here...
A MILLION DOLLARS to pay for that study!!!!
A report to say there ain't going to be enough cars going on that road to generate $857 million to pay for the road. That is 10,000 cars a day, seven days a week, each paying two dollars, for 117 years.
We spent a million dollars for that. A million dollars.
Trickle down economics?
So I am seeing on the news this morning, that around 3,000 are receiving layoff notices. I'm not sure exactly how V2 is on the ballot, but is this pretty much the nail in the coffin for that one?
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 09:10:54 AM
So I am seeing on the news this morning, that around 3,000 are receiving layoff notices. I'm not sure exactly how V2 is on the ballot, but is this pretty much the nail in the coffin for that one?
That would tend to indicate one of two things:
Either AA has been carrying far too much payroll all these years (doubtful) or they aren't really planning on ramping up next gen 737 and 777/787 maintenance at this base.
I'm starting to wonder if they are looking for a suitor to buy out a trimmed down AA without as many obligations.
Ed, what say you?
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 09:10:54 AM
So I am seeing on the news this morning, that around 3,000 are receiving layoff notices. I'm not sure exactly how V2 is on the ballot, but is this pretty much the nail in the coffin for that one?
They also state that the number will likely be much lower if many take retirement packages. My best friend works for AA and has for about 12 years. Not sure how this will affect him. Feel for those however who are receiving layoff notices. No thanks to AA management.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 09:10:54 AM
So I am seeing on the news this morning, that around 3,000 are receiving layoff notices. I'm not sure exactly how V2 is on the ballot, but is this pretty much the nail in the coffin for that one?
They aren't laying off 3,000 people. They have to send notices out to everyone who
might get laid off, which basically means everybody low enough on the seniority list that they might get bumped out when someone higher on the list has their position eliminated. I think they're still targeting about 900ish, and as noted previously that number will vary depending on how many people leave voluntarily.
AA was never planning on doing 777/787 maintenance here. Supposedly the hangars aren't big enough, so now that they're closing Alliance they'll be having the widebody maintenance done in Hong Kong like Delta and COdbaUA are. I don't much appreciate that, but there aren't any US-based international airlines doing widebody maintenance in the US any more. I'd love to figure out how to get AA to move most or all of their maintenance here, but I don't see that as very likely. For obvious reasons, they can't send the short haul planes very far away for maintenance, so it makes more sense to keep that in house.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
They aren't laying off 3,000 people. They have to send notices out to everyone who might get laid off, which basically means everybody low enough on the seniority list that they might get bumped out when someone higher on the list has their position eliminated. I think they're still targeting about 900ish, and as noted previously that number will vary depending on how many people leave voluntarily.
AA was never planning on doing 777/787 maintenance here. Supposedly the hangars aren't big enough, so now that they're closing Alliance they'll be having the widebody maintenance done in Hong Kong like Delta and COdbaUA are. I don't much appreciate that, but there aren't any US-based international airlines doing widebody maintenance in the US any more. I'd love to figure out how to get AA to move most or all of their maintenance here, but I don't see that as very likely. For obvious reasons, they can't send the short haul planes very far away for maintenance, so it makes more sense to keep that in house.
It's not the hangers that aren't big enough; it's the engine testing cells. I live close enough to the airport that I know when they are testing them, especially in the winter when the prevalent wind is out of the north (I live about two miles south).
Well, it sounds like we could make an offer then. ;) (not that there's one chance in a thousand they'd accept)
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
They aren't laying off 3,000 people. They have to send notices out to everyone who might get laid off, which basically means everybody low enough on the seniority list that they might get bumped out when someone higher on the list has their position eliminated. I think they're still targeting about 900ish, and as noted previously that number will vary depending on how many people leave voluntarily.
That more or less fits with what the news articles are saying (they expect fewer than 40% of those receiving notices to actually lose their jobs). So, at the end of the process AA expects to have 900 fewer jobs in Tulsa than they currently have or are you saying they expect to have to lay off 900? Either way, Ouch! Have some Tulsa employees already taken voluntary separations?
From the city's perspective, it really matters little whether jobs are eliminated by early retirement or by layoffs. Each results in 1 less job in the Tulsa economy.
I wonder how the layoff notices will play out with the V2 vote (I'm sympathetic to those those getting the notices, but there's nothing much I can do about it)? Does this help the supporters' argument that it is critical that something be done now, right now, be damned the costs or the concerns over funding method, equipment buys, etc.? Or, does it help those who say we've thrown money at AA in V2025 the exact same way and there are less people working for AA in Tulsa now than there were then? Economic uncertainty can make people desperate and more willing to spend public moneys to "save" jobs. Problem is, this is not a new effort with this employer and an argument can be made that it does not seem to have worked and there is no guaranty that new expenditures will save a single job.
A better crafted proposition would have placed some protections/conditions so that some of the expenditures (especially equipment purchases) would be done only if AA made certain committments re jobs, etc. While not a perfect comparison, this was done with the Boeing portion of V2025. Too bad there was no public input before finalizing the propositions for a vote so that such ideas might have developed....
Are all of the quality of life projects tied in with AA or is it separate, like the original Vision ballot was?
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 03:56:47 PM
Are all of the quality of life projects tied in with AA or is it separate, like the original Vision ballot was?
As I understand it, Prop 1 is all airport facilities projects/closing fund and Prop 2 is all quality of life projects (known or unknown).
Quote from: DTowner on September 19, 2012, 02:15:02 PM
A better crafted proposition would have placed some protections/conditions so that some of the expenditures (especially equipment purchases) would be done only if AA made certain committments re jobs, etc. While not a perfect comparison, this was done with the Boeing portion of V2025. Too bad there was no public input before finalizing the propositions for a vote so that such ideas might have developed....
Ding Ding! We have a winner. Why in the H*** is this proposition not written like this!?
We are essentially customizing this base now with upgrades that are suited for AA... then when they move out we've just wasted $200 Million on that facility that we now have to reinvest even MORE money for it to be suitable for another company.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on September 19, 2012, 10:19:32 PM
We are essentially customizing this base now with upgrades that are suited for AA... then when they move out we've just wasted $200 Million on that facility that we now have to reinvest even MORE money for it to be suitable for another company.
That's not entirely accurate. About half is slated to be used to repair or replace the existing buildings, ramp area, and equipment and upgrade electrical service and wastewater service. The vast majority of that needs to be done regardless of who the tenant is. The other half is specific to AA and involves building/buying new things. Problem is, much of the old equipment/facilities (that we presently own) will become outdated as old aircraft are retired. Unless the website is lying, anyway.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 10:48:35 PM
That's not entirely accurate. About half is slated to be used to repair or replace the existing buildings, ramp area, and equipment and upgrade electrical service and wastewater service. The vast majority of that needs to be done regardless of who the tenant is. The other half is specific to AA and involves building/buying new things. Problem is, much of the old equipment/facilities (that we presently own) will become outdated as old aircraft are retired. Unless the website is lying, anyway.
Ok I'll buy the ramp upgrades, upgrades to electrical and waste water, and the building upgrades for the Bus and Spirit (I think those were the two). There's still about $140 Million give or take (not counting the equipment package which is another $130 Million) that is pointless to do until we know would will be occupying the building. Again the Existing buildings will be renovated specifically to AA is using them for at the moment. Even renovation to the buildings that AA currently occupies that wouldn't be modified for the larger aircraft is STUPID until we either know they are staying or until we have a new tenant lined up to take over the space. In major commercial real estate I have never seen anyone build out a space until the tenant has signed on the dotted line.
If AA leaves we can kiss the aviation maintenance industry in Tulsa goodbye unless we somehow manage to land one of the Middle East Airlines or someone like Lufthansa that has the kind of cash to invest in a maintenance business in the US so the equipment we invest it will essentially be worthless. We are going to have to get creative with the empty shells and we'll probably be filling them with multiple business not one big one like AA. If we exhaust our resources now we severely limit ourselves to redesign these to be adaptable to other different industries and companies. What happens if Intel or some company came to us after AA leaves and wants to modify the buildings... well we won't have the money to do it, and we are going to have a ton of useless aircraft equipment sitting in a junkyard somewhere. Someone else said it already on here, the aircraft maintenance business in the US is DEAD.
$200 - 300 Million isn't going to change that when they would save that money in 2-3 years on salaries alone doing it in Asia and we'll be paying taxes on empty buildings that were renovated only for aircraft maintenance for the next 20 years.
What's really terrifying is there has been NO risk evaluation on the aircraft maintenance business done on behalf of the citizens. If you are investing, what's the number one thing you care about? What are the odds I will get my money back? 2) What would be the return I get on my investment? We'd probably have less risk putting the bond issue money into Chesapeake stock.
This one of the reasons many in the industrial sector of the commercial real estate business hate this proposal. They understand how backwards the investment is. It's one thing to pay for tenant improvements, it's another to do it without a solid lease signed, sealed and delivered.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on September 19, 2012, 11:46:44 PM
Someone else said it already on here, the aircraft maintenance business in the US is DEAD. $200 - 300 Million isn't going to change that when they would save that money in 2-3 years on salaries alone doing it in Asia and we'll be paying taxes on empty buildings that were renovated only for aircraft maintenance for the next 20 years.
Widebody maintenance in the US is dead. It's simply too cheap to fly the extra 500-1000 miles to HKG if you're already at one of the other big Asian gateways. However, if you have a 737 sitting in Texas it's an awfully long way to go, not to mention a huge pain in the butt with all the fuel stops. That's a lot of fuel you're burning with zero revenue passengers. What other narrowbody maintenance bases does AA have at this point?
That's not to say I don't get your point, or that I think everything in the package is likely necessary. I'd love some 787 maintenance here, but it's not happening, so why are we spending money on that? (for example) What other narrowbody maintenance bases is AA keeping open, by the way?
Which TWA bases did AA keep in that buy-out? Seems like there was one at MCI or STL.
I've looked and can't seem to get an answer as to where the other bases are, however, I'm curious if their ultimate goal is to start farming out their maintenance to MRO's and finally ditching their model of trying to turn maintenance from a cost center to a profit center by taking in outside work.
This paragraph in the Ft. Worth paper is what has my pessimism up
QuoteIn its initial term sheet offer to mechanics in February, American indicated that it planned to close Alliance by the end of the year and outsource a significant portion of its maintenance work to third-party firms. The Texas Aero Engine Service Ltd. engine repair facility at Alliance, which is a joint venture between American and Rolls Royce, is expected to remain open and employs 600 workers.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/10/4247526/american-to-close-alliance-maintenance.html#storylink=cpy
Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2012, 11:21:24 AM
Which TWA bases did AA keep in that buy-out? Seems like there was one at MCI or STL.
They closed the maintenance base at MCI some time back. I thought Alliance was mostly or completely 767 and 777, hence the closure with the outsourcing of widebody maintenance to Hong Kong.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2012, 11:40:56 AM
They closed the maintenance base at MCI some time back. I thought Alliance was mostly or completely 767 and 777, hence the closure with the outsourcing of widebody maintenance to Hong Kong.
Seems like they had a base at LGA or JFK as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 09:33:37 AM
That would tend to indicate one of two things:
Either AA has been carrying far too much payroll all these years (doubtful) or they aren't really planning on ramping up next gen 737 and 777/787 maintenance at this base.
I'm starting to wonder if they are looking for a suitor to buy out a trimmed down AA without as many obligations.
Ed, what say you?
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this.
Now remember, my view is from the trenches. On numerous occasions, we've learned of AA's plans by reading them in the Tulsa World, though on one particularly notable instance, we read the upcoming proposal on the men's room wall. Management isn't big on sharing their plans with us.
My work has picked up in the last month. My main job is the Honeywell Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Computer. In a normal month, I'd see 3 or 4 each week, yet through the spring and summer, the numbers were more like 3 or 4 a month. I think there were none in July. Summer is usually busy for us since more people are traveling and the company wants to get flights out on time. There have been summers that bring 12 hour work days Monday through Friday, with another 8 hours on Saturday. That's a lot of hours.
I have no idea what will happen after the RIF (reduction in force) and the early retirements. We're losing 10-12 people out of a crew of about 60 due to those early retirements, and we'll undoubtedly lose a few more. The lowest seniority employee in the shop has about 15 years with AA.
AA is modernizing the fleet by purchasing 737s to replace the MD80s. Some of you probably know more details of that than I do, as my view is strictly limited. I do know that the new aircraft use an updated EGPWS computer that I argued should be maintained in-house, but the final decision is far above my pay grade. Don't think for a minute that I did this in order to save AA money - though that's clearly possible - but instead I was arguing to keep my job. Chances are I'd stay in the shop, but I actually like working ground prox and didn't want to move. One of the union guys said that the union isn't going to bat unless it involves several jobs rather than only one. That's fine, but I think that if they argued to keep even a single job, the multiples would be far easier to keep.
OK, one last point and I stop rambling. I've mentioned this previously, but a refresher doesn't hurt. Modern avionics are moving away from individual boxes toward fully integrated systems. On 727s, there were separate boxes for the autopilot roll, pitch, and yaw channels. They were combined in one box for the DC10s, MD80s and similar aircraft. Now, you may have the autopilot combined with navigation displays driven from the same box. From the maintenance point of view, this requires dedicated and very expensive automated test equipment that costs in the millions. Many airlines just send their equipment back to the manufacturer rather than invest in the test equipment. AA chose to purchase the test equipment (with assistance from the airport trust, I'm told) so we're ideally situated to take on some outside work if our management people can be convinced that it's profitable.
"May you live in interesting times." It's a Chinese proverb that can be interpreted as either a blessing or a curse.
Ed W.
If you are talking about either the IRIS 2000 or the ATEC-6 test systems those were purchased with Vision 2025 funds.
Vision 2025: In the upcoming vote on the extension of sales taxes the process is being considered to pass a municipal ordinance under the emergency clause calling for an election. The municipal ordinance statue requires defining the clause as what is the emergency. How can this clause be used to define the emergency when it must apply to a health and welfare emergency that at the time is unkownwn??????????
In the Sunday Tulsa world is an article of the grinders that was purchased from the taxes collected from the working poor to grind the blades on the jet motors which was being done by the workers. Do any of the intellectuals posting on this thread realize that the workers that were hand grinding the blades lost their jobs? These workers were replaced by taxing the working poor.
In the pending bankruptcy this grinder will be listed as an asset.
The children, retires, working poor who will contribute to this should be protect by the city, who buy this machinery, should retain title to it and lease it to AA on one of their privileged leases for a dollar a year.
It is noted in the article’s explanation the cost of the bonds issue and interest has risen to $12,000,000 dollars. This, one assumes will be paid up front to the investors who are paid first. (From their left pocket to the right pocket)
Now if the airlines bankruptcy falters or moves and the city has to find another leaser to lease the setup for a $1.00 a year, no property taxes, personal industrial taxes or sales taxes, with the machinery all installed, eligible for “quality jobs give away”, surely some one would be interested.
Quote from: shadows on September 23, 2012, 06:18:31 PM
Do any of the intellectuals posting on this thread realize that the workers that were hand grinding the blades lost their jobs?
How far back in technology and the industrial revolution would you like to go? Technology has always eliminated menial jobs but opened new ones operating and maintaining the new technology. The Cotton Gin is the first one that popped into my mind.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 23, 2012, 08:48:33 PM
How far back in technology and the industrial revolution would you like to go? Technology has always eliminated menial jobs but opened new ones operating and maintaining the new technology. The Cotton Gin is the first one that popped into my mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The invention of the cotton gin, by a black slave was the beginning of the industrial revelation which also increased the slave population to some 4,000,000 slaves and unemployment flourished in the North as the super rich of the South went into the production of the fiber which led to the grounds for the civil war of 1860 claiming the lives of one casually in ever four participants.
The head Union chief general struggled to turn the government from a republic to a dictatorship during his command as Rome did.
It all happened because technology. Could this happen again?
Even the sands of the seas are numbered but fear yea not for your life is worth that of many sparrows.
Deal on Damshttp://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams (http://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams)
QuoteTulsa locks in commitments for two dam projects if Vision 2's quality of life portion passes in November.
One is Zink Dam, at a cost of $41-million. The other is a south Tulsa dam. The City of Tulsa has pledged half of the funding for that project. Its price tag would be $30-million.
City Council Chair G.T. Bynum tells KWGS, the City of Jenks and the Creek Nation have agreed to partner with Tulsa for the other half of the south low water dam expense.
Tulsa would receive $158-million, total, in the quality of life funding from Vision 2. $71-million would be earmarked for the two low water dam projects
So I believe this will be pushed to help get South Tulsa and mid-towners to vote for V2. The trouble will arise as the rest of Tulsa County will believe this is what their money will go to as well and BA/Owasso/West Tulsa will vote against it.
Quote from: Townsend on September 26, 2012, 11:12:40 AM
Deal on Dams
http://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams (http://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams)
So I believe this will be pushed to help get South Tulsa and mid-towners to vote for V2. The trouble will arise as the rest of Tulsa County will believe this is what their money will go to as well and BA/Owasso/West Tulsa will vote against it.
So, not satisfied with crapping on the Vision brand, V2 now seeksto make V2 into River Tax II?
The reason why the River tax keeps failing is that water makes you stupid. Look at surfers.
Gosh, it looks like they're trying to rope the suburbs into paying for their river projects....again...with predictable results.
Quote from: Townsend on September 26, 2012, 11:12:40 AM
Deal on Dams
http://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams (http://kwgs.com/post/deal-dams)
So I believe this will be pushed to help get South Tulsa and mid-towners to vote for V2. The trouble will arise as the rest of Tulsa County will believe this is what their money will go to as well and BA/Owasso/West Tulsa will vote against it.
I dunno, Townsend, I think the entire county is going to vote against it... except for a couple hundred--chamber employees, their families, and TyPros leadership.
Per Bynum's TW FB post, the mayor signed off on the Council's Vision 2 resolution.
Is there a list of everything they resolved and who resolved it?
I hope they added a unicorn petting zoo
Quote from: carltonplace on October 03, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
I hope they added a unicorn petting zoo
Ooo, me too. I hear unicorn farts are better than fresh baked bread.
Is there a full list of what will be placed on the ballot?
I didn't see it on the COT site or county.
NM, guess this is it. A bit sad I had to look for it instead of it being available on a government site.
QuoteTulsa City Council Vision2 projects
The City Council on Thursday night unanimously approved a resolution outlining how the city intends to use its share of the funds should voters approve the $748.8 million Vision2 package Nov. 6.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett said he plans to sign the resolution as soon as possible, making it the official policy document of the city of Tulsa.
Here's how the list stacks up:
$71 million: Creation and upgrading of Arkansas River dams
$20 million: Improvements to the Tulsa Zoo
$14 million: Creation of a Lacy Park Regional Recreation Center and repairs and modernization of the city's five remaining swimming pools
$10 million: Creation of permanent home for the Tulsa Children's Museum
$10 million: Renovation of the Central Library
$7 million: Contribution toward Phase 2 of Tulsa Community College and the Tulsa Fire Department's joint fire training center
$5 million: Contribution toward extension of the Gilcrease Expressway
$4.5 million: Improvements to neighborhoods ($500,000 for each of the nine council districts)
$4.3 million: Contribution to help the University of Oklahoma and the University of Tulsa build a joint medical school downtown
$4.3 million: Contribution to help Oklahoma State University-Tulsa build a new Medical and Academic Center on its campus
$4.3 million: Contribution toward Phase 2 of Langston University's nursing school
$2.1 million: OSU Medical Center birthing center
$549,000: Improvements to the Route 66 Village
$471,000: Cleanup of brownfield sites
$400,000: Purchase of an industrial generator for Morton Comprehensive Health Services
Total: $157,920,000
About Vision2
Election date: Nov. 6
Amount: $748.8 million
Tax impact: Extension of 0.6 percent countywide Vision 2025 sales tax from 2017 through 2029
PROPOSITION 1: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Airport industrial complex buildings and infrastructure: $122 million
Airport industrial complex equipment: $132 million
Closing fund: $52.942 million
Bond costs and interest: $79.938 million
PROPOSITION 2: QUALITY-OF-LIFE IMPROVEMENTS
Tulsa County: $92 million
Tulsa: $157.92 million
Bixby: $11.3 million
Broken Arrow: $44.1 million
Collinsville: $3 million
Glenpool: $5.9 million
Jenks: $9.2 million
Owasso: $14.38 million
Sand Springs: $10.1 million
Skiatook: $1.16 million
Sperry: $643,894
Bond costs and interest: $12 million
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120928_16_A1_Alticy388860
Oops, that Tulsa city only....keep on looking
Oh, here it is?
http://yestovision2.com/life (http://yestovision2.com/life)
Maybe on their facebook...
Oh, yeah, there it is.
Good thing all the information is easily found. No matter where I turn, I can easily find what I'll apparently be voting against.
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
Oh, here it is?
http://yestovision2.com/life (http://yestovision2.com/life)
Maybe on their facebook...
Oh, yeah, there it is.
Good thing all the information is easily found. No matter where I turn, I can easily find what I'll apparently be voting against.
Try this one:
www.tulsashitburgertwo.com
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
Oh, here it is?
http://yestovision2.com/life (http://yestovision2.com/life)
Maybe on their facebook...
Oh, yeah, there it is.
Good thing all the information is easily found. No matter where I turn, I can easily find what I'll apparently be voting against.
What do you want to bet that the $12 million for "Expo Square improvements" would go to leveling Driller's stadium and the old health department and putting in more parking lots.
Quote from: Townsend on October 03, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Ooo, me too. I hear unicorn farts are better than fresh baked bread.
Kind of like the smell of a newborn baby diapers?
Quote from: swake on October 03, 2012, 07:28:09 PM
What do you want to bet that the $12 million for "Expo Square improvements" would go to leveling Driller's stadium and the old health department and putting in more parking lots.
Did they ever fix the lighting on the roof of the Expo square from the first Vision 2025?
Quote from: TeeDub on October 04, 2012, 09:19:44 AM
Did they ever fix the lighting on the roof of the Expo square from the first Vision 2025?
The lighting is not fixed. The installation company went out of business quickly after the job was thought to be completed.
Quote from: Townsend on October 04, 2012, 09:33:00 AM
The lighting is not fixed. The installation company went out of business quickly after the job was thought to be completed.
That's sad because I liked those lights.
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 04, 2012, 09:37:22 AM
That's sad because I liked those lights.
So did I. I lived a few blocks away and saw them almost daily. Then poof, they were gone.
Quote from: rdj on October 04, 2012, 08:45:07 AM
Kind of like the smell of a newborn baby diapers?
See where the AG opinion, which carries the same as a court ruling, until overturned by the court, that the extension of 2025 will require a itemized list of where the funds are to be spent with a vote of the majority of the voters on any overrun of any funds accumulated before it's sunset exportation date.
Of course this is the State of Tulsa's (operating under a Municipal City Charter's project) who is going to reserve the funds before they are collected whereas there is no way to project the amount.
Quote from: TeeDub on October 04, 2012, 09:19:44 AM
Did they ever fix the lighting on the roof of the Expo square from the first Vision 2025?
The EXPO building exterior lighting was not funded by Vision2025.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on October 08, 2012, 04:06:10 PM
The EXPO building exterior lighting was not funded by Vision2025.
Four To Fix?
It is such an amazing city. I was under the impression that the bus manufacturing company signed a thirty year lease on a half a mile of building #3 for $1.00 a year. In the TW a spokesman for the bus company indicated to the reporter that the company had set aside money to maintain the building but if the city wants to share the windfall of sales taxes collected from the working poor and SS retirees the company would find some other place for their share of the building maintenance money. (Bonuses huh?)
You got a date on that, so I can look in the TW archives and find that quote? It would be more than a little interesting to know whether your recollection is correct.
I think Don Walker needs to be a little more careful in his critique of opponents of V2. The "historic naysayers" are not the ones who will defeat V2 - the naysayers, by definition, always say no. It is those, like me, who voted for all the previous projects but find this one too flawed to back that will cause V2 to go down. Alienating those you will need to support the revamped package that will come back to voters in a year or more (yes, that is my prediction V2 will fail) is not a good idea.
Vision2 opponents rally against 'boondoggle'
Ronda Vuillemont-Smith speaks against the Vision2 tax proposal during a rally held by the Citizens for a Better Vision group at City Hall in Tulsa on Monday. MATT BARNARD / Tulsa World They will try to defeat the measure using signs and other low-cost methods.By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 10/9/2012 2:25 AM
Last Modified: 10/9/2012 6:09 AM
Read more about the proposal and the status of Vision 2025 projects.
Opponents of the Vision2 proposal said Monday that they might not have enough money for slick television ads or direct mail - like the supporters of the $748.8 million Tulsa County tax proposal - but that their message is resonating.
"I think it says a lot that they are having to spend as much as they are," said Ronda Vuillemont-Smith of Citizens for a Better Vision, which is using social media, signs and word of mouth to reach people.
The grass-roots organization kicked of its campaign efforts Monday with a rally of about 20 members outside Tulsa's City Hall.
"We are a diversified group of citizens that loves and appreciates Tulsa County and all it has to offer but believe Vision2 is a boondoggle that is too rushed, too much, too soon, too sloppy and too vague," Vuillemont-Smith said.
"Citizens for a Better Vision wants to see our community thrive and prosper and believes Tulsa can do better than this hastily thrown-together plan."
The Vision2 proposal, which will be on the ballot Nov. 6, includes two portions that will be voted on separately.
The first proposition would fund improvements at the city's airport industrial park, much of it benefiting American Airlines, and a deal-closing fund to help lure new business and boost existing companies in the area.
The second proposition would fund quality-of-life projects in cities across Tulsa County, including low-water dams, zoo upgrades and others.
"We believe tax dollars shouldn't be used to bail out a bankrupt business in a failing industry," Vuillemont-Smith said. "Neither the chamber of commerce or government should pick winners and losers in the private sector but instead should work to provide a positive business environment for all."
Vuillemont-Smith, who ran earlier this year for the state Senate District 25 seat but lost in the GOP primary, also said capital improvements should be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis.
As proposed, Vision2 includes about $100 million in bond interest costs.
"Money spent on interest and loan fees is money that can't be spent on public improvements," she said.
Former City Councilor Roscoe Turner said many of the current councilors are scared to speak out against the Tulsa Metro Chamber-backed proposal publicly for fear of reprisal.
"During the election period, the chamber gave them money and told them they'd be watching," he said. "I think they are worried about being unseated."
Everyone needs to get involved to defeat Vision2, Turner said.
"The lights need to come on in City Hall so people can see how their government operates," he said. "As soon as I left office, the lights went out and the cockroaches started to come out again."
Former City Councilor Maria Barnes said she was a supporter of Vision 2025 and the failed 2007 river tax vote.
"But this is one I cannot get behind," she said. "They are taking it too quick. Neighborhoods and individuals have not had a chance to come forward and be involved. I think we need to step back and really look at this and work together from the beginning."
Tulsa County Republican Party Chairman J.B. Alexander said he talks to people every day who know nothing about the proposal.
"There was no public input before it was put on the ballot," he said. "There should have been public meetings first to discuss 'Do we want this tax?' not, 'What do you want to do with the money after we pass it?' "
State Sen.-elect Nathan Dahm of south Tulsa and Broken Arrow's District 33 said Vision2 does not reflect the proper role of government.
"Government should not be involved in economic developments," he said. "That's what they are claiming this is, but in reality it's crony capitalism."
Supporters of Vision2 opened a campaign headquarters Sunday in the Fontana shopping center at 51st Street and Memorial Drive. Their theme is "Keep a Good Thing Going."
Vision2 Co-chairman Don Walker described the opposition group on Monday as "historic naysayers."
"It's clear that the opposition has little to do with Vision2 but has become a platform for historic naysayers, many of whom led the dysfunctional City Council we had in recent years or are in pursuit of a political office," he said.
"It's sad to me that personal politics has caused these folks to jeopardize thousands of Tulsa County jobs, put our public safety at risk, and stop much-needed improvements to our county's infrastructure."
Walker said Vision2 is a comprehensive countywide plan that benefits the entire region and continues to move it forward.
"It is about protecting thousands of good-paying jobs for families in our communities," he said, "as well as investing in our infrastructure, the river, the zoo, the library and many more worthwhile projects - all without an increase in taxes."
Vision2 would extend the Vision 2025 tax share from 2017 to 2029.
Brian Barber 918-581-8322
brian.barber@tulsaworld.com
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121009_11_A12_CUTLIN799443
How does Don Walker spew that crap with a straight face?
Quote from: DTowner on October 09, 2012, 03:14:03 PM
I think Don Walker needs to be a little more careful in his critique of opponents of V2. The "historic naysayers" are not the ones who will defeat V2 - the naysayers, by definition, always say no.
It's OK, Ronda also makes no sense, either. Nobody's hands are clean in that article.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
You got a date on that, so I can look in the TW archives and find that quote? It would be more than a little interesting to know whether your recollection is correct.
Monday 10/8/2012: Headliner; page 1 "Vision 2 could aid bus plant" read the complete article as the bus company seems to have been ask if they wanted some money.
Once up on a time before 2025 a flood was coming down the Arkansas River that was assumed to flood Brookside and the Bixby Bottoms. The officials made a call for volunteers to fill sandbags to dike the river to protect the area. I and many others met on Riverside Drive filling the sandbags. The county hauled the sand to the locations. After the flood passed there was a question as who was owner of the piles of sand and whose obligation it was to remove it off the drive.
Afterwards the engineers said the low water dams projected for the river must be inflatable so they could be let down allowing the floods to pass.
Where are those engineers now? Oh well the millions of dollars that will be dumped in the city hall coffers will find a new homes as it is taken from the citizens that are listed in poverty.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2012, 03:39:07 PM
How does Don Walker spew that crap with a straight face?
I like Don Walker, but not a fan of what he said in this article. But this is the same news source that said I wanted to raise taxes... so there's that.
So they're going with:
"Do it for the children" again.
TW FB post:
QuoteThe Tulsa Children's Museum has existed without walls since 2007, using mobile exhibits to reach out to more than 40,000 children at area schools and community centers.
Yes to V2 FB post:
QuoteDid you know Tulsa is the ONLY top 100 city in the US that doesn't have or hasn't begun construction on a permanent Children's Museum? Invest in Tulsa County's future and put our children on equal footing with the rest of the nation by voting YES to Vision2!
After the vote, if V2 is passed, does the county still get final say whether these things will happen? If so, who, in the county, will make these decisions?
Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2012, 10:44:17 AM
After the vote, if V2 is passed, does the county still get final say whether these things will happen? If so, who, in the county, will make these decisions?
As I see it, logistically the individual municipal resolutions are essentially binding to the County Commissioners. However, I would see that being unless a project submitted/identified was to not meet the criteria established in the Ballot Resolution approved by the County Commissioners. I see this as the same process when the Vision Authority made a binding recommendation to the County Commissioners for additional funding for the Arena and Convention Center.
Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2012, 10:44:17 AM
So they're going with:
"Do it for the children" again.
TW FB post:
Yes to V2 FB post:
After the vote, if V2 is passed, does the county still get final say whether these things will happen? If so, who, in the county, will make these decisions?
A Children's Museum can be done in downtown with a lot less expense that is being portrayed here. Another reason why this entire proposition seems absurd to me....
Quote from: Townsend on October 10, 2012, 10:44:17 AM
So they're going with:
"Do it for the children" again.
TW FB post:
Yes to V2 FB post:
After the vote, if V2 is passed, does the county still get final say whether these things will happen? If so, who, in the county, will make these decisions?
And if V2 passes, Tulsa will continue to be without a Children's museum and all the other quality of life developments for years because nothing will start for 4+ years until the tax kicks in. The mayor was on 6 in the Morning today and Rich Lenz stumbled around and asked him if any any of those projects were "shovel ready" and when folks could expect to see results. The mayor said work on the existing Arkansas river dam would begin within a year (if so, must be with $ from another source, in which case, is V2 relevant?) and work on the airport properties would begin immediately, but ignored everything else.
http://www.newson6.com/category/121535/video-page?autostart=true&clipId=7823763
Don Walker should not let V2 take his reputation down with it.
Just read a twitter conversation between "yes to vision 2" and "vote no on vision 2".
I think both sides need new folk in charge of their twitter feed.
I did wonder about this though:
Quote@YestoVision2 - In your 4 day rush from announcement to placement on ballot, why did you never get a signed guarantee by AA, IC, or Spirit
They should've gotten some sort of agreement from the beneficiaries.
Quote from: Townsend on October 18, 2012, 12:56:58 PM
Just read a twitter conversation between "yes to vision 2" and "vote no on vision 2".
I think both sides need new folk in charge of their twitter feed.
The no side asked for donations to pay for signs then said they were "too busy" to deliver the signs they got donations for. Bad form.
Now "yes to vision 2" and "vote no on vision 2" have challenged each other to a tweet debate.
They are debating currently about scheduling the debate on Twitter.
Quickly, someone get over there and help them out.
Investing in Ourselves
What Vision2 means to individuals, to businesseshttp://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A53212
Quote"Don't Stop Believing" was heard loud and clear in the BOK Center Thursday, Oct. 10, as the band Journey played to thousands of Tulsans, Northeastern Oklahomans and visitors from surrounding states. This wasn't the first time the band had visited Tulsa and performed in the top-ranked BOK Center. The arena, which has hosted Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, Lady Gaga and Disney's Icescapes, is testament to the successful investment the citizens of Tulsa County made in 2003 when voting to support Vision2025. The original Vision2025 initiative was intended to meet the needs of our region at that time. Close to 10 years later, our region is faced with a new set of needs to continue the successful momentum established with Vision2025.
Tulsa County Propositions 1 and 2, commonly referred to as Vision2, will meet the current needs of our region. Clearly, jobs are on the minds of our citizens, and a significant amount of investment is needed to meet this need. In addition, we only need to look down the turnpike to see that continued investment in a city can make a substantial difference in that city's future success. The MAPS projects in Oklahoma City have transformed that city, and Vision2 is our opportunity to continue to transform ours.
Tulsa County Proposition 1 matters to us all, whether we work at the aerospace and manufacturing facilities at the airport, or we have family members, neighbors or friends employed there. A yes vote on County Proposition 1 is investment in citizen-owned infrastructure at the Tulsa Industrial Airport (TIA) complex. It is critical we act now to ensure these facilities are ready for future growth, whether with current tenants or potential future employers.
Eleven thousand or more jobs matter. When considering indirect jobs, more than 15,000 Tulsa County families depend on the aerospace and manufacturing jobs at the TIA complex.
It is also easy to see how those 15,000 families impact the rest of us. Those 15,000 families own or rent homes throughout the region, shop at local grocers, eat out on the weekends at their favorite restaurant, purchase cars at one of the region's many car dealerships, fill up their cars at local gas stations, take their clothes to local cleaners and they probably order popcorn at the movie theater where one or more teenagers work part-time, saving up for their first car.
It is clearly evident these aerospace and manufacturing jobs are critical to the success of other small businesses in the area, and the sustained growth and success of the 10 cities located within Tulsa County. Proposition 1 is about building infrastructure and investing in ourselves. It is not about supporting any one company over another, rather it is about keeping the citizen-owned airport complex buildings in top shape to ensure facilities appeal to any aerospace company looking to hire skilled workers in the Tulsa region.
These employees are our friends and neighbors, and we should do everything we can to keep them, and their aerospace and manufacturing jobs, here.
In the same manner, the job creation fund portion of Proposition 1 is necessary to attract and keep companies that provide and create jobs in our region's major industries, including advanced manufacturing, aerospace and aviation, energy, health care, information security and transportation distribution and logistics, among others. The job creation fund is not a dirty word, secretive pot of money or corporate welfare as some would make it out to be. No dollars will be given directly to companies.
The fund is a necessary economic development tool in the high-stakes world of attracting business and industry to a community. We must not cut ourselves off at the knees by refusing to realize, understand and take part in a normal, expected method of attracting new industry and assisting expansion of current business. Tulsa is today and has been at an extreme disadvantage for far too long in competing with like-sized cities for industry and jobs. The job creation fund gives us our deserved seat at the table.
Capital improvements throughout Tulsa County are also needed to improve our communities and promote a healthy economy. Through Tulsa County Proposition 2, projects like the Tulsa County juvenile justice center to combat juvenile crime, levees in the Arkansas River to prevent flooding in West Tulsa, improvement to county roads, parks and trails, among others, are improvements that attract workers and companies to the region and keep existing successful businesses here.
Vision2 also gives us the opportunity to finally have much needed additional dams in the Arkansas River. One of our region's greatest untapped assets is the Arkansas River. It is an embarrassment to not have water in the river. Tulsans deserve to have water in their river, like so many other cities across the nation. Proposition 2 can finally make this happen.
Propositions 1 and 2 will not raise new taxes. Upon passage in November, an independent oversight committee, consisting of elected officials, will oversee the funds. This ensures the public will know exactly how the Vision2 funds are helping their community. The job creation fund will have strict criteria and oversight to ensure funds are used as intended.
There are no gotcha's or surprise gimmicks in the Vision2 package as some would lead voters to believe. In an age where citizens and cities are taking back the responsibility of their community's success, Vision2 gives us all the tools to continue positive momentum forward. We must not let the naysayers ruin the future of our city, our region, our collective spirit. A yes vote Nov. 6 on County Propositions 1 and 2 is a vote of confidence and belief in our region's ability to continue to succeed and prosper.
--Michael S. Neal is president and CEO of the Tulsa Metro Chamber.
TulsaNow makes a counterproposal:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 24, 2012, 07:24:07 PM
TulsaNow makes a counterproposal:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/
Great list. The three things that I would add are the COTCH/PAC parking solution and the East End Park and the Cathedral Square Park proposals. I think these three things could spur additional development in the Blue Dome, South Downtown and East Downtown.
I would be tempted to vote yes on the TulsaNow proposition.
What would the impacts be if that was a city wide vote instead of a county wide vote?
I'm not an expert on the intricacies of city government. Are citizens allowed to write "proposals" like in D.C. I understand that at the state and federal level many people have their hands on pieces of legislation. Seems like this would be the only way to actually force council to do the right thing.
On that note, is it possible to take something like this directly to the people, ie get enough signatures or something?
Quote from: TeeDub on October 25, 2012, 08:57:57 AM
I would be tempted to vote yes on the TulsaNow proposition.
What would the impacts be if that was a city wide vote instead of a county wide vote?
The proposition is the city of Tulsa.
City wide rather than county wide is probably the best solution for a slate like this. That gives each city and town within the county flexibility over their own sales tax base for local projects instead of the donor aspect the suburbs get on a county-wide tax and improvement plan.
Reading over the list, just curious how the funding numbers per line item were arrived at.
OU and TU arguably have better donor bases than OSU (aside from Mr. Pickens). OSU Medical Center is just plain scary. I don't know any other way to describe it. $2.1 million would barely cover improvements they need to make in their power plant, never mind medical equipment or ward upgrades.
-What does $71mm for the river buy?
-What does $20mm for the zoo buy?
-Why $10mm for a children's museum, $5mm for a Route 66 museum, $10mm for a pop museum, and only $750K for a "national" art deco museum which is actually in existence? (Okay, I admit that one is personal to me)
-What is the oversight on housing funds so we don't end up with another Sager?
I'm assuming this is simply an outline at this point and there would be some sort of application process for the neighborhood/district improvements. Would the TNF proposal allow for fund shifting should all the $95 million not be needed/used at the airport?
Not nitpicking, just simply wanting to be more informed.
I am not big on handing money over for TU/OU either. They have a combined Endowment of $2B. Plus TU is a private school. I can be very close minded on some things though.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 09:40:23 AM
-What does $71mm for the river buy?
-What does $20mm for the zoo buy?
-Why $10mm for a children's museum, $5mm for a Route 66 museum, $10mm for a pop museum, and only $750K for a "national" art deco museum which is actually in existence? (Okay, I admit that one is personal to me)
The pop number is I believe what they asked the state for. the $5M is a made up ball-park number for building a two-story building on the location at the end of Riverside. William is the one who suggested $750k for the art deco museum. The rest are copied verbatim from the city council.
Quote
-What is the oversight on housing funds so we don't end up with another Sager?
In any loan/grant process there is the one who slips through. Sager was only one of the recipients and the rest worked fine.
Quote
I'm assuming this is simply an outline at this point and there would be some sort of application process for the neighborhood/district improvements.
That came form the city with the idea being each district gets $1M and it would likely be funneled through that district's councilor. There is already some money in the city for this, albeit much less.
Quote
Would the TNF proposal allow for fund shifting should all the $95 million not be needed/used at the airport?
Our proposal only pays for building improvements that apply irregardless of tenant. No tools, no maintenance equipment. This should mitigate the "what if AA leaves" problem.
Quote from: carltonplace on October 25, 2012, 08:54:02 AM
Great list. The three things that I would add are the COTCH/PAC parking solution and the East End Park and the Cathedral Square Park proposals. I think these three things could spur additional development in the Blue Dome, South Downtown and East Downtown.
The parking structure is on there. The east end people asked to not be included.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on October 25, 2012, 11:13:04 AM
I am not big on handing money over for TU/OU either. They have a combined Endowment of $2B. Plus TU is a private school. I can be very close minded on some things though.
That money is specifically for the new medical school being built downtown that is a combined project. Like UCAT before it, the "flags" in front of the school may change over the years.
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 25, 2012, 11:16:29 AM
The parking structure is on there. The east end people asked to not be included.
Interesting.
I also like this counterproposal. It does what needs to be done at the airport without giving a bunch away in job bribes without any guarantees as V2 does and manages to hit all the right points on the other stuff. Good work. Now to defeat V2 and get this on the ballot at the earliest opportunity!
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 03:17:44 PM
I also like this counterproposal. It does what needs to be done at the airport without giving a bunch away in job bribes without any guarantees as V2 does and manages to hit all the right points on the other stuff. Good work. Now to defeat V2 and get this on the ballot at the earliest opportunity!
There's four years, no need to rush it to the polls. The main reason for this rush by the "they" I suspect, was the same reason they were trying so hard to get the river tax jammed in at the end of '07: fear of impending economic downturn. Otherwise, why the hurry to bring a plan forward encumbering funds starting in 2017 right now and doing so with so little aforethought as to what all would benefit.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 04:06:19 PM
There's four years, no need to rush it to the polls. The main reason for this rush by the "they" I suspect, was the same reason they were trying so hard to get the river tax jammed in at the end of '07: fear of impending economic downturn. Otherwise, why the hurry to bring a plan forward encumbering funds starting in 2017 right now and doing so with so little aforethought as to what all would benefit.
The rush I see is that the airport money needs to be spent soon. (if the place is in as bad a shape as is claimed) While I don't want to bribe companies into coming/staying here, I also don't want to support an image of neglect that might be projected if we vote down V2 without concrete plans to bring a better alternative to a vote at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 04:13:26 PM
The rush I see is that the airport money needs to be spent soon. (if the place is in as bad a shape as is claimed) While I don't want to bribe companies into coming/staying here, I also don't want to support an image of neglect that might be projected if we vote down V2 without concrete plans to bring a better alternative to a vote at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
Seems really irresponsible considering AA's future is still somewhat murky. Secondly, I don't believe we could start any of the projects until 2017 or did I misunderstand?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 25, 2012, 04:24:25 PM
Seems really irresponsible considering AA's future is still somewhat murky. Secondly, I don't believe we could start any of the projects until 2017 or did I misunderstand?
At least in V2, the plan was to issue bonds in the near future with payment beginning in 2017. I don't consider maintaining buildings and infrastructure we own to be irresponsible. If AA does end up leaving, we're not going to be able to get a new tenant in there if the place is run down.
Vision2 hampers cities, critic says at debateHe says they would be better off raising taxes on their own.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121025_11_A8_CUTLIN121300 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121025_11_A8_CUTLIN121300)
QuoteCities should "cut out the middle man" and pursue their own visions rather than voters approving the $748.8 million Tulsa County Vision2 tax proposal, an opponent of the effort said Wednesday.
"What I propose is that we would raise our own tax to replace Vision 2025 when it expires so the overall tax rate would remain the same but the money would be flowing into the city of Tulsa to pay for city of Tulsa needs," blogger and Republican activist Michael Bates said at a Leadership Tulsa luncheon.
"The outlying communities could do the same thing."
But Tulsa County Commissioner John Smaligo, speaking in favor of Vision2, which will be on the Nov. 6 ballot, said communities wanted to come together for a "regional outlook."
"They wanted to work with one another and have a regional cooperation on quality-of-life issues," said Smaligo, a Republican.
As Vision2 is structured, Bates said, the seven largest municipalities in the county would be donors to the package based on their sales-tax strength.
For example, he said, the city of Tulsa is allocated $158 million for quality-of-life improvements in Vision2, but if it had its own 13-year tax, it would generate roughly $553 million.
Even adding in the $254 million in Vision2 for airport industrial park improvements, which would benefit tenants such as American Airlines, the city's share falls about $140 million short, Bates said.
Broken Arrow has a $44 million Vision2 share but could have at least double that with its own tax, he said. The same can be said for several other cities.
"Ultimately, it's the municipalities that pick up your trash, keep your streets paved and keep your house from burning down," Bates said. "County government has its role, but that's not what it does."
Smaligo said he initially favored pursing a package that dealt only with the airport improvements because of the American Airlines bankruptcy urgency and the desire by leaders to save jobs.
"But we heard from all of the municipalities, including the city of Tulsa and their representatives from City Council, and they said we wanted quality of life addressed in this if we're going to renew Vision 2025," he said.
Bates' suggestion of each city going on its own, Smaligo said, would leave many needs out in the cold.
"You're ignoring an investment into the infrastructure at our regional airport," he said.
"You're also ignoring a job-closing fund that all communities can use to recruit businesses to their communities."
The needs of the county, which has a $92 million share of Vision2, also would be left behind, Smaligo said.
The county projects that would be funded include a new juvenile justice center and improvements to the countywide park system, among others, he said.
Bates countered that the city could decide to fund airport industrial park improvements with its own tax. Also, the county has its own revenue sources to pursue its projects, he added.
The two sparred a bit over the deal-closing fund, which totals $53 million, but revenue projections have shown it could easily triple since it doesn't have a cap.
Bates said the city of Tulsa would be underrepresented on the authority that would dole out the money, with one vote out of seven.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121025_11_A8_CUTLIN121300
Quote from: nathanm on October 25, 2012, 04:27:52 PM
At least in V2, the plan was to issue bonds in the near future with payment beginning in 2017. I don't consider maintaining buildings and infrastructure we own to be irresponsible. If AA does end up leaving, we're not going to be able to get a new tenant in there if the place is run down.
Other than some of the TeePee hangars on the east side of the airport, I wouldn't consider any of the buildings on that side of the property as "run down". AA and Spirit have done a good job maintaining what is there and the city has spent quite a bit of money on improvements ever since McDonnell Douglas left in the 1990's. I used to do a fair amount of work as a contractor all over the Spirit campus for about 12 years so I have seen it first hand. Unless something drastic has changed in the last couple of years, there are no real upkeep issues at Spirit. I can't speak to the conditions at AA but I would suspect about the same. My boss has looked at projects there in the last year or two. I'll ask him his impressions tomorrow.
Quote
"Before money is spent out there on those facilities, I think we need to have a contract in place with a tenant, whether it's American Airlines or any other manufacturer, who would use those facilities," said County Commission Chairman John Smaligo, co-chairman of the Vision2 campaign.
That's what everyone else said but that is NOT what is on the ballot.
Quote
Smaligo said that if voters approve the economic development half of the Vision2 package and local officials can't reach an agreement with a tenant at the maintenance base, the tax would still go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121026_16_A1_CUTLIN370458
P.S. Also funny seeing power plays and control issues before the tax even passes
Quote
"Before money is spent out there on those facilities, I think we need to have a contract in place with a tenant, whether it's American Airlines or any other manufacturer, who would use those facilities," said County Commission Chairman John Smaligo, co-chairman of the Vision2 campaign.
The three elected officials constitute the Tulsa County Industrial Authority, which is the most likely conduit for selling bonds and contracting with work at the airport industrial complex...
Later, in the same article:
QuoteBecause the city owns the maintenance facility, Bartlett said he would anticipate that the Tulsa mayor would lead negotiations with the airlines...
Per TW FB post:
QuoteTulsa County commissioners say no Vision2 money will be spent at a city-owned air maintenance base until officials have an enforceable commitment covering jobs, payroll and longevity at the facility.
I'm sure they promise...
Probably should've outlined that in the V2 proposal.
Right now it's the "check in the mail" thing.
QuoteBut, hypothetically, if some element of the package can't be brought to an acceptable status for the commissioners to approve, they can take steps to end the tax early so that it isn't collected for projects that won't happen.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121026_16_A1_CUTLIN370458#
("Trust us")
They "can" take steps to end the tax early... BUT
I wonder if their enforceable agreement will be like Illinois' enforceable agreement with Navistar, which allowed them to lay off 500 people and still keep their subsidies.
What's inside part one of Vision2 for Tulsa County voters on the November ballot?
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Whats-inside-part-one-of-Vision2-for-Tulsa-County-voters-on-the-November-ballot (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/Whats-inside-part-one-of-Vision2-for-Tulsa-County-voters-on-the-November-ballot)
QuoteTULSA - When you ask Tulsa county voters about Vision2, many of them don't have an opinion.
So in these final days before the election, those for and against Vision2 are working hard to sway voters.
"It's too soon, it's too rushed, it's too much, it's sloppy and it's vague," said Ronda Vuillemont-Smith with Citizens for a Better Vision.
"For those who are opposed I say what is your plan, what is your idea, what is your option," asked Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett.
On the ballot, voters will see Vision2 split into two different questions, starting with proposition one, which would pay for improvements to city owned buildings at the Tulsa Airport.
Prop one would generate nearly $390 million, most of it going toward renovating and upgrading the airport buildings which are home to American Airlines, and other aerospace companies.
It's a move the mayor says is vital, to keep those companies and all the jobs they create in Tulsa.
"If you could imagine 25,000 jobs suddenly leaving or over a period of time leaving, what would that do to our city," asked Bartlett. "It wouldn't be good."
Bartlett says the airport buildings are old and outdated, leaving the city at risk of losing jobs to more modern facilities elsewhere.
Opponents say even if the city upgrades the buildings, there's no guarantee the companies will stay.
"You see once again it's emotional blackmail because they tell us if we don't do this that thousands of jobs are going to be lost," said Vuillemont-Smith.
But with American Airlines already laying off workers here, Bartlett believes the possibility of losing more jobs is all too real and asks voters to keep those workers in mind.
"We have an opportunity to ensure that that person is going to have a paycheck for the future," said Bartlett.
Even though American and the other companies essentially rent the buildings from the city and the Tulsa Airport Authority, Citizens for a Better Vision believe that taxpayers should not pay to fix them.
"We're spending our money so they don't have to spend theirs, so in that sense, yes it is a bailout," said Vuillemont-Smith.
Voters will decide whose vision they agree with on November 6.
Something tells me the mayor wouldn't take much of a look at someone else's other plan, idea, or option.
Vision2 opposers have plans for after the electionhttp://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Vision2-opposers-have-plans-for-after-the-election/1vrCAYTLnUO74JalmJ1YXA.cspx (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Vision2-opposers-have-plans-for-after-the-election/1vrCAYTLnUO74JalmJ1YXA.cspx)
QuoteA forum downtown at the Central Library was held Saturday afternoon to educate Tulsa County voters about Vision2 and those who oppose it are coming up with their own ideas if Vision2 fails to pass the November 6th election.
"It's letting us catch up with projects in our plans that have not been funded," said co-chair for Vision2 at the forum, Don Walker. "This gives every city in the county to give us their most important needs and letting us complete them."
Voters against the Vision2 like Michael Bates, a local blogger, is proposing his own ideas and educating others at the forum about why Vision2 is not right for the county.
"There are better ways to do it," said Bates. "I proposed one way, which involves each city passing a tax to replace Vision 2025 when it expires. But that's a discussion to be had in an orderly and calm fashion not the hasty way this thing has been thrown together."
Vision2 is an extension on the Vision 2025 0.6 percent sales tax to give Tulsa counties a total of $748.8 million. The extension would start when the current tax expired on January 1, 2017 and it would last through December 31, 2029. The money would go to economic development and quality-of-life improvements.
Tulsa city gets $158 million and those who oppose it say without the overall tax increase Tulsa could already raise $558 million. They also say by passing Vision2 the county can veto City of Tulsa projects, and if Vision2 fails to pass the City of Tulsa voters would have full control over projects.
"Instead of having $158 million to spend if the City of Tulsa replaced vision 2025 with its own tax, we would have $558 million to spend on various projects and could also be used to help operate the projects we have," said Bates.
You can vote on Vision2 at the November 6th election.
My only fear about voting no is that if it fails I'm afraid the powers that be will refuse to go back to the drawing board and if the tax lapses it becomes infinitely harder to reenact a tax as opposed to letting an existing tax continue.
Quote from: DowntownDan on October 29, 2012, 12:33:20 PM
My only fear about voting no is that if it fails I'm afraid the powers that be will refuse to go back to the drawing board and if the tax lapses it becomes infinitely harder to reenact a tax as opposed to letting an existing tax continue.
I doubt the businesses receiving funds (developers, construction companies, etc.) from taxes like this will allow that.
Like Townsend said, nothing to worry about there.
KTUL "Pulse Poll"
http://www.ktul.com/ (http://www.ktul.com/)
Do you support Vision 2?
Yes, I support all of Vision 2.
18%
I support Prop 1 (airport industrial improvements and economic development), but not Prop 2 (quality of life improvements).
5%
I support Prop 2 (quality of life improvements), but not Prop 1 (airport industrial improvements and economic development).
9%
No, I do not support Prop 1 or Prop 2.
68%
Quote from: Townsend on October 29, 2012, 01:56:20 PM
KTUL "Pulse Poll"
http://www.ktul.com/ (http://www.ktul.com/)
Do you support Vision 2?
Yes, I support all of Vision 2.
18%
I support Prop 1 (airport industrial improvements and economic development), but not Prop 2 (quality of life improvements).
5%
I support Prop 2 (quality of life improvements), but not Prop 1 (airport industrial improvements and economic development).
9%
No, I do not support Prop 1 or Prop 2.
68%
I voted. I even put up a yard sign.
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 29, 2012, 01:45:16 PM
Like Townsend said, nothing to worry about there.
Then I will likely vote no. Put some more thought into it and show us concrete plans to improve quality of life in this town. I could not care less what the suburbs want and I never understood why they are part of this package. They can enact their own taxes and use them for their own development plans.
Quote from: DowntownDan on October 29, 2012, 02:55:03 PM
Then I will likely vote no. Put some more thought into it and show us concrete plans to improve quality of life in this town. I could not care less what the suburbs want and I never understood why they are part of this package. They can enact their own taxes and use them for their own development plans.
You might like the proposed V2029 then.
Quote from: DowntownDan on October 29, 2012, 12:33:20 PM
My only fear about voting no is that if it fails I'm afraid the powers that be will refuse to go back to the drawing board
The downtown arena was voted down twice, before developers came up with a better plan, if I recall.
Unless I missed it, I haven't seen any Tulsa World articles on any recent opinion polls for V2. The silence is very telling.
Quote from: patric on October 29, 2012, 03:07:11 PM
The downtown arena was voted down twice, before developers came up with a better plan, if I recall.
The arena was never really the sticking point with those two votes, it was the crazy stuff included (soccer stadium, natatorium) that was deemed unnecessary at the time. Mayor Savage really screwed that one up.
Quote from: DTowner on October 29, 2012, 03:58:47 PM
Unless I missed it, I haven't seen any Tulsa World articles on any recent opinion polls for V2. The silence is very telling.
There was a huge spread Sunday about all the city and county people that supported it as well as some new commercials on TV showing 'average people', parks, and businesses supporting it.
I still think there is not enough oversight and way, way too much money dependant on 'hopefully' getting matching federal funds. It appears to me that someone could end up with a couple hundred million to do what they want to with if every single bit of matching funds and proposed development doesn't occur.
I'm out on this one. Just like I was on the first couple renditions of V1.
Wasn't there a version of V1 that had like 6 or 7 small arena's being built across Tulsa?
The Vision2 "pulse poll" on KTUL is nowhere to be found. I'm guessing the results were not what someone was looking for or I'm tinfoil-hatting it.
I've messaged them asking for the final numbers.
So with Fair Meadows stopping live horse races will there be a need for the track anymore?
Either way, how much of the Vision2 county money is supposed to go toward this property?
Edit:
Quote$12 million - Expo Square
Expo Square President and CEO Mark Andrus keeps a list of projects that need to be completed at the fairgrounds, so he knows exactly how the fairgrounds would use its $12 million in Vision2 funding.
The list, for now, includes 10 projects, beginning with $500,000 in fencing along 15th Street to contain loose animals.
The other projects are a storage facility ($1.5 million); a covered arena for equestrian exercise and equipment and dirt storage ($1.5 million); a security camera system ($2 million); expansion, upgrade and maintenance of barns ($4 million); redesign and rehabilitation of QuikTrip Center entrance parking area ($1 million); a wireless point-of-sale system ($350,000); Central Park Hall interior upgrades ($300,000); new Central Park Hall and Ford Truck Arena seating ($750,000); and construction of lobbies at the east, west and north sides of the QuikTrip Center ($1.5 million).
So nothing for Fair Meadows.
Weekend downtown trolley service to begin tonight (free even!):
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/old-urban-trolley-links-tulsas-entertainment-districts
What Tulsans Need to Know About Vision2 Before the Big Vote
Per State Impact:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/tag/vision2/ (http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/tag/vision2/)
Quote
The MAPS programs have been credited as providing the framework for a lot of the growth in OKC, which boasts the lowest unemployment of any major city in the United States.
Please, keep up the prognosticating. Let's pretend the low unemployment rate in OKC has nothing to do with the fact that they have tens of thousands of federal jobs propping them up.
Quote
The fact that the bulk of the Proposition 1 money would go to modenizing facilities occupied by bankrupt American Airlines has angered many, including prominent Tulsa blogger and political activist Michael Bates, who writes:
We're being asked to borrow $214 million now in hopes of keeping a company that is bankrupt, that may not emerge from bankruptcy, that has already cut over 1,000 positions in Tulsa and is likely to cut more, that may go out out of business before we begin generating the tax revenue to pay back the loans.
Yo, Bates, you can check out their financials every month. Which, oddly, are better than any of their peers. The chance of AA just up and going out of business in the next couple of years is about zero. Last I looked they had around $5 billion in cash on hand. They took no DIP financing as part of their bankruptcy because they were smart enough to declare before the situation became dire. If you want to be against this, great, I'm with you. You don't have to make smile up to justify your position. It's fine to just say you don't want to give them a handout.
I would, however, like it if you wouldn't be against fixing the building, parking, and ramp areas. We are responsible for that, being the landlord. It's one thing to say no to buying them equipment. It's another thing entirely to demonstrate that we can't be trusted to keep our facilities in good repair. I wouldn't blame them in the least for refusing to invest here if we won't.
“Quality of life” seems to this poster is extending the present taxes derived for the aged and working poor to benefit the money people which seems to be our way of governing. We continue to even arrange to tax our unborn much less the progressive taxation of those that are not even old enough to vote.
We are the world’s greatest debtor as we change from a free nation to one we consider “the powers to be” which determine what is good our future generations.
The Mayan could have foreseen our future as to the exportation of our times.
Quote from: shadows on November 02, 2012, 03:40:05 PM
"Quality of life" seems to this poster is extending the present taxes derived for the aged and working poor to benefit the money people which seems to be our way of governing. We continue to even arrange to tax our unborn much less the progressive taxation of those that are not even old enough to vote.
We are the world's greatest debtor as we change from a free nation to one we consider "the powers to be" which determine what is good our future generations.
The Mayan could have foreseen our future as to the exportation of our times.
Thank you for your contribution.
The forgoing posters in the explanation of the distribution of the fair board leaves in doubt the case law on one subject, one vote. If such propositions pass there will be room to challenge the conglobation of issues (without defining actual limited expenditures) whereas it becomes a mortgage on the citizen homestead in a very, very precarious economy. Many that have money gains by such are recognized by their robbing those of the retirement age, who's days as productive citizens has passed, they continuously are being flaunted by the aged-ole promise " give us retirement resources and we will give you a better-quality-poverty". Then they will sell your home in foreclosure by those who have promised you a better-quality-of-life.
There is a better way than robbing the poor to give their resources to promoters. Robinhood or Doohinbor??
I couldn't find this posted anywhere (from yesterday's TulsaWorld):
Vision2 has mixed support in Oklahoma Poll
By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 11/4/2012 1:51 AM
Last Modified: 11/4/2012 7:23 AM
Vision2's quality-of-life Proposition 2 appears to be headed to victory in Tuesday's election, while the fate of Proposition 1 with its airport industrial complex upgrades and deal-closing fund is uncertain, a new Tulsa World poll shows.
An Oklahoma Poll of 440 likely voters, conducted Oct. 25 to Nov. 1, indicates Proposition 2 will pass with 58 percent support, compared with 31 percent against and 11 percent undecided.
Proposition 1 has 45 percent support, with 38 percent against and 17 percent undecided. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.67 percentage points.
SoonerPoll.com's Bill Shapard said it's almost impossible to determine how undecided voters will break on issue propositions rather than living-and-breathing candidates.
Read the rest here: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121104_11_A1_Vision630674
Real Margin of Error: 11.47%
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2012/11/vision2-polls-real-margin-of-err.html
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 05, 2012, 12:42:25 PM
Real Margin of Error: 11.47%
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2012/11/vision2-polls-real-margin-of-err.html
I'm confused though how whether or not a respondent has a cell phone, a land line, or both or is male or female changes the margin of error. I don't see the manner of communication adding doubt on how someone will vote on an issue.
Anyone care to break out the crayons and explain this to me?
I wouldn't suggest listening to Bates on technical aspects of polling. I can't explain it personally, not being a statistics whiz, but the description of the methodology sounds very much like the standard methodology used by most well regarded polling outfits. Then he goes on to parrot the polling conspiracy that's been making the rounds in the right wing blogosphere, and I suddenly have a very hard time believing anything he says on the subject.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2012, 02:28:18 PM
I'm confused though how whether or not a respondent has a cell phone, a land line, or both or is male or female changes the margin of error. I don't see the manner of communication adding doubt on how someone will vote on an issue.
Anyone care to break out the crayons and explain this to me?
It's sampling groups. How many people you poll based on how many people in the group (up to a certain amount)
If you ask 440 people in Tulsa County at Random, the margin of error is 4.7%
If those 440 people are picked based on 6 different socio/ethnic groups, then it's actually 6 different polls. each with their own margin of error. Since they only polled roughly 73 people, the margin of error goes up. Doesn't matter what the category, if you only polled 73 white people in Tulsa County, that's such a small sampling it's almost not even usable. What Tulsa World is took the results of 6 groups and then doctors the numbers to give members of different groups different weights to try to make it "more accurate." However, theoretically if they only got a response from one woman without a cell phone, then that woman speaks for every woman without a cell phone.
You also have to think about the fact that this is a polling of people who have a phone and answered a call from a strange number as well.
Unless SoonerPoll is different from basically everyone else, which is not what they claim on their methodology page, they just call numbers until they get 440 responses (which ought to be around 4400 calls if the response rate in Oklahoma is close to what it is nationally), regardless of whether they end up being interviews with women, men, cell phone-only households, landline households, whatever. The demographic weighting to known census data comes afterwards.
Maybe Bates is right and the Sooner Poll folks should be run out of the state on rails for their shoddy work, but he's provided absolutely no evidence of that or in support of his bizarre claims about their methodology.
KUDOS TNF! $11,000 dollars raised by the "no" campaign versus $600,000 raised by TC and it's network of out of touch politicos.
Mike Neal on defeat was mad mad mad. He said they have no plan B. Planners?
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 07, 2012, 12:30:44 AM
KUDOS TNF! $11,000 dollars raised by the "no" campaign versus $600,000 raised by TC and it's network of out of touch politicos.
Mike Neal on defeat was mad mad mad. He said they have no plan B. Planners?
He has a Plan B, that is what he put up for for a vote. We're working on Plan A.
Mike Neal can get over himself.
I hope the V2 planners are at least skimming our thread on this. Here's why they failed and what they need to do:
-Tulsans aren't going to fall for another slush fund style tax package which, just like the failed river tax in '07, had no clear definition and was simply a grab bag of ideas of where they could spend several hundred million dollars.
-Quit treating average citizens as a bunch of morons whose opinion and suggestions don't matter as much as those who are wealthy, well-connected, or in power.
-There was a huge flaw in the package in attempting to throw money at AA hoping they will stay in Tulsa. Blake Ewing made a really good point in his blog that tenants at the airport complex get sweetheart rent deals and it's up to the tenant to keep the properties in good repair. If tenants are not keeping up the property like they should in their lease agreement and are cutting jobs as a normal course of business, why reward such behavior? Blake Ewing did a great job of outlining this:
QuoteOur facilities at the airport are in disrepair. They're outdated and in need of some major overhauls. I don't question that at all and am an advocate for taking some very real steps to improve our facilities. With the unknown situation at American Airlines, I think it's much more appropriate that we wait to see what happens. There is simply no good reason why we're voting on this now except that the people who put it together wanted to capitalize on the community concern for job loss and the timing of the presidential election, with the emphasis being on the latter. They stated repeatedly in the two meetings I was in that the consultant said the best chance of passing something like this is in a large election. The reason being, a well-funded campaign over a short period of time can beat unfunded and disorganized opposition if you can pound the lightly informed masses with media in the weeks leading up to the vote. We rushed this whole thing so it could be on the November ballot. Nobody at the airport was pressing for this timeframe. That came straight from The Chamber. We're talking about locking in a tax for airport improvements, primarily for a company who has a very uncertain future. I'm not worried about them coming out of bankruptcy. I'm sure they will. I'm worried that we have no idea what their future looks like, but we're talking about investing a quarter of a billion dollars out there just in case. It should wait until we can have an educated conversation with some mutual commitments and joint goals. I don't like it being done this way....it's a big limb to go out on.
People keep saying that those are our buildings out there and that we've failed to maintain them. I want something to be really clear. Our leases with those companies are very light...What I mean is, they either pay almost nothing or very little. In exchange for that sweetheart deal, they are responsible for maintaining the facilities. Moving forward, I'd like to see us employ a strategy that facilitates better maintenance of those properties and holds tenants to some standards. I'm okay with the low rent rate in exchange for maintenance, as long as that's the deal we all honor.
Regardless, these are things that should be worked out after the bankruptcy and with plenty of time to structure the right proposal...not like this...in the dark and in a hurry and with 99% of Tulsans asked to just take The Chamber's word for it.
Spirit and Navistar didn't even ask for the upgrades. The Chamber asked them to make a list of their needs so that we weren't just putting American Airlines improvements on a list. While there are some needs at those two plants, they were not considered to be pressing. With all of the things in our community that we could be doing to promote and encourage job growth, investing in facilities for employers who weren't even asking for it to provide PR cover seems...
http://blakeewing.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/vision/
-We are truly blessed with some great philanthropists in this city and some great visionaries, but ratchet down the ego enough to see that there are also others who have equally great, if not better, visions for the future of Tulsa and Tulsa County. Listen to your citizens, not your high-priced out of state consultants.
-Revisit the issue within a year of V-2025 coming to an end and have a very clear and concise project list assembled, not something which resembles an agenda hastily written on the back of a cocktail napkin over a happy hour.
-Take the time to get input into what really matters in terms of improvements to all the citizens of Tulsa County and act on it, don't ignore it. That can be done via a series of town hall meetings in each community. I'd envision something like the PlaniTulsa process.
-Our leaders apparently still don't get why V-2025 passed. There was something for every demographic in every community and it appeared to be much more carefully laid out.
Nicely put C
I think we need to move more quickly on V2029 than 2017 or whenever the existing tax expires. I understand why the V2 folks are disappointed; the failure to pass it makes us look like cheapskate anti-taxers. If we're at least talking about V2029 and how it should be passed "soon," that image may not stick.
Quote from: nathanm on November 07, 2012, 01:10:57 PM
I think we need to move more quickly on V2029 than 2017 or whenever the existing tax expires. I understand why the V2 folks are disappointed; the failure to pass it makes us look like cheapskate anti-taxers. If we're at least talking about V2029 and how it should be passed "soon," that image may not stick.
Why the rush if you can't enjoin the funds until 2017? Seems irresponsible to me, especially if other more urgent needs were to arise between now and then. As far as cheapskate anti-taxers, I heard very little in the opposition which was anti-tax at any cost. It was the lack of sensibility in the measure at this point as well as the hurried grab bag of ideas on where to spend the money. It was almost the mentality of a new lottery winner: "What should I blow my windfall on first?"
I don't believe OKC has jumped that far ahead on subsequent MAPS projects.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 01:48:00 PM
Why the rush if you can't enjoin the funds until 2017? Seems irresponsible to me, especially if other more urgent needs were to arise between now and then. As far as cheapskate anti-taxers, I heard very little in the opposition which was anti-tax at any cost. It was the lack of sensibility in the measure at this point as well as the hurried grab bag of ideas on where to spend the money. It was almost the mentality of a new lottery winner: "What should I blow my windfall on first?"
I don't believe OKC has jumped that far ahead on subsequent MAPS projects.
I don't know if he meant it needed to be voted on right away. Why not start on it now? Get some good input and work through the issues over the next few years. It takes a long time to really look at what could help our city.
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
I don't know if he meant it needed to be voted on right away. Why not start on it now? Get some good input and work through the issues over the next few years. It takes a long time to really look at what could help our city.
Precisely. It needs to be talked about and made very clear that the necessary money will indeed be spent, but the vote doesn't have to be next election or anything. (I would like it before 2017, though)
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2012, 01:56:54 PM
I don't know if he meant it needed to be voted on right away. Why not start on it now? Get some good input and work through the issues over the next few years. It takes a long time to really look at what could help our city.
I agree the best time to start discussion is now. Everyone start working on your lists. Should we start a thread and limit it strictly to ideas/needs/wants for the next package and a second thread for comments on it?
Quote from: nathanm on November 07, 2012, 01:58:37 PM
Precisely. It needs to be talked about and made very clear that the necessary money will indeed be spent, but the vote doesn't have to be next election or anything. (I would like it before 2017, though)
Thanks for the clarification. 2016 seems an appropriate time to vote on it.
I would like a Vision2 plan that ends the tax for 2025 as soon as everything is paid off and starts a new voter directed plan. I don't like the idea of a slush fund of a hundred million or so of leftover 2025 funds going to stupid projects like The Gilcrease Expressway and a shiny new parking lot on the site of Drillers Stadium and Fair Meadows.
Quote from: swake on November 07, 2012, 02:00:18 PM
I would like a Vision2 plan that ends the tax for 2025 as soon as everything is paid off and starts a new voter directed plan. I don't like the idea of a slush fund of a hundred million or so of leftover 2025 funds going to stupid projects like The Gilcrease Expressway and a shiny new parking lot on the site of Drillers Stadium and Fair Meadows.
That would be great, but wouldn't it have to be a countywide vote in that case?
Good point
I also think the total size of the plan needs to be reduced and focused on a few (6-8) highly desirable ideas so that we can shorten the time to less than 10 years (ideally closer to 5-7). Locking ourselves into 15-17 year plans gives us little wiggle room as conditions and priorities change. It was necessary with V2025 because of where we were as a city at that time, but we can be a lot more selective now.
I would also like the next plan to be Tulsa only so we don't need to fill it up with a grab bag of projects scattered all over to induce/bribe non-Tulsans to support it.
Quote from: DTowner on November 07, 2012, 02:55:32 PM
I also think the total size of the plan needs to be reduced and focused on a few (6-8) highly desirable ideas so that we can shorten the time to less than 10 years (ideally closer to 5-7). Locking ourselves into 15-17 year plans gives us little wiggle room as conditions and priorities change. It was necessary with V2025 because of where we were as a city at that time, but we can be a lot more selective now.
I would also like the next plan to be Tulsa only so we don't need to fill it up with a grab bag of projects scattered all over to induce/bribe non-Tulsans to support it.
The shorter time-frame is a little more like MAPS, isn't it?
When do we get a trolley? I wantdemand a pony.
Was this the Mayors attempt to leave his mark, on Tulsa, while in office (other than the whole police/fire union thing)?
Quote from: nathanm on November 07, 2012, 05:05:29 PM
When do we get a trolley? I wantdemand a pony.
Ponies for ALL!!!! I want to walk around shouting "I got my Dewey Pony". (Doesn't have the same ring as Obama phone)
I want a shorter term plan focused solely on the City of Tulsa and that expressly states what the money will be used for (let the suburbs pass their own plans). For example,
X amount for low water dams at this and this location
X amount for funding the Oklahoma Pop Culture Museum
X amount for improvements at the Tulsa Zoo
X amount for financial assistance at the Gathering Place park
X amount for renovating the Central Library
X amount for the Childrens Museum
X amount for financial assistance for OU, OSU, and TU projects (med schools, etc)
X amount to be set up as a grant fund to assist in urban housing projects
etc....
That is really what I care about. I'm not inclined to provide American Airlines with more corporate welfare under threat of layoffs, especially considering layoffs are happening anyways. But I can be convinced otherwise if the funding is very explicit and the argument very compelling.
Quote from: DowntownDan on November 08, 2012, 10:13:09 AM
I want a shorter term plan focused solely on the City of Tulsa and that expressly states what the money will be used for (let the suburbs pass their own plans). For example,
X amount for low water dams at this and this location
X amount for funding the Oklahoma Pop Culture Museum
X amount for improvements at the Tulsa Zoo
X amount for financial assistance at the Gathering Place park
X amount for renovating the Central Library
X amount for the Childrens Museum
X amount for financial assistance for OU, OSU, and TU projects (med schools, etc)
X amount to be set up as a grant fund to assist in urban housing projects
etc....
That is really what I care about. I'm not inclined to provide American Airlines with more corporate welfare under threat of layoffs, especially considering layoffs are happening anyways. But I can be convinced otherwise if the funding is very explicit and the argument very compelling.
Tulsa Now's proposal for "Vision 2029" for City of Tulsa only using City of Tulsa's share of V2025 funds.
https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/ (https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/)
QuoteThis is only an example, but we think this is a great way to show how you can do much better than Vision2. Do you want a safer, cleaner, more sustainable city? Then vote NO on Vision2 and tell your City and County leaders you want a Vision for 2029, not a Vision for 2 years from now.
Proposition 1: Job Sustaining/Creation – Approximately $195 million
Local entrepreneurship fund – $36 million (Would help create locally owned companies that would add approximately 4,000 NEW jobs to the city)
Airport facility improvements – $95 million (The majority of the facility improvements requested would be covered, but no purchasing of equipment for work that may never be performed in Tulsa)
Infrastructure improvements for new job creators – $60 million (Water, sewer, roads, site cleanup. To be controlled by city council following a strict set of guidelines)
Implement sustainable return on investment process for Tulsa – $250,000 (Will evaluate both Vision2029 and future project spending for best potential return on investment)
Bond fees and interest – $4 million
Proposition 2: Quality of Life Projects – Approximately $231 million
Arkansas River - $71 million
Tulsa Zoo – $20 million
Tulsa Parks and Recreation - $14 million
Tulsa Children's Museum - $10 million
Tulsa City-County Library - $10 million
Tulsa Community College/Tulsa Fire Department - $7 million
Neighborhood/District Improvements - $9 million
OU and TU Medical School - $4.3 million
OSU-Tulsa - $4.3 million
Langston University - $4.3 million
OSU Medical Center - $2.1 million
Route 66 Village - $549,000
Brownfield Clean-ups - $471,000
Morton Comprehensive Health Services - $400,000
Oklahoma POP Museum – $10 million
National Route 66 Museum – $5 million
City Hall/PAC parking garage – $12 million
John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Center – $5 million
Plaza Santa Cecilia – $1 million (marketplace and town square for east Tulsa)
Red Fork Main Street Redevelopment – $500,000
New Transit Shelters and Automated Ticketing stations – $1 million
Two-way downtown one-way streets – $2 million
Public university student housing – $10 million
City of Tulsa Information technology modernization – $2 million
Downtown housing fund – $10 million
Bicycle and Pedestrian safety improvements – $5 million
National Art Deco Museum – $750,000
Bond payments and interest – $4.75 million
Proposition 3: Livability – $85 million (1 tenth of a cent)
Mass Transit Operations – $60 million (Paid as $5 million per year, this would make the bus system usable for students, commuters and tourists)
Public Safety – $20 million (Add at least 15 full time police and public safety officers to curb violent crime and make visitors feel safe in tourist areas)
Parks, mowing and greenspace maintenance – $5 million (Keep our City's public spaces from falling into ruin in the first place.)
More proof to take the damn suburbs out of the picture. Most of those people live there because they don't like downtown or development because they live in their own little world. If its just Tulsa, it will pass.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121108_11_A1_ULNSbC64235
Quote from: DowntownDan on November 08, 2012, 10:13:09 AM
I want a shorter term plan focused solely on the City of Tulsa and that expressly states what the money will be used for (let the suburbs pass their own plans). For example,
X amount for low water dams at this and this location
X amount for funding the Oklahoma Pop Culture Museum
X amount for improvements at the Tulsa Zoo
X amount for financial assistance at the Gathering Place park
X amount for renovating the Central Library
X amount for the Childrens Museum
X amount for financial assistance for OU, OSU, and TU projects (med schools, etc)
X amount to be set up as a grant fund to assist in urban housing projects
etc....
That is really what I care about. I'm not inclined to provide American Airlines with more corporate welfare under threat of layoffs, especially considering layoffs are happening anyways. But I can be convinced otherwise if the funding is very explicit and the argument very compelling.
I agree, I think it's time to break the county chain on the next one, mainly due to the growing infrastructure needs that the suburbs have, they should be free to address their own needs as they see fit and tax or not tax accordingly.
Quote from: DowntownDan on November 08, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
More proof to take the damn suburbs out of the picture. Most of those people live there because they don't like downtown or development because they live in their own little world. If its just Tulsa, it will pass.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121108_11_A1_ULNSbC64235
The mayor really needs to rethink how he answers things like this. He comes off as a ninny.
QuoteWith the defeat of Vision2 fresh on everyone's minds, Tulsa leaders say their focus needs to turn to next year's renewal of the city's Fix Our Streets program and save another Vision for another day.
"Hopefully this (Vision2) vote has made clear that there's a right way and a wrong way to approach these kinds of proposals," Council Chairman G.T. Bynum told the Tulsa World.
The Fix Our Streets continuation needs to be vetted thoroughly, with a lot of public input, he said. The lack of both were criticisms of Vision2.
"By the time this goes on the ballot, the ideal is that people will be sick of talking and hearing about it," Bynum said. "They will be ready to vote for it."
Fix Our Streets is made up of a variety of funding sources, including the third-penny sales tax, the city's share of the county's former 4-to-Fix sales tax, and general obligation bonds. It expires June 30, 2014.
City leaders are eyeing a possible election next fall for its extension.
But because the program includes the third penny, which was previously allocated toward other city capital needs, the next Fix Our Streets package is expected to be multidimensional, rather than focusing solely on transportation infrastructure.
Police cars, fire apparatus, park improvements, telecommunications equipment and many other city needs make up the $2.8 billion capital improvements plan from which the projects will be chosen.
"The No. 1 responsibility will be to continue the work on the streets," Bynum said. "Everything else will be in second place."
The first Fix Our Streets phase, approved by city voters in 2008, totaled $462 million to repair cracked and crumbling arterial and residential streets.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/a12vision110812.jpg)
The revenue sources were triggered at different times as they became available.
The second phase should include at least that amount of money for streets, Bynum said.
Projections of the combined revenue sources indicate that a five-year package would generate roughly $800 million.
Bynum and Councilor Blake Ewing had mixed feelings about the proposed $748.8 million Tulsa County Vision2 sales tax package that was defeated at the polls Tuesday.
Both were against Vision2's Proposition 1, which would have funded airport industrial park improvements and equipment and a deal-closing fund to lure new and expand existing area businesses.
But they supported Proposition 2, which would have funded quality-of-life projects across the county.
They said they could see some aspects of Vision2 finding their way into a broader Fix Our Streets extension.
Among them, Bynum said, would be the Zink Dam repairs and Tulsa Zoo and Central Library upgrades.
"I'm not saying anything absolutely should be in the final package," he emphasized.
Bynum said he's also open to the idea of addressing the critical needs at the airport industrial complex, "not to bring forward a deal-closing fund and not to go buying equipment that we hope somebody will need to use (referring to the Vision2 proposal), but just to fix up the city-owned buildings."
"That certainly needs to be part of the discussion. We don't want to be deadbeat landlords."
Ewing agreed, saying: "There were a lot of worthy things included in Vision2, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them brought back in the future."
But the councilors said they and obviously the public do not want to hear about a possible renewal of Vision for a long time.
The current Vision 2025 package doesn't expire until 2017.
"I would hope there won't be attempts to bring this up again," Bynum said.
"We need to wait three or four years until we get closer to its expiration.
"The city of Tulsa needs to focus on our own internal priorities."
For his part, Mayor Dewey Bartlett said he is still trying to determine how best to cope with the Vision2 loss.
The 25,000 jobs that depend on the businesses at the airport industrial complex are in jeopardy, he said, and the city's facilities there need a lot of work to make them competitive.
"Those facts are still very true and are not going away," he said.
Bartlett, who was co-chairman of the Vision2 campaign, said he would meet with Tulsa Metro Chamber officials and other leaders to determine the best way to move forward.
What role the Fix Our Streets renewal may or may not play in that effort or whether it would include anything from Vision2 is unknown, he said.
"I really don't have an opinion on that just yet," Bartlett said. "I don't know."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121108_11_A1_ULNSbC64235
Quote from: DowntownDan on November 08, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
More proof to take the damn suburbs out of the picture. Most of those people live there because they don't like downtown or development because they live in their own little world. If its just Tulsa, it will pass.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121108_11_A1_ULNSbC64235
Not 100% true, Dan. I am a burb person, but I appreciate downtown and what it has to offer. I don't live there because I have friends and family that live in Owasso. But I could not agree more on the aspect of making it a "city of Tulsa" initiative. Leave the burbs out of it. I know they want to pass it county wide because they don't want to cause people to purchase items outside of the city to save a few bucks on taxes. Especially when you have new large shopping complexes in BA, Bixby, Jenks and Owasso. And again, the burbs would like to have the ability to have their own tax initiatives rather than relying on the City forcing it upon them.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 08, 2012, 11:13:24 AM
And again, the burbs would like to have the ability to have their own tax initiatives rather than relying on the City forcing it upon them.
In this case it would've been the county forcing it upon them. Tulsa county wanted their stout share as well.
Where are we at on the first streets package right now? Is there a web site to see the project progress?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2012, 11:17:09 AM
Where are we at on the first streets package right now? Is there a web site to see the project progress?
http://www.fixourstreetslive.com/
Quote from: swake on November 08, 2012, 11:27:14 AM
http://www.fixourstreetslive.com/
I stopped after looking at 3 projects. I'm having a hard time telling whether something is behind or on schedule.
High Court told Dam Project Funding Illegalhttp://kwgs.com/post/high-court-told-dam-project-funding-illegal (http://kwgs.com/post/high-court-told-dam-project-funding-illegal)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court is weighing arguments on whether a $25 million state bond issue to fund improvements at the Zink Lake Dam in Tulsa would be unconstitutional.
A former chairman of the state bond oversight council told the high court Thursday that the funding should be blocked because the money would be a constitutionally prohibited gift to Tulsa from the state.
Attorneys for the state, the Tulsa River Parks Authority and the Tulsa Metro Chamber told justices that the project serves a state public purpose and funding should be allowed to go forward.
The Tulsa World reports that the bond oversight council asked the state Supreme Court to evaluate the funding plan before the bonds are let.
Funny how the many millions of dollars we give away every year in development incentives aren't gifts from the state, but a dam on public land in the middle of a river is. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2012, 11:08:33 AM
Funny how the many millions of dollars we give away every year in development incentives aren't gifts from the state, but a dam on public land in the middle of a river is. ::)
Might've been a bit more egg on faces if V2 had passed and this was suddenly unconstitutional.
We may need to make sure everything's okay with OKC before we try to vote on any other development plans here in Tulsa.
The dam is politics. They bundled an OKC and a Tulsa project together to get it passed, funded the OKC project, then want to throw it out. Complete BS.
And yet somehow the $70 million in state bond funds given to the OKC Native American Museum that sits idle, incomplete, underfunded, and wasting away was for the benefit of all Oklahoma.
In reality, it sounds like the the biggest legal danger to Tulsa's river funds is the change in description from what was passed to how the funds are now to be used. If we lose at the Okla. S.Ct., that will be why.
In the meantime, any Tulsa area legislator who votes for any bond money for any OKC project should be immediately tarred and feathered and then voted out of office.
Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2012, 11:08:33 AM
Funny how the many millions of dollars we give away every year in development incentives aren't gifts from the state, but a dam on public land in the middle of a river is. ::)
It's only that way because someone forgot to give that particular guy the weekend golf trip to Bella Vista he so richly deserves. When the proper "apologies" are made, the objections will melt away like an ice cube in the desert.
Does ice actually melt in the desert, or is it more like sublimation? :P
Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2012, 07:58:00 AM
Does ice actually melt in the desert, or is it more like sublimation? :P
Depends on the temperature. If there is liquid water present, there has been melting.
Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2012, 07:58:00 AM
Does ice actually melt in the desert, or is it more like sublimation? :P
Only real experience I have with that was in Death Valley. Poured out a cup of ice from a drink. Definitely melted. Kind of fast, too. Sand at 150 degrees holds quite a bit of heat...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2012, 08:53:58 PM
Only real experience I have with that was in Death Valley. Poured out a cup of ice from a drink. Definitely melted. Kind of fast, too. Sand at 150 degrees holds quite a bit of heat...
Ah data, I like that. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on October 29, 2012, 04:31:07 PM
The arena was never really the sticking point with those two votes, it was the crazy stuff included (soccer stadium, natatorium) that was deemed unnecessary at the time. Mayor Savage really screwed that one up.
The first one (1997 - Tulsa Project) included a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium as well as the natatorium. If we built the natatorium, Tulsans could have seen the likes of Michael Phelps competing here prior to the Olympics (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012).... The idea, or at least a part of it, was to imitate and compete with the success of cities like Indianapolis in attracting Olympic trials, collegiate championships, etc. that would breathe some economic life into downtown.
The second one (2000 - It's Tulsa Time) only included the arena and failed by a closer margin.
What Tulsa DID do in 1993 was expand Drillers+Stadium to a capacity of 10,963 in an effort to attract AAA baseball to town.
Using 20/20 hindsight, the expansion of Drillers Stadium was a bad idea while a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium could have been hosting dozens and dozens of sporting events on the east side of downtown every year in the past decade-plus... our best ideas for that part of downtown these days seems to involve building a handful of townhomes, converting an ugly powder blue mid-century auto dealership into "loft-style" apts, moving a church downtown from Brookside, and moving Tulsa Opera HQ into an old fire station...
Color me un-impressed.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on November 11, 2012, 11:10:10 AM
The first one (1997 - Tulsa Project) included a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium as well as the natatorium. If we built the natatorium, Tulsans could have seen the likes of Michael Phelps competing here prior to the Olympics (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012).... The idea, or at least a part of it, was to imitate and compete with the success of cities like Indianapolis in attracting Olympic trials, collegiate championships, etc. that would breathe some economic life into downtown.
The second one (2000 - It's Tulsa Time) only included the arena and failed by a closer margin.
What Tulsa DID do in 1993 was expand Drillers+Stadium to a capacity of 10,963 in an effort to attract AAA baseball to town.
Using 20/20 hindsight, the expansion of Drillers Stadium was a bad idea while a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium could have been hosting dozens and dozens of sporting events on the east side of downtown every year in the past decade-plus... our best ideas for that part of downtown these days seems to involve building a handful of townhomes, converting an ugly powder blue mid-century auto dealership into "loft-style" apts, moving a church downtown from Brookside, and moving Tulsa Opera HQ into an old fire station...
Color me un-impressed.
But having the natatorium and soccer stadium on the east side of downtown -- at that time in history -- would have been a difficult proposal, given that downtown at that time was essentially a ghost town.
Back then, citizens were right in defeating it. There wasn't the downtown infrastructure to support it.
I would support a reasonable soccer stadium proposal in the next round of projects.
Soccer is big money for many families. I am going to spend a couple thousand this year alone on my two kids playing competitive soccer. We will travel to Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Arkansas with dozens of other families and stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. There are hundreds of families in Tulsa doing the same thing.
Tulsa youth soccer dominates the region. We have numerous teams and many good coaches all making an nice extra income after school.
I think a professional soccer team would do very well here. My family would buy season tickets and I know many other families who would also purchase tickets.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2012, 12:52:42 PM
I would support a reasonable soccer stadium proposal in the next round of projects.
Soccer is big money for many families. I am going to spend a couple thousand this year alone on my two kids playing competitive soccer. We will travel to Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Arkansas with dozens of other families and stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. There are hundreds of families in Tulsa doing the same thing.
Tulsa youth soccer dominates the region. We have numerous teams and many good coaches all making an nice extra income after school.
I think a professional soccer team would do very well here. My family would buy season tickets and I know many other families who would also purchase tickets.
I wasn't living in Tulsa at the time, but remember thinking I probably would have voted against the Tulsa Project because it seemed like a hodge-podge of half baked ideas.
I wonder if that's why Vision2 was short on some of the "quality of life" specifics... bold ideas can and will be used against you...
A few Tulsa lawyers got together in the 70s because their kids were playing soccer, they tried to put together an exhibition game, then another, then finally a game at Skelly Stadium that drew over 11k which got the attention of league offices.....
I was hoping the 2003 exhibition game that drew 14k here was going to be enough to put a 22,500 seat soccer stadium into the Vision 2025 proposal.
The opportunity to get MLS was there for the taking, but the detractors here decided that "soccer-specific stadium" meant the only sport that could be played on the field was soccer... then I hoped against hope that part of the plans for downsizing Skelly Stadium would be to widen the sidelines to satisfy FIFA and MLS standards, but that didn't happen either...
I wonder what constitutes a "reasonable soccer stadium" proposal these days?
I would think a soccer stadium could be built to look nice, but not too fancy, for a reasonable price if we could get a soccer franchise in town. In my opinion, the best plan for it would be downtown, with a max of 20,000 permanent seats. Make it convertable for outdoor concerts and festivals. And I think it would be perfect for the City of Tulsa to sponsor a TPS football game of the week and have a high school football game played there every Friday night in the fall. That would maximize its usefulness. I think flexibility in construction would be key. It needs to be usable for more than just soccer but still needs to be nice looking while being cost-effective. Smart planning can accomplish this.
Event structures certainly do have value because they intermittently bring larger crowds to an area and hopefully some members of those crowds will visit local businesses before and after said event. If the structure is smartly designed it can have multiple uses beyond its primary function.
I'm not against another event center at all downtown...we've seen success from the stadiums recently built in downtown.
But since I am a proximate denizen of downtown what I really want to see is retail. There are enough like me (and more coming) to support urban retail that includes a mix of local shops and national chains as well as regional draws.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on November 11, 2012, 11:10:10 AM
The first one (1997 - Tulsa Project) included a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium as well as the natatorium. If we built the natatorium, Tulsans could have seen the likes of Michael Phelps competing here prior to the Olympics (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012).... The idea, or at least a part of it, was to imitate and compete with the success of cities like Indianapolis in attracting Olympic trials, collegiate championships, etc. that would breathe some economic life into downtown.
The second one (2000 - It's Tulsa Time) only included the arena and failed by a closer margin.
What Tulsa DID do in 1993 was expand Drillers+Stadium to a capacity of 10,963 in an effort to attract AAA baseball to town.
Using 20/20 hindsight, the expansion of Drillers Stadium was a bad idea while a 5,000 seat soccer/track & field stadium could have been hosting dozens and dozens of sporting events on the east side of downtown every year in the past decade-plus... our best ideas for that part of downtown these days seems to involve building a handful of townhomes, converting an ugly powder blue mid-century auto dealership into "loft-style" apts, moving a church downtown from Brookside, and moving Tulsa Opera HQ into an old fire station...
Color me un-impressed.
Did the city or county put the money into the Driller's expansion, Ruf? I didn't even remember they had done this until you mentioned it.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 12, 2012, 09:56:22 AM
Did the city or county put the money into the Driller's expansion, Ruf? I didn't even remember they had done this until you mentioned it.
I remember them doing that right after I moved back from Texas. Like you I don't remember how it was done...I might try and do a Tulsa World archive search to see what it turns up.
Reading the articles, it appears that no public monies were used in upgrading Driller Stadium. That doesn't make it untrue...I just haven't found it yet. I'm back to 1991 right now.
Perhaps a stadium just north of downtown, and the ballpark, on the OSU Tulsa campus. There is a vacant field there where I already see people playing soccer on occasion. Could perhaps be shared with a local team and OSU Tulsa and or NSU Tulsa, and even TCC as well, heck, even some of the downtown churches. Could have a lot more potential users and usage there while also not taking up any space within the downtown loop, but for all intents and purposes still be "downtown" and within easy walking distance of Greenwood and the Blue Dome districts etc.
Quote from: TheArtist on November 12, 2012, 03:41:30 PM
Perhaps a stadium just north of downtown, and the ballpark, on the OSU Tulsa campus. There is a vacant field there where I already see people playing soccer on occasion. Could perhaps be shared with a local team and OSU Tulsa and or NSU Tulsa, and even TCC as well, heck, even some of the downtown churches. Could have a lot more potential users and usage there while also not taking up any space within the downtown loop, but for all intents and purposes still be "downtown" and within easy walking distance of Greenwood and the Blue Dome districts etc.
I'm not sure what site you're suggesting, but if it's the Evans fintube site, that is not at all within "easy walking distance" of Blue Dome or Brady. You'd have to walk across most of the OSU-Tulsa campus just to get to the closest place to eat (Fat Guys?). I don't know what use OSU-Tulsa, NSU-Tulsa or TCC would have for the playing field inside any proposed stadium since none of those schools have collegiate sports programs, let alone soccer... and since both Major League Soccer and the North American Soccer League have seasons that start in late spring and don't end until late fall, any "shared parking" with a commuter school like OSU-Tulsa could prove problematic. There may be some perfectly good reasons to build a stadium north of downtown, but, IMO, "urban walkability" isn't one of them.
Unless members of the Kaiser or Rooney families have something in the works that nobody in Tulsa or in MLS offices have told us about, Tulsa has ZERO chance at getting a Major League Soccer team at this time or in the foreseeable future. Twenty years ago, Francis Rooney, Steve Turnbo and Charlie Mitchell were organizers for Tulsa's effort when we were a finalist for a league-owned MLS team. Ten years ago, MLS was in a much weaker position and Tulsa had a powerful advocate in Lamar Hunt and we nearly got the Kansas City team to relocate here. Mayor LaFortune and company were pursued in the spring/summer of 2002 by MLS, not the other way around. The more years that pass, the more the old Tulsa Roughnecks become a distant memory...
MLS certainly no longer needs and probably has no desire for a team in Tulsa anymore.
If somebody's serious about eventually getting a team, I would humbly suggest using an existing venue (the old ballpark, the new ballpark, Chapman Stadium). The league one level below MLS really wants to have a team here. http://nasl.com They have a retro marketing league brand (see my avatar) with some teams using their old nicknames from the 70s/80s-- so a Tulsa Roughnecks team would fit in well with the Tampa Bay Rowdies, Ft. Lauderdale Strikers, and the newly rebranded New York Cosmos... former teams in the league have moved up to MLS (Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps).
My opinion for a
"reasonable soccer stadium proposal in the next round of projects" would work something like this:
1. Local ownership buys an NASL franchise for Spring 2014.
2. The team plays at the old ballpark, the new ballpark, Chapman Stadium or some combination of venues.
3. With a front office in place and impressive fan support (for this league, it'd be somewhere between 5k and 8k per game), the franchise lobbies for a multi-use stadium that could involve relatively cheap renovations to the old Drillers Stadium, a mostly new or updated stadium to replace the dilapidated stands/surface parking at the horsetrack, or a more ambitious mixed-use development (west bank?) depending on what is most financially reasonable, desirable, and politically feasible.
4. Partner with other organizations, whether that is another local like the semi-pro football team, the rugby club, youth soccer, TPS or even the Tulsa Children's Museum to come up with something that appeals to a broader base of the public...
5. Offer a flexible project in phases, so that if 10-15 years from now, Tulsa actually has a chance at MLS, the stadium is expandable.
Quote from: DowntownDan on November 12, 2012, 09:29:07 AM
I would think a soccer stadium could be built to look nice, but not too fancy, for a reasonable price if we could get a soccer franchise in town. In my opinion, the best plan for it would be downtown, with a max of 20,000 permanent seats. Make it convertable for outdoor concerts and festivals. And I think it would be perfect for the City of Tulsa to sponsor a TPS football game of the week and have a high school football game played there every Friday night in the fall. That would maximize its usefulness. I think flexibility in construction would be key. It needs to be usable for more than just soccer but still needs to be nice looking while being cost-effective. Smart planning can accomplish this.
I agree with most of that... but how many sites still exist downtown?
I've regarded the "east end" as more of a potential extension of "entertainment district" than urban neighborhood.
Which is why the superblock just north of Home Depot made more sense to me for a stadium location, especially as a bookend opposite the ballpark with the Blue Dome district in-between.
Last I heard, All Souls hadn't yet started their building fund which means it'd be at least 3 years before we have another church to add to the downtown collection. ;D
Indianapolis Business Journal Features the Movement to Bring Pro Soccer to Indianapolishttp://brickyardbattalion.com/2012/11/17/indianapolis-business-journal-features-the-movement-to-bring-pro-soccer-to-indianapolis/
QuoteIf the effort is successful, the Indianapolis team would be the 12th in the North American Soccer League, Wilt said. The group's plan calls for playing in an existing facility for the first few years, then building an 8,000- to 10,000-seat soccer-specific venue, possibly downtown.
The temporary venues under consideration include Lucas Oil Stadium, Michael A. Carroll Track & Soccer Stadium at IUPUI, Kuntz Memorial Stadium on West 16th Street, Butler Bowl, and Grant Park in Westfield.
Season tickets for 15 home games would be in the $100 to $350 range, while single-game tickets would likely be between $10 and $28, Wilt said. The NASL season runs from March to November.
Eventually, the group would like its venue expandable to 20,000 seats and would seek a franchise in Major League Soccer, Wilt said.
"Having an MLS team in Indianapolis is not beyond reason," said Wilt, a Milwaukee resident. "There's an appetite for soccer in Indianapolis that wasn't there 10 or even five years ago."
States Sweeten Jet Makers' Pothttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578171173872412696.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
QuoteSome opponents have had recent success. Last month, voters in Tulsa, Okla., rejected a proposal to allocate almost $400 million in public funds for aerospace incentives and local infrastructure development that would have been raised by extending an existing sales tax in Tulsa County. Critics said the proposal was poorly planned and wasteful.
and...
Quote
Most of the Boeing jobs in Kansas are moving to Oklahoma and Texas, which offer millions of dollars in state and local incentives for aerospace employers. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, says the state provides a $5,000 annual tax credit to newly hired engineers for five years and up to $12,500 per year in tax credits to companies for each new engineer's first five years of employment.
This year, Tulsa city officials, looking to expand their local aerospace industry and facing a potential long-term contraction of an American Airlines maintenance facility, whose buildings are owned by the city, proposed the funding package voters rejected last month. City Councilor G.T. Bynum, a Republican who campaigned against the plan, said it was motivated less by business logic than "fear of not getting re-elected, fear of being in office when a company leaves town."
BUT!
Quote
A Boeing spokesman said its "facilities decisions are based on fundamental business principles and the rigorous evaluation of a balanced set of considerations specific to the work."
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 12, 2012, 11:36:11 AM
States Sweeten Jet Makers' Pot
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324339204578171173872412696.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
and...
BUT!
Wasn't it Boeing that moved out a few years ago by selling off what is now Spirit Aerosystems...?? Nice little gig they got going there....move in, get paid, move out, move back in, get paid again. Not that's the 'job' to have - quit, get paid to get 'hired' again, quit, get paid to get 'hired' again... I love that idea!!!!
City-County Compromise in the Works?
http://kwgs.com/post/city-county-compromise-works (http://kwgs.com/post/city-county-compromise-works)
QuoteThe Tulsa City Council discusses a possible capital improvement Compromise with Tulsa County over the 'four-to-fix the county' sales tax. The city wants the dollars as part of a capital project. The county wants monies for a Juvenile Justice Center. City Councilor Karen Gilbert likes the idea of giving the county five million toward its project.
Others on the council, like Jack Henderson, say it is too late to make changes in the Tulsa plan, which is expected to go to voters in November and has already been the subject of public meetings.
What is on the ballot in November is in no way a Vision 2025 plan btw. It's a staggering disaster that will fail. Who came up with this anyway? Whoever it was needs to be voted out of office, and then run out of town imho.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 20, 2013, 05:42:20 PM
What is on the ballot in November is in no way a Vision 2025 plan btw. It's a staggering disaster that will fail. Who came up with this anyway? Whoever it was needs to be voted out of office, and then run out of town imho.
It seems like a decent plan to me, what exactly do you dislike about it? Worlds better than that Vision2 mess Dewey backed.
Quote from: swake on August 20, 2013, 07:30:52 PM
It seems like a decent plan to me, what exactly do you dislike about it? Worlds better than that Vision2 mess Dewey backed.
Most of the package is for roads, over half a billion dollars worth. Scarce few dollars are for transitioning to more transit (including updating our zoning code to allow good transit to be legal). For all intents and purposes, it's us again putting all our eggs in one basket, and not even doing that in the smartest way. The world is changing, has changed, and we are still doing things the same old way. We are allocating our bets, our hopes for the future, into an old vision. I just do not think this plan the way it is proportioned is wise at all. We have been over and over the details a dozen times on here so am not going to bother rehashing them once again.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 21, 2013, 07:34:33 AM
Most of the package is for roads, over half a billion dollars worth. Scarce few dollars are for transitioning to more transit (including updating our zoning code to allow good transit to be legal). For all intents and purposes, it's us again putting all our eggs in one basket, and not even doing that in the smartest way. The world is changing, has changed, and we are still doing things the same old way. We are allocating our bets, our hopes for the future, into an old vision. I just do not think this plan the way it is proportioned is wise at all. We have been over and over the details a dozen times on here so am not going to bother rehashing them once again.
So we should stop paying to maintain roads? I'm all for transit, but America's car culture is going nowhere.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2013, 08:26:51 AM
So we should stop paying to maintain roads? I'm all for transit, but America's car culture is going nowhere.
Funny you should say that. I've seen reports but no definitive study showing DL acquisition is lowering in importance or want in our younger folks.
The talking heads were saying that is no longer the most important thing to do on your 16th. I've seen proof of it with some of my friend's kids.
That's an enormous swing from when I was a teen.
Artist - I agree, this is in no way a vision but I didn't want to start a new thread for the county issue.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2013, 08:26:51 AM
So we should stop paying to maintain roads? I'm all for transit, but America's car culture is going nowhere.
Actually the car culture has been in decline and indeed, as has been mentioned, the younger cohort is more and more less interested in having a car and would rather use transit. They are getting licenses later, cars later, and are more and more moving to areas where they can live car free. More of them get cars because they "have too", otherwise cars are a waste of money (if you have it) that could be spent elsewhere. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youger%20people%20less%20likely%20to%20drive%20or%20want%20cars&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.time.com%2F2013%2F08%2F09%2Fthe-great-debate-do-millennials-really-want-cars-or-not%2F&ei=zcsUUtyfDeLsyQGupIDQCw&usg=AFQjCNE4sF2n6vlSE-V73HnBD4KE6zorrA&bvm=bv.50952593,d.cGE
Also, this isn't about just maintaining roads (heck if we hadn't built as many lane miles in the first place we wouldn't "need" so much money to maintain them. We have more roads per our population than is warranted which means that we haven't been efficient in the past,,, and now we want more? Also, have seen studies that show that with the type of layout and traffic pattern usage our city has, things like 3 lanes, one going each way and a center turn lane, are actually more efficient and more cost effective way of moving traffic than 4 lanes. Also, we aren't allocating sufficient funds to begin "bending the curve" towards more transit (transit can actually take trips, wear and tear, off of roads thus lessening maintenance). Some say our city actually needs to go on a "lane diet", making less lanes, not more. We spend money on one thing and then complain that there is not enough for another. Then there is the money for expanding the Gilcrease expressway which would do nothing but encourage more slow growth for the city when the studies the city itself paid for shows that if we do not build it our city will actually grow faster. Back to car culture,,, we make transit and pedestrian friendly development illegal (what part of that are people not getting?) and are not adequately funding the implementation of the new comprehensive plan (lots for more and wider roads though), and then say it's purely a choice that people here prefer driving cars instead of using transit? I could go on and on.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
Funny you should say that. I've seen reports but no definitive study showing DL acquisition is lowering in importance or want in our younger folks.
The talking heads were saying that is no longer the most important thing to do on your 16th. I've seen proof of it with some of my friend's kids.
That's an enormous swing from when I was a teen.
Artist - I agree, this is in no way a vision but I didn't want to start a new thread for the county issue.
I think much of it has to do with the graduated license that Oklahoma (and much of the nation) has adopted. When I was 15 1/2, you took your written test and then you could drive with a licensed driver in the passenger seat. It's not quite as easy these days to get your full license.
Plus, my license back then was 7 dollars.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 21, 2013, 09:15:37 AM
Actually the car culture has been in decline and indeed, as has been mentioned, the younger cohort is more and more less interested in having a car and would rather use transit. They are getting licenses later, cars later, and are more and more moving to areas where they can live car free. More of them get cars because they "have too", otherwise cars are a waste of money (if you have it) that could be spent elsewhere. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youger%20people%20less%20likely%20to%20drive%20or%20want%20cars&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.time.com%2F2013%2F08%2F09%2Fthe-great-debate-do-millennials-really-want-cars-or-not%2F&ei=zcsUUtyfDeLsyQGupIDQCw&usg=AFQjCNE4sF2n6vlSE-V73HnBD4KE6zorrA&bvm=bv.50952593,d.cGE
Also, this isn't about just maintaining roads (heck if we hadn't built as many lane miles in the first place we wouldn't "need" so much money to maintain them. We have more roads per our population than is warranted which means that we haven't been efficient in the past,,, and now we want more? Also, have seen studies that show that with the type of layout and traffic pattern usage our city has, things like 3 lanes, one going each way and a center turn lane, are actually more efficient and more cost effective way of moving traffic than 4 lanes. Also, we aren't allocating sufficient funds to begin "bending the curve" towards more transit (transit can actually take trips, wear and tear, off of roads thus lessening maintenance). Some say our city actually needs to go on a "lane diet", making less lanes, not more. We spend money on one thing and then complain that there is not enough for another. Then there is the money for expanding the Gilcrease expressway which would do nothing but encourage more slow growth for the city when the studies the city itself paid for shows that if we do not build it our city will actually grow faster. Back to car culture,,, we make transit and pedestrian friendly development illegal (what part of that are people not getting?) and are not adequately funding the implementation of the new comprehensive plan (lots for more and wider roads though), and then say it's purely a choice that people here prefer driving cars instead of using transit? I could go on and on.
You're asking for wine at a beer bar and complaining about the limited selection.
These folks are doing what they've been trained to do (make no changes, exhibit no leadership, don't rock the boat....whatever you want to call it) for generations. We simply are not a progressively led community. That unfortunately goes hand in hand with communities that vote straight party tickets. We tend to ignore talented, well informed politicians if they aren't in our party. Right now, the only thing that a conservative republican can raise taxes for and not be hounded out of office is maintaining infrastructure and enticing employers.
Note for those who actually read my posts. I wrote that to include all parties, philosophies and spiritualities. Anytime a community limits who can play in the game, the game suffers.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 21, 2013, 09:15:37 AM
Actually the car culture has been in decline and indeed, as has been mentioned, the younger cohort is more and more less interested in having a car and would rather use transit. They are getting licenses later, cars later, and are more and more moving to areas where they can live car free. More of them get cars because they "have too", otherwise cars are a waste of money (if you have it) that could be spent elsewhere. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=youger%20people%20less%20likely%20to%20drive%20or%20want%20cars&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.time.com%2F2013%2F08%2F09%2Fthe-great-debate-do-millennials-really-want-cars-or-not%2F&ei=zcsUUtyfDeLsyQGupIDQCw&usg=AFQjCNE4sF2n6vlSE-V73HnBD4KE6zorrA&bvm=bv.50952593,d.cGE
Also, this isn't about just maintaining roads (heck if we hadn't built as many lane miles in the first place we wouldn't "need" so much money to maintain them. We have more roads per our population than is warranted which means that we haven't been efficient in the past,,, and now we want more? Also, have seen studies that show that with the type of layout and traffic pattern usage our city has, things like 3 lanes, one going each way and a center turn lane, are actually more efficient and more cost effective way of moving traffic than 4 lanes. Also, we aren't allocating sufficient funds to begin "bending the curve" towards more transit (transit can actually take trips, wear and tear, off of roads thus lessening maintenance). Some say our city actually needs to go on a "lane diet", making less lanes, not more. We spend money on one thing and then complain that there is not enough for another. Then there is the money for expanding the Gilcrease expressway which would do nothing but encourage more slow growth for the city when the studies the city itself paid for shows that if we do not build it our city will actually grow faster. Back to car culture,,, we make transit and pedestrian friendly development illegal (what part of that are people not getting?) and are not adequately funding the implementation of the new comprehensive plan (lots for more and wider roads though), and then say it's purely a choice that people here prefer driving cars instead of using transit? I could go on and on.
I have a 17 year old, I know lots of new drivers. Yes they are getting them later and it's not as big a deal. But they are getting a license, all of them. And they want to live in dense cities when they are young. But when they get older and have kids the thinking will change. I live in Jenks now, but I lived at 15th and Carson until I got married and had kids.
I want rail transit in Tulsa, yes let's have fewer cars on the road. But rail/transit will only ever be a smaller part of the answer. According to the Census, 86% of Americans drive to work. Only 5% take transit. Even in New York City there are streets and even in New York City 46% of residents own cars. Only 1/3 of residents in Metro New York take transit to work. And New York is by far the most transit heavy city in America. Only five metros in the whole country have more than 10% of commuters use transit. Road are and always will be the primary mode of transportation and they need to be maintained.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2013, 10:42:36 AM
I have a 17 year old, I know lots of new drivers. Yes they are getting them later and it's not as big a deal. But they are getting a license, all of them. And they want to live in dense cities when they are young. But when they get older and have kids the thinking will change. I live in Jenks now, but I lived at 15th and Carson until I got married and had kids.
I want rail transit in Tulsa, yes let's have fewer cars on the road. But rail/transit will only ever be a smaller part of the answer. According to the Census, 86% of Americans drive to work. Only 5% take transit. Even in New York City there are streets and even in New York City 46% of residents own cars. Only 1/3 of residents in Metro New York take transit to work. And New York is by far the most transit heavy city in America. Only five metros in the whole country have more than 10% of commuters use transit. Road are and always will be the primary mode of transportation and they need to be maintained.
If we had train service from Owasso to downtown I would take it 90% of the time.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 21, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
If we had train service from Owasso to downtown I would take it 90% of the time.
You say that, but I work with a lot of people at my company in offices in LA, The Bay area and Philadelphia, areas with good mass transit and nearly everyone still drives. And my company PAYS for employee transit passes in big cities to keep people from driving.
We allow telecommuniting too, a lot more people take advantage of that than use the train. I do that sometimes myself. I would do it more if my VPN speeds were better.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 21, 2013, 11:25:14 AM
If we had train service from Owasso to downtown I would take it 90% of the time.
Don't bet your life savings on that. It's very easy to say, in the abstract. But when you live in the reality of mass transit being slower and less convenient than your car. . . driving your car to a park and ride lot . . . waiting on hot/cold/wet rail platforms . . . etc., etc. . . . Well, there's a reason there are so few cities in America where more than 10% of workers take mass transit and even in NYC metro only 1/3 take transit to work (relying on Swake's stats above).
Quote from: Oil Capital on August 21, 2013, 01:00:24 PM
Don't bet your life savings on that. It's very easy to say, in the abstract. But when you live in the reality of mass transit being slower and less convenient than your car. . . driving your car to a park and ride lot . . . waiting on hot/cold/wet rail platforms . . . etc., etc. . . . Well, there's a reason there are so few cities in America where more than 10% of workers take mass transit and even in NYC only 1/3 take transit to work (relying on Swake's stats above).
If they had no shelters at the train depots then that would suck and sway me during bad weather but driving 3 or 4 miles to the train station and being dropped off (at what I hope would be the old depot) downtown would be sweet. I guess the depot point downtown would make a different too. I probably wouldn't walk more than 4 or 5 blocks.
I've walked that far in the wind, rain, cold, and heat over most of the course of my 12 total years downtown as I've only been in a garage for 2-3 years.
Cost would be a factor too as 4 days a week would save me probably $35 a week but if it costs me $40 I'm not sure it would be worth the slight extra inconvenience.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 21, 2013, 01:50:08 PM
If they had no shelters at the train depots then that would suck and sway me during bad weather but driving 3 or 4 miles to the train station and being dropped off (at what I hope would be the old depot) downtown would be sweet. I guess the depot point downtown would make a different too. I probably wouldn't walk more than 4 or 5 blocks.
I've walked that far in the wind, rain, cold, and heat over most of the course of my 12 total years downtown as I've only been in a garage for 2-3 years.
Cost would be a factor too as 4 days a week would save me probably $35 a week but if it costs me $40 I'm not sure it would be worth the slight extra inconvenience.
I'm telling you, my company's offices in LA and Philadelphia are both just a few blocks a train station. The one in San Jose is less than a mile with a bus line in-between. We pay for employees transit passes to keep people from driving so the train is basically FREE. They still almost all drive, some of them drive for an hour.
I think we are associating transit with "commuting to work" only. That's not what Pedestrian/Transit friendly is totally about. Today I drove downtown but so far I have also gone to... check on getting my Passport renewed (did not get in my car and drive to do that), went to the printers (did not drive), went to get something for lunch (did not drive), ran an errand to the Tulsa Art Deco Museum (did not drive). That in just one partial day. The other night I walked to dinner, then drove home and walked to the bookstore and then walked to the movies, then walked back home. Sure I still used my car each of those days to commute, but I was also able to not be on the road a LOT more than I would have been otherwise, because I was in areas where I could walk (or take transit, for transit only truly works in areas where you can walk). I was able to not be another car on the road going up and down the main arteries, I was not another car sitting in front of you at an intersection, was one less car in the parking lot, etc.... that is one example of how having pedestrian/transit friendly areas helps out in many ways,,, even when your a person who does use their car to commute. Imagine how many trips, on roads you the driver are using, are likely not taken by someone who does use transit? The more of that you have going on, the better imho. We have built most of our city, even much of the core to be, car trips only, to do just about anything. I think we can be wiser with how our money is spent so that we can begin to bend the curve on how many "lane miles" per person we need (and pay for), begin to reduce the "number of trips" on the roads per person, the spaces we need for parking per person, AND also shorten the distance of many of the trips people do take, again reducing wear and tear and expense. Also, walking on occasion can actually improve over all health lol.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
I'm telling you, my company's offices in LA and Philadelphia are both just a few blocks a train station. The one in San Jose is less than a mile with a bus line in-between. We pay for employees transit passes to keep people from driving so the train is basically FREE. They still almost all drive, some of them drive for an hour.
I'm don't recall saying that 90% of my company would. I said I would 90% of the time.
I've taken the commuter train from NYC to Connecticut and enjoyed it.
I would likely take more trips to OKC if we had train service there.
It seems some of the train routes stop so many times that it takes as long as driving so I wouldn't take it to Dallas or KC and also because I would also have to rent a vehicle when I got there.
Quote from: Oil Capital on August 21, 2013, 01:00:24 PM
(relying on Swake's stats above).
Swake's stats include Staten Island, which for fairly obvious reasons, relies on cars more than any other borough. It looks/works more like the rest of the country than the other boroughs. Your commute options, should you live there, are a train (which is only recently back in service) to a slow ferry to another train/bus/whatever. The vast majority of the transportation capacity on and off the island is road-based. No shock there that people would choose cars.
Even accepting that we'll never do better than Staten Island, take even 1 in 5 cars off the road and suddenly we need a lot less widening and somewhat less maintenance. We'll never get even that far with inconvenient schedules and an incomplete transit network, though. So we'll keep spending billions on roads and nearly nothing on transit and we'll continue to be the same sort of city we've been for the past decade. Good for us.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
I'm telling you, my company's offices in LA and Philadelphia are both just a few blocks a train station. The one in San Jose is less than a mile with a bus line in-between. We pay for employees transit passes to keep people from driving so the train is basically FREE. They still almost all drive, some of them drive for an hour.
There is part of the problem....San Jose...who wants to be there more than a second or two more than absolutely necessary. Even if only 3 minutes, too much to wait on a train. RUN to the car and get out of there as fast as possible. Philly pretty much the same....
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 21, 2013, 03:57:35 PM
I'm don't recall saying that 90% of my company would. I said I would 90% of the time.
I've taken the commuter train from NYC to Connecticut and enjoyed it.
I would likely take more trips to OKC if we had train service there.
It seems some of the train routes stop so many times that it takes as long as driving so I wouldn't take it to Dallas or KC and also because I would also have to rent a vehicle when I got there.
I would be on that OKC train EVERY time!! Can't wait for it...even though it ain't ever gonna happen. Sadness.
Quote from: nathanm on August 21, 2013, 05:42:19 PM
Swake's stats include Staten Island, which for fairly obvious reasons, relies on cars more than any other borough. It looks/works more like the rest of the country than the other boroughs. Your commute options, should you live there, are a train (which is only recently back in service) to a slow ferry to another train/bus/whatever. The vast majority of the transportation capacity on and off the island is road-based. No shock there that people would choose cars.
Even accepting that we'll never do better than Staten Island, take even 1 in 5 cars off the road and suddenly we need a lot less widening and somewhat less maintenance. We'll never get even that far with inconvenient schedules and an incomplete transit network, though. So we'll keep spending billions on roads and nearly nothing on transit and we'll continue to be the same sort of city we've been for the past decade. Good for us.
To be clear, Swake's stats are for the metro area, not just the city. So yes, it includes areas that do not have the same transit infrastructure as Manhattan. That being said, The majority of the metro area, including Staten Island, has greater transit infrastructure than Tulsa will
ever have and still only 1/3 of workers take transit. In the city itself, despite having FAR greater transit infrastructure and service than Tulsa can ever hope to achieve, only 54.7% of workers take transit. While you are correct that Staten Island has less transit infrastructure than the other boroughs, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is more like the rest of America. The Staten Island Railway operates a 14 mile rail with 22 stations on an island that is only 58 square miles (less than 1/3 the size of the city of Tulsa). Even with this along with a very healthy bus system, only approximately 30-35% of Staten Island workers take transit to work.
You are dreaming crazy dreams to think that we could take 1 in 5 (20%) cars off the road by implementing rail mass transit in Tulsa. As Swake mentioned, there are only 5 metro areas in the country where more than 10 percent of workers take transit, only one (NYC) is above 20%. When promoting the idea of rail transit for Tulsa, we should try to stay within the bounds of some sort of reasonable possibilities.
Even in the highly-worshipped Portland, with its induced density, only 6.1% of workers take transit to work.Here are quick numbers I could find for the use of transit by workers in the largest metro areas in the US. (These are as of 2009; in most places I think transit usage has gone down since then.)
The 5 metro areas with greater than 10% transit usage:
NYC: 30.5%
San Francisco: 14.6%
Washington DC:14.1%
Boston: 12.2%
Chicago: 11.5%
Quote from: Oil Capital on August 21, 2013, 09:35:01 PM
To be clear, Swake's stats are for the metro area, not just the city. So yes, it includes areas that do not have the same transit infrastructure as Manhattan. That being said, The majority of the metro area, including Staten Island, has greater transit infrastructure than Tulsa will ever have and still only 1/3 of workers take transit. In the city itself, despite having FAR greater transit infrastructure and service than Tulsa can ever hope to achieve, only 54.7% of workers take transit. While you are correct that Staten Island has less transit infrastructure than the other boroughs, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is more like the rest of America. The Staten Island Railway operates a 14 mile rail with 22 stations on an island that is only 58 square miles (less than 1/3 the size of the city of Tulsa). Even with this along with a very healthy bus system, only approximately 30-35% of Staten Island workers take transit to work.
You are dreaming crazy dreams to think that we could take 1 in 5 (20%) cars off the road by implementing rail mass transit in Tulsa. As Swake mentioned, there are only 5 metro areas in the country where more than 10 percent of workers take transit, only one (NYC) is above 20%. When promoting the idea of rail transit for Tulsa, we should try to stay within the bounds of some sort of reasonable possibilities. Even in the highly-worshipped Portland, with its induced density, only 6.1% of workers take transit to work.
Here are quick numbers I could find for the use of transit by workers in the largest metro areas in the US. (These are as of 2009; in most places I think transit usage has gone down since then.)
The 5 metro areas with greater than 10% transit usage:
NYC: 30.5%
San Francisco: 14.6%
Washington DC:14.1%
Boston: 12.2%
Chicago: 11.5%
People are still missing the forest for the trees or are deliberately trying to sabotage the discussion by deflection. Forget "commuter transit" all together for a moment.
We aren't ready for commuter transit... and we aren't even taking the first steps to get ready for it if we ever decide we did want it.
Creating transit friendly spaces requires creating pedestrian friendly spaces.
Pedestrian friendly areas can actually help bend the curve downward, on the number of
car trips people take, and the length of those trips (Not just to work, but do do many things, we don't just use cars to get to work!). Increasing pedestrian/transit friendly areas, begins to take cars off the arterials (that would otherwise be increasing as population increased) and increases the number of people "per square mile" paying for the road infrastructure there, versus what we are doing, increasing the lane miles, average miles driven, and wear and tear, faster than the population is growing.
We are talking about having, maintaining, building and spending more on road infrastructure than we need to. Wider roads and intersections and more lanes per road mile (more "lane miles" per person to pay for) are not the only paths we must travel.
Another thing is that while your focusing on "commuter transit" numbers, your not seeing people who, may have a car, but who use it less because they live in or nearby pedestrian friendly/transit friendly areas.
Or people who have a car, but don't use it, or commute to work, but walk or bike, because they live in or near transit friendly/pedestrian friendly areas. Lansing Michigan is one extreme example. Out of just over 20,000 workers only 1,700 people took transit to work there. But over 5,000 people walked or bicycled to work. And here again we are only looking at "commutes" and not daily trips to shop, go out and eat, entertainment, chores, etc. which if people walk or bike to do, again takes car trips off the roads.
So looking at those "commuter transit" %/usage numbers only tells a fraction of the story.
When I stayed with a friend in NYC, actually Jersey, she drove to work. But 90% of the time she did just about everything else, she took transit. She took transit into NYC to shop, go to the museums, parks, eat, and or didn't use her car or transit, but simply walked to places nearby. You don't just use transit to go to work! lol And once your in a transit friendly area, you can walk instead of driving or using transit to do lots of other things.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 21, 2013, 07:48:38 PM
I would be on that OKC train EVERY time!! Can't wait for it...even though it ain't ever gonna happen. Sadness.
Not to mention any evening runs into Tulsa for adult beverages.
The free tow service doesn't make it to Owasso from downtown (10 mile limit) so it would be nice to cab it to the depot, train into downtown, train back, and cab a few miles home.
But to the other points, I think a GREAT and logical starting point would be to establish Tulsa to OKC service. I think it would benefit both towns immensely.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 22, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
People are still missing the forest for the trees or are deliberately trying to sabotage the discussion by deflection. Forget "commuter transit" all together for a moment.
We aren't ready for commuter transit... and we aren't even taking the first steps to get ready for it if we ever decide we did want it.
Creating transit friendly spaces requires creating pedestrian friendly spaces.
Pedestrian friendly areas can actually help bend the curve downward, on the number of car trips people take, and the length of those trips (Not just to work, but do do many things, we don't just use cars to get to work!). Increasing pedestrian/transit friendly areas, begins to take cars off the arterials (that would otherwise be increasing as population increased) and increases the number of people "per square mile" paying for the road infrastructure there, versus what we are doing, increasing the lane miles, average miles driven, and wear and tear, faster than the population is growing.
We are talking about having, maintaining, building and spending more on road infrastructure than we need to. Wider roads and intersections and more lanes per road mile (more "lane miles" per person to pay for) are not the only paths we must travel.
Another thing is that while your focusing on "commuter transit" numbers, your not seeing people who, may have a car, but who use it less because they live in or nearby pedestrian friendly/transit friendly areas.
Or people who have a car, but don't use it, or commute to work, but walk or bike, because they live in or near transit friendly/pedestrian friendly areas. Lansing Michigan is one extreme example. Out of just over 20,000 workers only 1,700 people took transit to work there. But over 5,000 people walked or bicycled to work. And here again we are only looking at "commutes" and not daily trips to shop, go out and eat, entertainment, chores, etc. which if people walk or bike to do, again takes car trips off the roads.
So looking at those "commuter transit" %/usage numbers only tells a fraction of the story.
When I stayed with a friend in NYC, actually Jersey, she drove to work. But 90% of the time she did just about everything else, she took transit. She took transit into NYC to shop, go to the museums, parks, eat, and or didn't use her car or transit, but simply walked to places nearby. You don't just use transit to go to work! lol And once your in a transit friendly area, you can walk instead of driving or using transit to do lots of other things.
I second that motion!!! And third...
It's a complete infrastructure and environment that is required. Sadly, none of the powers that be in this state - that we keep electing - have enough imagination to get past their fetish of passing unconstitutional laws, let alone do something that makes good sense! (Laughingstock moment once more....)
Quote from: Hoss on August 21, 2013, 09:16:30 AM
I think much of it has to do with the graduated license that Oklahoma (and much of the nation) has adopted. When I was 15 1/2, you took your written test and then you could drive with a licensed driver in the passenger seat. It's not quite as easy these days to get your full license.
Plus, my license back then was 7 dollars.
Miles driven and license ownership is down for people in their 20's and 30's too. Don't think graduated license still effects them.
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 22, 2013, 10:38:38 AM
Miles driven and license ownership is down for people in their 20's and 30's too. Don't think graduated license still effects them.
I got my license the day I turned 16. And had been driving regularly for about 2 years before that....luckily, never got caught.
None of the kids or grandkids (population of 11 so far) has gotten a drivers license before their 19th birthday...this includes kids in their 40's now. Just not interested enough to do something about it...they used other means. (Friends, family, walking...the whole gamut). Go figure. I don't get it.
If I could get by without a car (in my case a truck) I would, and am hopefully working towards that direction. Why would you "WANT" a car unless you had to have it? It's a lot of money that could better be spent on other things. I keep thinking, gosh if I didn't have a car payment, insurance payment, pay for gas, etc. what I would do with that money instead.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 22, 2013, 09:17:48 AM
But to the other points, I think a GREAT and logical starting point would be to establish Tulsa to OKC service. I think it would benefit both towns immensely.
Agreed. Well, I think it should be our second priority, after putting in a couple of starter trolley lines. As I've said before, I think a downtown circulator and something to connect Brookside and Cherry Street to would both be immediately useful. From there to an airport connector, and eventually onwards to some commuter rail and further trolley lines. And all this while improving frequency on our existing bus service, I'd hope.
The problem with looking at NYC metro area transit usage statistics is that the metro includes some exurban area, much as our own does. And 1 in 5 cars off the road is an aspirational goal, not something to expect in year one.
Quote from: TheArtist on August 22, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
Why would you "WANT" a car unless you had to have it? It's a lot of money that could better be spent on other things.
If you don't understand why someone would
want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you. It's similar to asking why someone would
want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.
I still think we need real trolleys. We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust. I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2013, 12:40:03 PM
If you don't understand why someone would want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you. It's similar to asking why someone would want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.
I still think we need real trolleys. We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust. I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.
RA, conservative businessmen were in charge of Tulsa then. Have been for a long time. Whether they called themselves Democrats (up til 1964) or Republicans or Independents, they were and always have been varying degrees of conservative.
When Tulsan's stop knee jerk voting for these guys who don't even bother with putting their party affiliation on their yard signs ( as in,
Jones....A True Conservative...), we may actually start to realize that the population will support transit friendly zoning and real trolleys.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2013, 12:40:03 PM
If you don't understand why someone would want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you. It's similar to asking why someone would want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.
I still think we need real trolleys. We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust. I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.
Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation. There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won. Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's. It was company policy.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 22, 2013, 01:53:17 PM
Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation. There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won. Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's. It was company policy.
William Levitt and his legacy probably had as much or more to do with the demise of trolley's as GM could have ever accomplished.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 22, 2013, 01:53:17 PM
Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation. There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won. Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's. It was company policy.
You are misrepresenting the history. GM did indeed enter into a joint venture that bought up trolley lines in a number of cities (most of which were failing), but, they did
not engage in an effort to kill bus transit. Quite the opposite. The mission of the joint venture was to sell buses, which GM at the time manufactured.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 22, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
RA, conservative businessmen were in charge of Tulsa then. Have been for a long time. Whether they called themselves Democrats (up til 1964) or Republicans or Independents, they were and always have been varying degrees of conservative.
When Tulsan's stop knee jerk voting for these guys who don't even bother with putting their party affiliation on their yard signs ( as in, Jones....A True Conservative...), we may actually start to realize that the population will support transit friendly zoning and real trolleys.
Since city races are now non-partisan, why would anyone put party affiliation on their campaign signs?
Rather than concentrate on a results-oriented "1 in 5 cars" or transit use of more than 10%, I think Tulsa should have a civic goal of zoning 1 in 5 homes in the city or 10% of the metropolitan area as "transit friendly."
Honestly, I know lots of Tulsans who've lived other places who could be counted on to consider mass transit as a serious option... but... we currently have QT's in this city with umpteen gas pumps which means that even if you're only out of bread or milk, you MUST DRIVE somewhere/anywhere to get anything/anytime. I mean, there's a "corner store" off Quanah and Archer that's been boarded up for years/decades? The old Safeway off south Denver is going to be a temporary home for the library rather than a grocery or retail store because we're all used to being FORCED TO DRIVE just about anywhere... our leaders have precious little concept of what a pedestrian friendly development and lifestyle would involve and how much it could potentially benefit Tulsa, even if it's only a small few square miles of the city.
Step One: A humble commuter train along the Broken Arrow Expressway to downtown Tulsa. Would it be a rousing success? Probably not. But it would at least suggest to Tulsans stuck in rush hour traffic that it doesn't have to be this way...
Step Two: One real city bus or official looking Tulsa Transit streetcar that runs at least every thirty minutes later in the evenings from the Denver bus terminal/BOk Center through the entertainment areas of Brady/Blue Dome/East Village and goes up and down Peoria to/from 35th or 41st Streets (making a loop south to/from the "Gathering Place" off Riverside Drive). Keep the #870 South Nightline van but only run it to/from 41st & Peoria for an easy transfer to the main bus/streetcar.
Step Three: Reasonable bus/streetcar service that runs on Sundays... nothing earthshattering, but would run every thirty to forty-five minutes from at least noon to 7 or 8pm.
There needs to be an area (or areas) in Tulsa (no matter how small) that offer transit not only for the often fickle tastes of younger hipsters, but also to the larger waves of future retirees who'd rather opt to live without a car in a reasonably priced walkable area of urban Tulsa than shuffle off to a retirement village in Florida or Arizona.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
Rather than concentrate on "1 in 5 cars" or transit use of more than 10%, I think Tulsa should concentrate on 1 in 5 homes in the city or 10% of the metropolitan area being zoned as "transit friendly."
Honestly, I know lots of Tulsans who've lived other places who could be counted on to consider mass transit as a serious option... but... we have currently have QT's in this city with umpteen gas pumps which means that even if you're out of bread or milk, you MUST DRIVE somewhere/anywhere to get anything/anytime. I mean, there's a "corner store" off Quanah and Archer that's been boarded up for years/decades? The old Safeway off south Denver is going to be a temporary home for the library rather than a grocery or retail store because we're all used to being FORCED TO DRIVE just about anywhere... our leaders have precious little concept of what pedestrian friendly development would involve and how much it would benefit Tulsa, even if it's only a small few square miles of the city.
Step One: A humble commuter train along the Broken Arrow Expressway to downtown Tulsa. Would it be a rousing success? Probably not. But it would at least suggest to Tulsans stuck in rush hour traffic that it doesn't have to be this way...
Step Two: One real city bus or official looking Tulsa Transit streetcar that runs at least every thirty minutes later in the evenings from the Denver bus terminal through the entertainment areas of Brady/Blue Dome/East Village and goes up and down Peoria to/from 35th or 41st Streets (making a loop south to/from the "Gathering Place" off Riverside Drive). Keep the #870 South Nightline van but only run it to/from 41st & Peoria for an easy transfer to the main bus/streetcar.
Step Three: Reasonable bus/streetcar service that runs on Sundays... nothing earthshattering, but would at least run every thirty to forty-five minutes from at least from noon to 7 or 8pm.
There needs to be an area (or areas) in Tulsa (no matter how small) that offer transit not only for the often fickle tastes of younger hipsters, but also to the larger wave of retirees who'd rather opt to live without a car in a reasonably priced walkable area of urban Tulsa than shuffle off to a retirement village in Florida or Arizona.
Gotta start somewhere.
Wouldn't starting with a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on the BA (and 169) make more sense? It's not as sexy as a train, but it's a lot cheaper/easier and would actually push people into starting to rethink the notion that the ony way to get to work is to drive in a car by him/herself. It would have the added benefit of squeezing down traffic during rush hour to lengthen the vehicle commute, which could help increase demand for mass transit alternatives.
Quote from: DTowner on August 22, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
Wouldn't starting with a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on the BA (and 169) make more sense? It's not as sexy as a train, but it's a lot cheaper/easier and would actually push people into starting to rethink the notion that the ony way to get to work is to drive in a car by him/herself. It would have the added benefit of squeezing down traffic during rush hour to lengthen the vehicle commute, which could help increase demand for mass transit alternatives.
Definitely makes sense on 169.
And maybe (IMHO) on the BA from Broken Arrow east to Memorial?
A commuter train stop or two in Broken Arrow and then another stop at the transit hub off 34th and Memorial-- all would be "park & ride" options before a final stop downtown...
I'm just thinking about the existing train tracks in between the BA (reminds me of the "el" tracks from O'hare in the middle of the expressway in northwest Chicago) and the previous plan floated by Mayor Taylor about a small commuter train that runs back and forth...
http://www.newson6.com/story/7659590/tulsa-transit-considering-a-commuter-train
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
Step Two: One real city bus or official looking Tulsa Transit streetcar that runs at least every thirty minutes later in the evenings from the Denver bus terminal/BOk Center through the entertainment areas of Brady/Blue Dome/East Village and goes up and down Peoria to/from 35th or 41st Streets (making a loop south to/from the "Gathering Place" off Riverside Drive). Keep the #870 South Nightline van but only run it to/from 41st & Peoria for an easy transfer to the main bus/streetcar.
Step Three: Reasonable bus/streetcar service that runs on Sundays... nothing earthshattering, but would at least run every thirty to forty-five minutes from at least noon to 7 or 8pm.
There needs to be an area (or areas) in Tulsa (no matter how small) that offer transit not only for the often fickle tastes of younger hipsters, but also to the larger wave of retirees who'd rather opt to live without a car in a reasonably priced walkable area of urban Tulsa than shuffle off to a retirement village in Florida or Arizona.
I am not so sure 30 minutes will attract riders of choice. It really should be 15 min max except for really off-hours.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 22, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
I am not so sure 30 minutes will attract riders of choice. It really should be 15 min max except for really off-hours.
Most of the nightline service that Tulsa currently offers after 7 or 7:30pm (only 4 routes) run an hour to an hour and a half apart.
I agree that every 15 minutes would be ideal but somebody would need to do a little cost/benefit analysis, as no city I've ever lived in has bus services every 15 minutes later in the evenings.
***I like the idea that a very humble (at least at first) BA commuter rail would serve as an advertisement for transit in general... and then there's my urban soccer stadium idea for south of Blue Dome/East Village*** ;D
Quote from: DTowner on August 22, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
Wouldn't starting with a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on the BA (and 169) make more sense? It's not as sexy as a train, but it's a lot cheaper/easier and would actually push people into starting to rethink the notion that the ony way to get to work is to drive in a car by him/herself. It would have the added benefit of squeezing down traffic during rush hour to lengthen the vehicle commute, which could help increase demand for mass transit alternatives.
I'm not a big fan, especially since it's rare we get traffic slow down enough for an HOV lane to be very useful. Don't get me wrong, I think they're just dandy when they're not being used directly as a stick to try to force people out of their cars.
Rufnex, I like the way you're thinking, but I'm of the belief that a downtown circulator trolley is the best first step. It serves a need that people are already clamoring for and gets people from the end of the future commuter or long distance rail to points around downtown. I could be persuaded that commuter rail should come before a bar district trolley, but I still think that would see high enough use to be a good project on its own. Commuter rail seems more like something we'd have to end up paying for so that people in
thea suburb
s could reap most of the benefit from. Trollies, on the other hand, seem like us doing for ourselves what needs to be done. I think that successfully demonstrating public transit could get the rest of the metro to pitch in on the larger projects like the trolley and OKC rail line.
I also like the framing you used of having a certain number of households well served by transit rather than a traffic reduction goal. It is true that there are a lot of people here wouldn't want to use it if it were practically one seat door to door. And it is more about providing amenities that people will want going forward than getting cars off the road. That will happen organically (at least to some degree) no matter what we do as fuel prices continue to increase.
RA, I think 15 minute headway would make a huge difference in acceptance of transit service here, but given that we currently operate with 45 minute to 1 hour headways during the day, how on earth can we get there? The real problem with long headways like we have is that if your trip requires a transfer, you can be waiting around a very long time. I'm fairly willing to leave a bit earlier or later than I'd prefer, but combining that with an hour's wait at a midpoint and suddenly my trip is taking 2 hours instead of 30 minutes and it's seeming quite unreasonable as a way to get around.
I think you'd run head first into a perception problem with just about any "downtown circulator trolley" plan because it would potentially be used primarily by a buncha drunks (or at least be stuck with that perception/reputation). I'd rather have the private sector do the downtown trolley stuff --
see Scooby...
I figure that in exchange for a modest BA commuter train on existing tracks, we could get real buses with regular nightly routes on what is arguably Tulsa's most busy route, the one going south on Peoria to Brookside.
The worst part of Tulsa Transit is getting stuck at night at the mercy of four passenger vans that go around in circles at night servicing an entire city with a handful of routes that run over an hour apart... this arrangement really, really sucks.
I wish "The Gathering Place" could have been a little less expensive with maybe $10mil - $30mil earmarked for privately funded pedestrian friendly transit between the park and Riverside/Brookside/Downtown.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 04:48:17 PM
I think you'd run head first into a perception problem with just about any "downtown circulator trolley" plan because it would potentially be used primarily by a buncha drunks (or at least be stuck with that perception/reputation). I'd rather have the private sector do the downtown trolley stuff -- see Scooby...
Who else is out in force at 2 in the morning but drunks? Seriously, though, you don't think it would get heavily used at least during lunch time and events? I'm not really sure why we'd want to keep Tulsa Transit (or whatever other agency we might create to run the trolley system) away from what would probably be the highest profile route in the city. Seems like good advertising to me.
My question regarding commuter rail going first is this: Who will ride it if there aren't convenient connections except people whose destination is within a couple of blocks of the Tulsa station? It's already hard enough to get people to do the park and ride thing. Even rail to OKC first would make more sense. It's at least a trip that's far enough that it doesn't seem completely ridiculous to rent a car or pay for a cab or something if transit isn't a viable option. And let's face it, at present the bus is not a viable option for many-to-most trips. Short trips aren't bad, but for those I'd walk or bike anyway. Longer trips that require one or more transfers take an unreasonably long time.
Problem is that even if we decrease headway it'll take a long while before people who aren't already regular riders will even notice. By then, we will have declared the whole thing a failure and gone back to the way things are now.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 03:20:50 PM
Most of the nightline service that Tulsa currently offers after 7 or 7:30pm (only 4 routes) run an hour to an hour and a half apart.
I agree that every 15 minutes would be ideal but somebody would need to do a little cost/benefit analysis, as no city I've ever lived in has bus services every 15 minutes later in the evenings.
***I like the idea that a very humble (at least at first) BA commuter rail would serve as an advertisement for transit in general... and then there's my urban soccer stadium idea for south of Blue Dome/East Village*** ;D
See the schedule for the 101 Trolley Route. It's the one I lived next to for a lot of years. I remembered no worse than 20 min except on Sundays. Looking now, it has some 20 and 30 minute headway depending on how far out from 69th Street you are. (69th Street is where Philly and suburban transit meet.) Really early and late it gets longer. Weekends look like mostly 30 min. Look at the rush hours headways. Most of the people live between 69th Street and Woodland Ave in Springfield.
http://www.septa.org/schedules/trolley/index.html
Edit: Woodland Ave is in Springfield, not most of the people. Housing is pretty much non-stop from 69th St out to Woodland Ave. Past that is some open area until the trolley gets to Media.
Quote from: nathanm on August 22, 2013, 03:26:36 PM
RA, I think 15 minute headway would make a huge difference in acceptance of transit service here, but given that we currently operate with 45 minute to 1 hour headways during the day, how on earth can we get there? The real problem with long headways like we have is that if your trip requires a transfer, you can be waiting around a very long time. I'm fairly willing to leave a bit earlier or later than I'd prefer, but combining that with an hour's wait at a midpoint and suddenly my trip is taking 2 hours instead of 30 minutes and it's seeming quite unreasonable as a way to get around.
My favorite trolley line survived the Transit Holocaust in part because while other trolley lines were increasing prices and cutting service, Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co cut prices and increased service. This was assisted by new (1932) lightweight/ single operator trolleys. Ridership started to increase. WWII helped too as gas rationing etc made the trolley more attractive. The West Chester and Ardmore (PA) lines lasted until the 50s and 60s respectively. The Media and Sharon Hill lines survive today.
Cutting the headway to 15 minutes all day long would not make sense. (See the schedule link in my reply to Ruff.) During non-rush hours, 20 to 30 minutes is probably reasonable. Early (5AM) and late after 10 PM I will have to agree to 45 min to an hour based on the SEPTA 101 schedule. During normal daytime hours, an hour is way too long and encourages potential riders to find another way. It basically boils down to a money commitment from the residents of the area to have transit available. That money will only become available with a clean, easy to use,...... transit system. Chicken and egg, I realize. I don't think the money will come for a relatively constant 45 minute headway. I wouldn't use it. I don't expect a trolley out here in my lifetime except maybe the planned one going down Delaware/121st to Memorial.
Quote from: Oil Capital on August 22, 2013, 02:27:53 PM
You are misrepresenting the history. GM did indeed enter into a joint venture that bought up trolley lines in a number of cities (most of which were failing), but, they did not engage in an effort to kill bus transit. Quite the opposite. The mission of the joint venture was to sell buses, which GM at the time manufactured.
Yep. Got that twisted around....
Trolleys and electric trains....
Step 1. Zoning
Step 2. Transit (bus or rail)
Zone certain downtown streets to have pedestrian/transit friendly only developments,
Boston Ave from BOK tower to Boston Ave Church.
The downtown loop from Boulder to Archer, to Elgin, to 6th
6th Street from Boulder to TU Plus a couple more sections of street, but certainly get that pedestrian loop around downtown so that you will have a large enough connected core to make downtown a truly attractive, live, work, play, pedestrian/transit friendly place.
Then begin transit (dedicated bus or rail) to other areas like Brookside and Cherry Street, Whittier Square and TU. Also do the "starter rail" line from the Fin-Tube site to the West Bank area. And zone areas around all of those to be pedestrian/transit friendly as well. By then the time should be ripe to consider rail to and from OKC, perhaps BA, a north Tulsa node (previously zoned to begin the pedestrian/transit friendly "transformation") and on to the Airport, and along the river to Jenks.
Start with the core and zone those areas around it and any other future areas that you will likely want rail to go to in the future. Then do the transit lines (dedicated rail or bus route).
Quote from: Conan71 on August 22, 2013, 02:32:53 PM
Since city races are now non-partisan, why would anyone put party affiliation on their campaign signs?
If they're running for a non city office. Or they are into reality.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 22, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
RA, conservative businessmen were in charge of Tulsa then. Have been for a long time. Whether they called themselves Democrats (up til 1964) or Republicans or Independents, they were and always have been varying degrees of conservative.
I expect (but have no actual evidence) there were also some financial benefits for some city leaders by converting to buses. That can warp a lot of decisions. A case could be made that fixing the trolleys would have been the conservative (against change?) thing to do rather than try something new like buses. Regardless, I think it was the wrong decision having 20/20 hindsight.
It's interesting that transit is the very thing that allowed ordinary (not rich) people to move away from where they worked to the suburbs.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 04:48:17 PM
I think you'd run head first into a perception problem with just about any "downtown circulator trolley" plan because it would potentially be used primarily by a buncha drunks (or at least be stuck with that perception/reputation). I'd rather have the private sector do the downtown trolley stuff -- see Scooby...
Has anyone seen the Cheyenne Bus Co buses? I know they are doing private parties. Are they running those as a trolley? I thought that was their original plan.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on August 22, 2013, 03:06:07 PM
Definitely makes sense on 169.
And maybe (IMHO) on the BA from Broken Arrow east to Memorial?
A commuter train stop or two in Broken Arrow and then another stop at the transit hub off 34th and Memorial-- all would be "park & ride" options before a final stop downtown...
I'm just thinking about the existing train tracks in between the BA (reminds me of the "el" tracks from O'hare in the middle of the expressway in northwest Chicago) and the previous plan floated by Mayor Taylor about a small commuter train that runs back and forth...
http://www.newson6.com/story/7659590/tulsa-transit-considering-a-commuter-train
There is an existing line going from downtown straight through Owasso, into Collinsville, and all the way to Bartlesville as well.
Quote from: rdj on August 23, 2013, 09:24:33 AM
Has anyone seen the Cheyenne Bus Co buses? I know they are doing private parties. Are they running those as a trolley? I thought that was their original plan.
They have lots of plans for their doubledeckers which were originally designed for inner city use in England. They are much nicer inside than most trolley type vehicles (air conditioned, sound system, beverage service) and lend themselves to many uses.
RA, I am sure from reading some of the comments about GM buying up trolley lines, locomotive manufacturers and replacement part mfrs, that they also made it much more attractive to municipalities to operate bus systems than maintain aging trolley systems.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 23, 2013, 10:37:49 AM
There is an existing line going from downtown straight through Owasso, into Collinsville, and all the way to Bartlesville as well.
Is that the spur east of Oneok Field?
Vision funds eyed for countyhttp://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Vision_funds_eyed_for_county/20130827_11_A1_TulsaC297525 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Vision_funds_eyed_for_county/20130827_11_A1_TulsaC297525)
QuoteTulsa County Commissioner Ron Peters said Monday he would consider using surplus Vision 2025 funds to help pay for a new juvenile justice center and four new pods at the Tulsa Jail.
Peters was instrumental in brokering a deal last week between the city and county to avoid placing competing capital packages on the Nov. 12 ballot.
The agreement calls for the city to use 0.1 percent of the former 0.167 Four to Fix the County sales tax to help fund its proposed $918.7 million capital improvements package, leaving the remaining 0.067 percent available to the county for its proposed projects.
As part of the deal, county officials agreed not to place their tax proposal on the ballot until the spring.
County officials estimate the tax would raise approximately $30 million over five years — about $35 million less than the estimated $65 million it would cost to build a new juvenile justice center and the additional jail pods. The cost would go up by $15.75 million if a family court were added to the juvenile justice center.
"I am going to meet with (county officials) and sit down and look at any surplus 2025 funds that might be available for that purpose," Peters said.
"If we could somehow, say, get $15 million-$20 million, that would put us up to $45 million. And Commissioner (Karen) Keith has indicated that she could raise some private money to help finish it off. That would get us close to getting the two projects done."
Peters said last week's deal had created "a new ballgame" for the county. He stressed that talks about how the county should proceed are just beginning and that no decisions have been made.
"We need to get together with everybody and see if we want to stick at 0.067 percent, or do we want to go with more, or do we need more ... (and) whether or not we need to make it permanent or not," Peters said.
Kirby Crowe with Program Management Group, which manages the Vision 2025 program for the county, estimated it could have a surplus of about $60 million. The figure includes the program's $40 million reserve.
However, $45.5 million of that has been promised to the suburban communities as part of the Tulsa County Vision Authority's 2006 decision to approve an additional $45.5 million for the BOK Center and Convention Center renovations.
Complicating the issue, Crowe said, is that any surplus funds must be allocated proportionally among the three active ballot propositions — Economic Development; Health Care, Education and Entertainment; and Community Enrichment — originally approved by voters, meaning all of the money might not be available for criminal justice projects.
The Vision Authority is made up of the three county commissioners, the mayor of Tulsa and three area mayors.
Sheriff Stanley Glanz said Monday he still had not been informed about the details of the city/county deal.
"I don't know all of the details. I don't know what they are," Glanz said. "I know they said, 'Well, we're going to vote on something next spring.' Well, what? And when?
"I wish the county commissioners would go ahead and set a date for the election, and that way if the city is unsuccessful, at least we'll be in a position" to move forward.
Glanz, Keith and local attorney Campbell Cooke sponsored a ballot initiative to place a permanent 0.167 percent sales tax on the Nov. 12 ballot to construct and operate the juvenile justice center and new jail pods.
Approximately 17,500 signatures — 5 percent of registered voters in Tulsa County at the time of the last general election — were needed to put the issue on the ballot. The deadline for submitting the signatures to the Tulsa County Election Board was Friday. Glanz declined Monday to say how many signatures had been collected.
"We got pretty close," he said.
Election Board Secretary Patty Bryant said Monday that the Sheriff's Office has not submitted any signatures.
Peters, who has been in office a week, said there also is a chance that the county will work with its municipalities to come up with a comprehensive public safety proposal that could be funded through a sales tax.
"We have got some time now," Peters said. "We have got to take an approach very similar to what the city took in terms of explaining to our people what we're trying to do. "And that's where I think the discussion comes in about making it a broader public safety issue beyond just the county."
Whatever proposal the county comes up with, it seems likely to get on the ballot. Commissioners Peters and Keith have said previously they would support putting a criminal justice sales tax to a vote of the people. Commissioner Smaligo said Monday he would not because it would result in a tax increase for communities outside of Tulsa.
The projects
Tulsa County officials are working to find funding for two projects they argue are sorely needed: a new juvenile justice center and family courts building to replace the Tulsa County Juvenile Bureau and four new pods at the Tulsa Jail.
The city has been working for years on design and programming for the juvenile justice center and family courts building, with the cost initially estimated to be $60 million to $70 million.
The project was scaled back to its current estimate, which includes $50.1 million for the juvenile justice center and $15.75 million for the family court.
Undersheriff Tim Albin estimates that the four new pods at the jail would cost $12 million to $15 million. The unknown factor is what it will cost to construct the two mental health units that are planned, Albin said.
The undersheriff said the estimates are based on discussions with architectural engineering firms and other law enforcement entities that have similar facilities.
Does the juvenile justice center have to be in downtown tulsa? Why can't it be in the county part of the county or in Owasso?
Quote from: carltonplace on August 27, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
Does the juvenile justice center have to be in downtown tulsa? Why can't it be in the county part of the county or in Owasso?
It will be a big upgrade over what is there now, and since it's next to the jail, Salvation Army, I-244 and the tracks the likelyhood of anything else being developed there is very low.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2013, 03:57:40 PM
It will be a big upgrade over what is there now, and since it's next to the jail, Salvation Army, I-244 and the tracks the likelyhood of anything else being developed there is very low.
Exactly. It's not like the jail, Starvation Army, Day Center, and John 3:16 have exactly stifled growth and renovation north of the tracks.
Quote from: carltonplace on August 27, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
Does the juvenile justice center have to be in downtown tulsa? Why can't it be in the county part of the county or in Owasso?
Where would you like to put it? The location requires bus service.
The best location is all about transportation, even though Juvenile has its own Court facilities there is still a significant amount of transportation required to and from the Jail for various reasons. Additionally, close proximity to the jail provides for shared expense reduction with support infrastructure such as laundry and potentially food service.
With this tax expiring in 2016 is there any movement to get another proposal on the ballot? I keep hearing about potential river projects totaling $160 million for the low water dams. What would you want to see on the ballot, and how can we ensure it passes?
Quote from: SXSW on June 02, 2014, 07:04:13 PM
With this tax expiring in 2016 is there any movement to get another proposal on the ballot? I keep hearing about potential river projects totaling $160 million for the low water dams. What would you want to see on the ballot, and how can we ensure it passes?
River
2nd&cincinatti -> 3rd&detroit parking garage
River
Brady parking garage
River
Downtown circulator
OKPOP
Reconciliation Center
East-West BRT (11th street maybe?)
Bicycle/pedestrian improvements
At least one New North Tulsa Rec center
East tulsa public plaza (previously proposed)
Tulsa children's museum
Turkey mountain enhancements
River
I agree the river should be a high priority for this, and hopefully being tied to the county doesn't sink it (again). So here is my list which includes several items from yours:
1. New low water dams in Jenks, Sand Springs and improvements to Zink Dam (estimated at $162 million) - part of this was funded in V2025 but not enough to cover all costs
2. Expansion of River West Festival Park onto the Mid-Con Concrete Plant site with a new larger amphitheater and boathouse for rowing/water activities
3. Streetcar line connecting Brady, Blue Dome, the CBD/Deco District, the Pearl/Hillcrest and TU via 11th St. and would include major streetscaping improvements. This would be about 4 miles total. For comparison OKC's proposed streetcar line is 4.5 miles and will cost $129 million to build and operate.
4. New downtown park in the Blue Dome (2nd/3rd & Cincinnati/Detroit parking lot) with public parking underneath
5. County-wide park improvements
6. Science & Nature Museum downtown (adjacent to Blue Dome park)
7. County-wide rec centers in suburbs and low-income neighborhoods
8. Sidewalks/Bike Lanes
9. Trails along the river and creeks (County Trails Master Plan) - includes river trail connecting Turkey Mtn to Jenks, Creek Tpke to Bixby and Tulsa to Sand Springs
10. Streetscaping (Cherry St, BA Rose District, Sand Springs, Owasso, Jenks)
11. OKPOP in the Brady with public parking
12. Public Higher Education (OU, OSU, TCC, NSU)
Mid-Con will never fly unless it's a private purchase and it's donated or the owners of the dirt there become a good deal less greedy, JMO.
As of a few years ago, INCOG had a plan for revamping the Riverwest Park. I don't recall all the details, but Kirby was also at the same meeting I was at the TRC boathouse when this was presented to the Tulsa Rowing Club.
The city also never made good on giving up the M & E center south of the 23rd St. bridge as promised when they bought the borg cube and were going to consolidate all those services at the old downtown airpark, as a compromise. The M & E center could also provide a lot more recreational space adjacent to the river.
I believe the airpark is now being used by the Osage Tribe and still houses the TPD helicopter patrol and nothing else. Far cheaper to access than the concrete plant, though I realize it's not contiguous to the RWF park.
To sgrizzle's and SXSW's lists I would add additional funds for downtown and near downtown housing development. I feel that this has been one of the greatest drivers of continued core development and residential creates a need for more businesses to serve that population.
Quote from: carltonplace on June 03, 2014, 09:19:38 AM
To sgrizzle's and SXSW's lists I would add additional funds for downtown and near downtown housing development. I feel that this has been one of the greatest drivers of continued core development and residential creates a need for more businesses to serve that population.
So long as it keeps ending up in the hands of developers like the Snyders and not the Sagers.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 03, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
So long as it keeps ending up in the hands of developers like the Snyders and not the Sagers.
Mcnellies group getting into the mix too.
Quote from: SXSW on June 02, 2014, 07:04:13 PM
With this tax expiring in 2016 is there any movement to get another proposal on the ballot? I keep hearing about potential river projects totaling $160 million for the low water dams. What would you want to see on the ballot, and how can we ensure it passes?
Wasn't the tax just extended as part of the city streets and improvement plan last fall?
Quote from: swake on June 03, 2014, 10:11:08 AM
Wasn't the tax just extended as part of the city streets and improvement plan last fall?
Different tax. That was the City of Tulsa 3rd penny.
So Bartlett wants to take 1/3 of the expiring V2025 tax and fund public safety. I can support that. A safe city should be the #1 priority. I suspect river projects will be a good part of the rest, or will Tulsa go it alone without county support?
http://m.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/county-officials-respond-to-mayor-s-public-safety-tax-proposal/article_832348ef-3334-5c37-ad99-ab9238bf72e0.html?mode=jqm (http://m.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/county-officials-respond-to-mayor-s-public-safety-tax-proposal/article_832348ef-3334-5c37-ad99-ab9238bf72e0.html?mode=jqm)
Tulsa currently collects about 2c sales tax to pay for operations. Of that, public safety takes around 50%. The other 50% pays for Dewey's people, IT, HR, street maintenance, parks, zoning, planning, water treatment, storm sewer, sewer lines, water lines, bus service, mowing, etc.
While I'm not against public safety, you have to fund the other stuff too.
If you're going to do 1/3rd to public safety, do another 1/6th or 1/3rd to transportation operations (and then free up the other Tulsa transit funds for other city services) and the remainder to the river.
New Vision 2025 Tax Extension Proposedhttp://publicradiotulsa.org/post/new-vision-2025-tax-extension-proposed (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/new-vision-2025-tax-extension-proposed)
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201503/Vision_2025.jpg)
QuoteLeaders of cities in Tulsa County announce a plan for a Vision 2025 tax extension that could finally get water in the river. There is a new approach this time that would allow each community to determine its' projects and vote on them independently. Tulsa City Councilor G.T. Bynum says it gives hope for low water dams and other river projects that have failed in the past. Other cities may have other priorities, and that would work in this approach to a tax renewal.
Specific projects are yet to be determined, but the vote should be scheduled sometime this fall.
Quote from: SXSW on July 01, 2014, 06:39:14 PM
So Bartlett wants to take 1/3 of the expiring V2025 tax and fund public safety. I can support that. A safe city should be the #1 priority. I suspect river projects will be a good part of the rest, or will Tulsa go it alone without county support?
http://m.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/county-officials-respond-to-mayor-s-public-safety-tax-proposal/article_832348ef-3334-5c37-ad99-ab9238bf72e0.html?mode=jqm (http://m.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/county-officials-respond-to-mayor-s-public-safety-tax-proposal/article_832348ef-3334-5c37-ad99-ab9238bf72e0.html?mode=jqm)
Do we have a public safety problem that would justify taking 1/3 of the renewed Vision money in addition to what is already allocated to it? Do we have x% higher total (insert whatever stat) compared with cities of similar size in the region?
I'm not being sarcastic... serious question.
Because "more money to public safety" seems like one of those things that everyone would agree to whether or not it was even needed.
It's Dewey's grand reelection plans of "water in river, cops in street, no burning cell phones in pocket", this is the dunce that wanted to give $300 million to a bankrupt American for no good reason and zero guarantees. He forced more millions in the last streets bond issue for the Gilcrease highway to nowhere (where he personally owns land) and tried to kill a sidewalk on Riverside nearly the whole city wanted that his landlord disliked.
Dewey wants a vote in the fall which means projects need to be chosen, scoped and priced by the summer and it's March right now. The timeline for starting public input for a fall vote would be last fall. I would peg his intended public input at zero.
I'm going to put on my Dewey Vision goggles here and guess that there will no real downtown improvements in this plan. It's going be .2% permanent fund to Cops, $200 million to dams, something at the zoo, $5 million for downtown housing, his stupid taco truck park on the west bank and money to fix the roads at 61st by the new outlet mall. Bing, done, it's Dewey Vision2030.
Maybe the city council can put some meat in any plans and derail the Dewey Express but I am not hopeful.
Quote from: Jeff P on March 24, 2015, 02:07:25 PM
Do we have a public safety problem that would justify taking 1/3 of the renewed Vision money in addition to what is already allocated to it? Do we have x% higher total (insert whatever stat) compared with cities of similar size in the region?
I'm not being sarcastic... serious question.
Because "more money to public safety" seems like one of those things that everyone would agree to whether or not it was even needed.
Isnt the Armored Personnel Carrier due to be replaced with a fleet of new MRAPs with sonic cannons?
The cassette player in the old one is so '80's.
;D
Quote from: Jeff P on March 24, 2015, 02:07:25 PM
Do we have a public safety problem that would justify taking 1/3 of the renewed Vision money in addition to what is already allocated to it? Do we have x% higher total (insert whatever stat) compared with cities of similar size in the region?
I'm not being sarcastic... serious question.
Because "more money to public safety" seems like one of those things that everyone would agree to whether or not it was even needed.
We bring in $355M in sales taxes, and spend $175M on police and fire.
The remaining, plus other funds, fund road maintenance, parks, streetlights, code enforcement, lawn mowing, planning, economic development, water, sewer, trash,
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 24, 2015, 04:21:12 PM
We bring in $355M in sales taxes, and spend $175M on police and fire.
The remaining, plus other funds, fund road maintenance, parks, streetlights, code enforcement, lawn mowing, planning, economic development, water, sewer, trash,
We should follow the lead of some other cities who are in higher rated states and make wifi internet access available from the city for all citizens. 57 cities doing it now.
http://www.kansas.com/news/article1144149.html
http://mic.com/articles/66891/57-cities-now-have-free-wi-fi-but-they-re-not-thinking-big-enough
We past time for Tulsa to be thinking 'out of the box'....
I think we need to buy the Tulsa Club Building, bring it back to its former glory, or better, and turn it into a Tulsa Art Deco Museum, as part of any new initiative.
We could lease out the grand ballroom to a restaurateur to help raise money, have great events there, use several floors for the museum, activate the street levels with a museum gift shop and an art deco themed cafe, and perhaps also rent out a few of the other floors for office space to help the museum be self sustaining.
I could turn that building into a major attraction in downtown, and I wouldn't need or want any parking. I would actually like to turn one of the floors into a Disney type, slow, look at the wonderful scenery, type rides (The Story of Art Deco", Worlds fairs, Metropolis, the movies, etc.) We could partner with the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture. Have classroom spaces, etc. etc.
This building is going to be so hard to rehab without the financial help of someone who really loves the building.
Quote from: TheArtist on March 24, 2015, 08:03:15 PM
I think we need to buy the Tulsa Club Building, bring it back to its former glory, or better, and turn it into a Tulsa Art Deco Museum, as part of any new initiative.
We could lease out the grand ballroom to a restaurateur to help raise money, have great events there, use several floors for the museum, activate the street levels with a museum gift shop and an art deco themed cafe, and perhaps also rent out a few of the other floors for office space to help the museum be self sustaining.
I could turn that building into a major attraction in downtown, and I wouldn't need or want any parking. I would actually like to turn one of the floors into a Disney type, slow, look at the wonderful scenery, type rides (The Story of Art Deco", Worlds fairs, Metropolis, the movies, etc.) We could partner with the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture. Have classroom spaces, etc. etc.
This building is going to be so hard to rehab without the financial help of someone who really loves the building.
This would also make a great new home for the OU-Tulsa Urban Design program.
Quote from: SXSW on March 24, 2015, 08:55:28 PM
This would also make a great new home for the OU-Tulsa Urban Design program.
Perfect fit!
Anyone else have any other ideas?
Quote from: TheArtist on March 24, 2015, 08:03:15 PM
I think we need to buy the Tulsa Club Building, bring it back to its former glory, or better, and turn it into a Tulsa Art Deco Museum, as part of any new initiative.
We could lease out the grand ballroom to a restaurateur to help raise money, have great events there, use several floors for the museum, activate the street levels with a museum gift shop and an art deco themed cafe, and perhaps also rent out a few of the other floors for office space to help the museum be self sustaining.
I could turn that building into a major attraction in downtown, and I wouldn't need or want any parking. I would actually like to turn one of the floors into a Disney type, slow, look at the wonderful scenery, type rides (The Story of Art Deco", Worlds fairs, Metropolis, the movies, etc.) We could partner with the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture. Have classroom spaces, etc. etc.
This building is going to be so hard to rehab without the financial help of someone who really loves the building.
Careful with that kind of thought!! People are gonna think you are crazy, too!!
If it works out for you, let me know. I would contribute to that effort!
Maybe you could have a PBS style fundraising event - get on one of the many public access channels on cable... oh, wait... Well, maybe some other type of fundraiser.
Quote from: swake on March 24, 2015, 02:33:04 PM
It's Dewey's grand reelection plans of "water in river, cops in street, no burning cell phones in pocket", this is the dunce that wanted to give $300 million to a bankrupt American for no good reason and zero guarantees. He forced more millions in the last streets bond issue for the Gilcrease highway to nowhere (where he personally owns land) and tried to kill a sidewalk on Riverside nearly the whole city wanted that his landlord disliked.
Dewey wants a vote in the fall which means projects need to be chosen, scoped and priced by the summer and it's March right now. The timeline for starting public input for a fall vote would be last fall. I would peg his intended public input at zero.
I'm going to put on my Dewey Vision goggles here and guess that there will no real downtown improvements in this plan. It's going be .2% permanent fund to Cops, $200 million to dams, something at the zoo, $5 million for downtown housing, his stupid taco truck park on the west bank and money to fix the roads at 61st by the new outlet mall. Bing, done, it's Dewey Vision2030.
Maybe the city council can put some meat in any plans and derail the Dewey Express but I am not hopeful.
Like. How does water in the river with dams at the proposed locations help create development in Tulsa? It doesn't. This is a dumb plan that benefits Jenks.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 24, 2015, 04:21:12 PM
We bring in $355M in sales taxes, and spend $175M on police and fire.
The remaining, plus other funds, fund road maintenance, parks, streetlights, code enforcement, lawn mowing, planning, economic development, water, sewer, trash,
So... forgive me, but can you (or anyone) supply some context for these figures for those of us who aren't as familiar with municipal financing?
Is it unusual that police and fire would take up roughly 50% of the city budget, or is that normal? It seems to me that those are rather large expenses, so it may be normal, but I don't know.
Quote from: Jeff P on March 25, 2015, 10:29:09 AM
So... forgive me, but can you (or anyone) supply some context for these figures for those of us who aren't as familiar with municipal financing?
Is it unusual that police and fire would take up roughly 50% of the city budget, or is that normal? It seems to me that those are rather large expenses, so it may be normal, but I don't know.
This is Texas, but apparently 50% is normal.
http://www.tml.org/HCW/HowCitiesWork.pdf
Quote from: carltonplace on March 25, 2015, 09:22:10 AM
Like. How does water in the river with dams at the proposed locations help create development in Tulsa? It doesn't. This is a dumb plan that benefits Jenks.
I'm for water in the river, with each city and the Creek Nation paying their share. What I am against is the permanent public safety funding. There are other ways to do that, like a fire district paid with property taxes. And I don't like Dewey's complete lack of focus on downtown.
Quote from: TeeDub on March 25, 2015, 10:47:14 AM
This is Texas, but apparently 50% is normal.
http://www.tml.org/HCW/HowCitiesWork.pdf
That's going to vary a lot state by state, in many states the city runs the schools, and sometimes welfare programs.
What is the purpose of water in the river? What's the larger goal? Is the return on investment simply beauty? (I'm ok with this, but I doubt that's what others are thinking.) I'm just curious since I'm opposed to anything that will encourage any more suburban-style commercial development along the River.
Obviously I appreciate beauty and I treasure the River parks. If we have a careful plan for high quality, human-scale, walk/bike/transit oriented development adjacent to the river that wouldn't denigrate the public space, I'm in!
My fear is that we'll get water (assuming it rains some day), quickly followed by thoughtless commercial developments that are 2/3 asphalt. If we're careful, we could get destinations that connect neighborhoods to the river and accentuate the public space. (Should be required in exchange for our public investment.) If we're not careful, we'll get more 71st street crap.
Seems like there's a new study / plan for the river every couple years. What's the latest?
Quote from: PonderInc on March 25, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
What is the purpose of water in the river? What's the larger goal? Is the return on investment simply beauty? (I'm ok with this, but I doubt that's what others are thinking.) I'm just curious since I'm opposed to anything that will encourage any more suburban-style commercial development along the River.
Obviously I appreciate beauty and I treasure the River parks. If we have a careful plan for high quality, human-scale, walk/bike/transit oriented development adjacent to the river that wouldn't denigrate the public space, I'm in!
My fear is that we'll get water (assuming it rains some day), quickly followed by thoughtless commercial developments that are 2/3 asphalt. If we're careful, we could get destinations that connect neighborhoods to the river and accentuate the public space. (Should be required in exchange for our public investment.) If we're not careful, we'll get more 71st street crap.
Seems like there's a new study / plan for the river every couple years. What's the latest?
http://www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/River_Documents/Phase%20II%20Web%20Powerpoint.pdf
This is the last one I know of.
Quote from: PonderInc on March 25, 2015, 01:42:08 PM
What is the purpose of water in the river? What's the larger goal? Is the return on investment simply beauty? (I'm ok with this, but I doubt that's what others are thinking.) I'm just curious since I'm opposed to anything that will encourage any more suburban-style commercial development along the River.
Obviously I appreciate beauty and I treasure the River parks. If we have a careful plan for high quality, human-scale, walk/bike/transit oriented development adjacent to the river that wouldn't denigrate the public space, I'm in!
My fear is that we'll get water (assuming it rains some day), quickly followed by thoughtless commercial developments that are 2/3 asphalt. If we're careful, we could get destinations that connect neighborhoods to the river and accentuate the public space. (Should be required in exchange for our public investment.) If we're not careful, we'll get more 71st street crap.
Seems like there's a new study / plan for the river every couple years. What's the latest?
My thoughts almost exactly. There is no point in incentivizing development that is just like what we have everywhere else, only that it's on the river. What's the point of having river development of we don't make sure that it interacts with the river and the neighborhoods around it?
Wow! Calls for amphitheaters...
Enhanced preservation of natural resources. In contrast to Riverfront oriented retail shops and restaurants. (Wasn't that tried already?)
Improved connections to downtown/neighborhoods.
Looks like someone wants to put some residential on the refinery sites. Just where I want to live!
I hope there is some updating...
Yeah, I don't think we need a minor league baseball stadium by Zink Lake anymore.
So the latest plan was 2005? Definitely should update the plan before voting on funding this thing.
Quote from: PonderInc on March 25, 2015, 05:10:07 PM
Yeah, I don't think we need a minor league baseball stadium by Zink Lake anymore.
So the latest plan was 2005? Definitely should update the plan before voting on funding this thing.
No, that is the original River Vision Plan, there are two updates with the later technical documents being updated. Take a look here http://riverprojectstulsa.info/ (http://riverprojectstulsa.info/) Essentially, the projects identified in the Project Management Plan (PMP) are being further defined/refined in the engineering process with updated cost estimating that can be used in developing what may be proposed by elected officials.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on March 25, 2015, 07:28:15 PM
No, that is the original River Vision Plan.
So Vision, what is this "extension" about? Is it just extending certain items on the original Vision, like having more money for the dams and thats pretty much it? Or will this have other items in it, like perhaps making a pitch to have an Art Deco Museum proposal put in there?
Quote from: TheArtist on March 25, 2015, 07:32:35 PM
So Vision, what is this "extension" about? Is it just extending certain items on the original Vision, like having more money for the dams and thats pretty much it? Or will this have other items in it, like perhaps making a pitch to have an Art Deco Museum proposal put in there?
Not that you're partial
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 25, 2015, 07:39:44 PM
Not that you're partial
Yes, as an implementer, I'm partial to good proposals. That said, and presently, other than supervising bringing the low water dam designs, cost models and permitting further forward I am not involved in the project formulation so I would be speculating to answer at this time. Personally, I truly hope there is a public idea solicitation as Vision 2025's development included.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on March 25, 2015, 07:52:25 PM
Yes, as an implementer, I'm partial to good proposals. That said, and presently, other than supervising bringing the low water dam designs, cost models and permitting further forward I am not involved in the project formulation so I would be speculating to answer at this time. Personally, I truly hope there is a public idea solicitation as Vision 2025's development included.
I'm with TheArtist... I think an Art Deco museum done in a large scale venue would have some serious value to the city! Sorry that you are stuck with dam designs, but while water would be nice, if someone is really all that into a wet river, move to St. Louis. They have two major rivers with water present all the time. Our river isn't that kind of river. And even the plan update from 2005 gave a nod to the reality of water being an intermittent behind the new dams. For at least some of the time - probably months a year - they will be in "flush" mode with provision made for refreshing/remediation. I bet it will be a pretty big ongoing expense just to keep them from silting up.
I keep asking, and it keeps on being no answering - can't we think of something more original than to try to just copy Austin, OKC, etc?? Have we no original idea people in a position to make a difference?? Am somewhat sorry if I am stepping on your toes with this - I am trying to step more gently than I might on other topics, because you are extremely vested in the process of making Tulsa better and I truly appreciate that a great deal !! I am way too blunt and 'mouthy' (smarta$$ some might say..??) to be involved in what you appear to be doing on the topic. Goes to an Irish temper and having had to wait WAY too long for improvements to governance in this city. Downtown has become a wonderful jewel - am hoping it continues.
And yeah, Tulsa IS better than OKC !! Too many here just don't seem to appreciate where we are and how far we have come...and appear to be going.
A deco museum would be great, but we already have a great museum idea just waiting to be funded. I would prefer to see Vision funds go to pay the state's portion for the Oklahoma Pop Museum, which I believe was $40 million. While the state should contribute, the reality is it will be an uphill battle to get funds for a Tulsa-based project, the effort will keep getting linked with providing yet more funding for the failed Indian museum in OKC and it is simply not going to happen in the near-term with the state's current budget shortfall. And yes, it pisses me off to think that Tulsa would have to pay the entire cost to make this happen even though it is supposed to be about the entire State of Oklahoma, but I would rather have it and be pissed about how it was funded than not have it at all.
Well...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/engineers-release-cost-estimates-for-arkansas-river-infrastructure-plans/article_66e93d2c-0b58-515c-9c19-36f331ee082d.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/engineers-release-cost-estimates-for-arkansas-river-infrastructure-plans/article_66e93d2c-0b58-515c-9c19-36f331ee082d.html)
Engineers release cost estimates for Arkansas River infrastructure plans
The $316 million tab will likely be pared down, a councilor says.
Posted: Friday, May 1, 2015 12:00 am
By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer
A group of engineers representing Arkansas River communities released an exhaustive report Thursday estimating costs associated with several low-water dams that could be part of a proposal headed to voters later this year.
The report includes estimates for parks, beaches, pedestrian bridges and even a manufactured island as possible projects attached to three new low-water dams along the Arkansas River and an overhaul of Tulsa's Zink Dam.
All totaled, the estimate comes to more than $316 million, but Tulsa City Councilor G.T. Bynum, who leads the task force looking at recommending an eventual proposal to voters, said he expects the final project to cost much less.
Bynum said the engineering report encompasses all possible projects, including roughly $100 million in amenities at the dams that he expects to be pared down.
"This is not a proposal," Bynum said about the report. "This is raw information for the task force to come up with a proposal."
The report, made by Murry Fleming, vice president of CH2M Hill, was the result of several months of work among engineers from Tulsa, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.
The bulk of the estimates call for about $200 million to construct three new low-water dams in Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby, and a rebuild of Tulsa's Zink Dam.
Other required costs include bank stabilization, environment preservation and permitting, which add more than $18 million to the basic cost of adding the dams.
The rest, almost $100 million to reach the grand total of $316 million, is estimated for recreation and public access, according to the report.
Annual operation of the dams is estimated to cost communities a total of $520,000 per year, which is built into the total cost estimates.
Operation and maintenance of the parks is estimated to cost about $1 million per year, according to the report.
Also built into the cost are an annual sinking fund of about $800,000 per year to cover eventual dam repair and maintenance, Fleming said.
The designs for the low-water dams call for a system of steel gates on hinges — called an Obermeyer Gate — that rise vertically when a large rubber bladder at its base is inflated, as previously reported.
The hinges connect the steel gate to the foundation of the dam, forming a wall when the downstream bladder fills and lowering the gate's profile when the bladder deflates.
County Commissioner Karen Keith said the cost estimates for the parks and amenities excited her.
"I know that's going to bring up the price tag considerably," Keith said. "But it gives us an opportunity to think big."
Mike Neal, CEO and president of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, said Thursday's report provided the group a strong foundation for public engagement this summer and the anticipated final proposal some time in the fall.
"It gives us a strong business plan and blueprint for development, with the information we need to confidently move forward."
Jarrel Wade 918-581-8367
jarrel.wade@tulsaworld.com
That article just brings up more questions....
Doesn't a traditional low water dam have zero maintenance costs? Also, does the million in operation and maintenance of the parks include what they do now, or is that extraneous to the current operation and maintenance?
Hmmm....
Seems like this would be kind of a "fluff" project for a County Commissioner to be putting effort into right now....
Or maybe the issues around Stanley Glanz constitute the "fluff" issue, while this is the really important one!
Quote from: TeeDub on May 01, 2015, 08:24:08 AM
That article just brings up more questions....
Doesn't a traditional low water dam have zero maintenance costs? Also, does the million in operation and maintenance of the parks include what they do now, or is that extraneous to the current operation and maintenance?
No, we are paying millions to maintain the one we have now because it breaks and gets filled with silt which has to be removed about every year.
For roughly 1/100th of that amount, we could purchase the 60 acres on the west side of Turkey Mountain. ;D
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2015, 09:29:27 AM
Hmmm....
Seems like this would be kind of a "fluff" project for a County Commissioner to be putting effort into right now....
Or maybe the issues around Stanley Glanz constitute the "fluff" issue, while this is the really important one!
Not a county project this time.
Quote from: swake on May 01, 2015, 09:40:30 AM
Not a county project this time.
Doesn't seem real clear on what project it would be. We have Tulsa for sure. Karen Keith is commenting. Then 3 other towns are mentioned. I guess the proposal that hasn't been done yet will clarify it some? Seems like county would almost have to be involved just because of the different city jurisdictions...??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2015, 10:03:50 AM
Doesn't seem real clear on what project it would be. We have Tulsa for sure. Karen Keith is commenting. Then 3 other towns are mentioned. I guess the proposal that hasn't been done yet will clarify it some? Seems like county would almost have to be involved just because of the different city jurisdictions...??
The cities involved will create a River Authority that would call for a vote in those cities only for the taxes to support the dams. The last river vote actually passed in Tulsa and Jenks but failed badly in Owasso and Broken Arrow. The Creek Nation has also indicated they will support with some funding as well.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage3/river-task-force-chairman-suggests-spring-vote-on-dams/article_202ae572-a46e-56b0-b33b-dcb1254417b0.html
Not a county vote.
The biggest benefit to making additional river lakes will be to the River Spirit Casino and Jenks. If this river proposal is put to a vote, I am "NO" unless someone can show me how this expenditure creates development in Tulsa.
Let's just fix the low water dam and let Jenks and Sand Springs fund their own if they want them.
Cue Country Joe and the Fish-
Cause its one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn 'bout any of them low water dams.
Cause it four, five, six, open up the Keystone gates!
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, them pigs are gonna' fly.
Just having fun. Glad Karen Keith is excited. She deserves it.
Wichita is probably a place we should be taking inspiration from rather than Austin, et. al. They have the same river we have (sort of - minus the salt water) and have done some very nice things there. It doesn't seem to be full all the time, but there are some dams and river parks areas like we have. Near Kellog Ave and the river, appears to be a dam that keeps at least some water present. And above the Keeper of the Plains, another dam appears to hold water much longer.
Quote from: carltonplace on May 01, 2015, 11:20:37 AM
The biggest benefit to making additional river lakes will be to the River Spirit Casino and Jenks. If this river proposal is put to a vote, I am "NO" unless someone can show me how this expenditure creates development in Tulsa.
Let's just fix the low water dam and let Jenks and Sand Springs fund their own if they want them.
The impound area for the south dam will be from 71st to 106th and not much of that area is in Jenks which has just has over one mile of riverfront impacted by this. Jenks has a small area where the apartments at the Riverwalk are and the section south of the 96th St Bridge to 106th. The Riverwalk and the land north of the Riverwalk past 91st are all Creek Nation land. Creek Nation also has the land from about 78th to 96st on the east bank. Tulsa has 71st to 78th and 96 to 106th on the east bank and 71st to 86th on the west bank.
So my best guess for total short line by entity for the south dam is:
Tulsa - 3.25 miles
Creek Nation – 2.73 miles
Jenks 1.2 miles
Most of the real prime developable land is in Tulsa too. Along Riverside 71st where REI is supposed to be going and south of 96th.
Cost of the dam is $34.7 million. So divided proportionally by each entities part of the shoreline is:
Tulsa – $16.1 million
Creek Nation – $13.2 million
Jenks – $5.8 million
Cost of the other dams:
The Zink Dam $20.2 million
Sand Springs Dam - $45.9 million
Bixby Dam $32.6 million
My numbers are from the PDF the World posted.
A little real data never hurts, try this http://riverprojectstulsa.info/index.php/arkansas-river-low-water-dams-and-public-accessrecreational-improvements.
The ST/J Dam location is closer to 104th Street South and it will back (thin) water to 71st plus the area of the casino will be more flooded due to significant mining and fill removed for the Hotel/Casino project, together, some 1,000,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel has been removed from the river.
Also the $ you list for Zink are just a bit short.
Please note this is not a proposal but a summary of all in costs and requirements based on solid engineering for the dams and conceptual sketches of public use areas as the local entities requested and overall the costs didn't change dramatically but the contingency(s) were reduced with significantly better data to estimate from.
Good luck and good hunting,
Kirby
Quote from: Vision 2025 on May 01, 2015, 12:46:09 PM
A little real data never hurts, try this http://riverprojectstulsa.info/index.php/arkansas-river-low-water-dams-and-public-accessrecreational-improvements.
The ST/J Dam location is closer to 104th Street South and it will back (thin) water to 71st plus the area of the casino will be more flooded due to significant mining and fill removed for the Hotel/Casino project, together, some 1,000,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel has been removed from the river.
Also the $ you list for Zink are just a bit short.
Please note this is not a proposal but a summary of all in costs and requirements based on solid engineering for the dams and conceptual sketches of public use areas as the local entities requested and overall the costs didn't change dramatically but the contingency(s) were reduced with significantly better data to estimate from.
Good luck and good hunting,
Kirby
Thanks Kirby,
One question I had was that in the past it was stated that the Sand Springs dam would be a containment pool used to ensure the lower dams were always full, is that still the case? It doesn't indicate it in the PDF from what I can see and the timeline has the Sand Springs dam built well after Jenks and Zink.
Quote from: swake on May 01, 2015, 10:33:37 AM
The cities involved will create a River Authority that would call for a vote in those cities only for the taxes to support the dams. The last river vote actually passed in Tulsa and Jenks but failed badly in Owasso and Broken Arrow. The Creek Nation has also indicated they will support with some funding as well.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage3/river-task-force-chairman-suggests-spring-vote-on-dams/article_202ae572-a46e-56b0-b33b-dcb1254417b0.html
Not a county vote.
So Tulsa, Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby only? I think if that's the case it could pass but will be close. All four cities have a lot to gain especially the Jenks/Creek Nation area where the bulk of the "river development" is currently located. Tulsa also the Gathering Place which will be enhanced by more water. Sand Springs has a lot of potential but currently no vision. Same with Bixby.
Quote from: SXSW on May 01, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
So Tulsa, Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby only? I think if that's the case it could pass but will be close. All four cities have a lot to gain especially the Jenks/Creek Nation area where the bulk of the "river development" is currently located. Tulsa also the Gathering Place which will be enhanced by more water. Sand Springs has a lot of potential but currently no vision. Same with Bixby.
Tulsa could do cool things at 71st and on the west bank at 21st.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 01, 2015, 11:24:03 AM
Cue Country Joe and the Fish-
Cause its one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn 'bout any of them low water dams.
Cause it four, five, six, open up the Keystone gates!
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, them pigs are gonna' fly.
Just having fun. Glad Karen Keith is excited. She deserves it.
Give me a "F".......
Quote from: SXSW on May 01, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
So Tulsa, Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby only? I think if that's the case it could pass but will be close. All four cities have a lot to gain especially the Jenks/Creek Nation area where the bulk of the "river development" is currently located. Tulsa also the Gathering Place which will be enhanced by more water. Sand Springs has a lot of potential but currently no vision. Same with Bixby.
I would rather support a usable transit system than water in the river.
The Arkansas is not the Delaware, Mississippi...... river. I grew up near the Delaware River. It was subject to tides and there were huge mud flats in the areas just downriver from Phila Int'l Airport in Essington where we took our family boat for the winter and spring maintenance before going back to the Chesapeake Bay for boating season.
Anyone know what you need to do to get on a ballot?
If they are having a city vote this fall I wonder what I would have to do to get a "Tulsa Art Deco Museum" thing put on there? If I need signatures a great time to do it would be during Mayfest etc. so would have to get moving.
If nobody knows I will wander around city hall next week bugging people or ask Blake.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 01, 2015, 07:50:11 PM
Anyone know what you need to do to get on a ballot?
If they are having a city vote this fall I wonder what I would have to do to get a "Tulsa Art Deco Museum" thing put on there? If I need signatures a great time to do it would be during Mayfest etc. so would have to get moving.
If nobody knows I will wander around city hall next week bugging people or ask Blake.
Good Luck. Let us know if you get something going. I don't get to Mayest but I would make a trip downtown to sign a ballot petition to help you out.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2015, 07:49:36 PM
I would rather support a usable transit system than water in the river.
The Arkansas is not the Delaware, Mississippi...... river. I grew up near the Delaware River. It was subject to tides and there were huge mud flats in the areas just downriver from Phila Int'l Airport in Essington where we took our family boat for the winter and spring maintenance before going back to the Chesapeake Bay for boating season.
Agreed. Many people of all age groups I've spoken to are puzzled by all this. I don't see a viable ROI for this proposal, at least not in my lifetime.
$300+ million. For water. Wow.
I can't even drive to work and back without my car trying to rattle apart. Dysfunctional and crumbling roads are a real disincentive to new commerce and appealing to the really important job creators. Our priorities are so screwed up here because Tulsa has always been a "new found wealth" city. You go through a binge phase and you blow through all your surplus on superfluous items which don't improve livability nor attract new people to the area.
You go through lean times and you dream of the next round of superfluous items which still won't achieve a notable payback in the tax base.
If the idea is we can now ring the Arkansas with a bunch of new retail development with water in the river and this will be our path to prosperity, this vision is a total FAIL.
Retail development upon retail development is simply not sustainable.
Quote from: swake on May 01, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
Thanks Kirby,
One question I had was that in the past it was stated that the Sand Springs dam would be a containment pool used to ensure the lower dams were always full, is that still the case? It doesn't indicate it in the PDF from what I can see and the timeline has the Sand Springs dam built well after Jenks and Zink.
Take a look at slide 7 of the presentation (bottom link on the site I posted above) it's the graph showing the lake elevations comparison. The inset gives sample release durrations from SS to augment the low flow conditions using the top three feet of the SS lake. For those of us concerned with the regulatory side and it's implications it is important to realize that the low flow swag between hydro power cycles often gets down in the 100-300 cfs range which is well below the EPA's (theoretical) 7Q2 flow for wasteload allocations.
Kirby
So around $5M per mile to spur development along the river in Tulsa around 71st. Yea, that is much more palatable.
At $5MM a mile it is still cheaper than the I-44 widening...
Quote from: rdj on May 04, 2015, 09:04:53 AM
At $5MM a mile it is still cheaper than the I-44 widening...
Which had a lot larger tax base paying for it.
I was wondering, has there been a total $$$ amount released that this package will be worth in just the City of Tulsa? I know Dewey wants $300-350 for police, fire, etc. and then $300 for civic projects - so is the total $0.01 tax for 14 years $600 million?
This is one crazy-a$$ project.
Will be good for all the engineering companies and construction companies involved. Anyone else?? Not so much...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 04, 2015, 10:08:32 PM
This is one crazy-a$$ project.
Will be good for all the engineering companies and construction companies involved. Anyone else?? Not so much...
Can't find too many people who are as enthused as they were about the 2007 river tax slush fund.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2015, 10:48:05 PM
Can't find too many people who are as enthused as they were about the 2007 river tax slush fund.
I'm becoming less enthralled daily. It's just not making a whole lot of sense for that kind of money. There has to be either a monetary or esthetic payback. Don't see either one here - not hundreds of millions worth....
Certainly does nothing for flood control, either.
The River Task force has pared down the project list for the River to $225 million, no break out on cost by city or what the Creek Nation will contribute.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/task-force-slims-down-low-water-dam-costs-for-coming/article_a2060aba-ccf1-5b60-9fff-8512e2324d25.html
I am still torn a little on the Dams. On the one hand, as an artist I appreciate the beauty of the way things are now. I like the dramatic changes of season, from roiling rapids to meandering streams going through wide sand bars, rocky outcroppings and wildflowers, driftwood, etc. I wish we would embrace what we have. I blame artists for not showing people the beauty and drama of what we have. Other places embrace the nature of the place as it is. Remember Tucson and how their architecture, art, public infrastructure, etc. had design elements reflecting... well, rocks dirt, scrubby brush, lizards etc. They saw the beauty in it and went with it making their places, home. However it's probably too late to really make that case, and unfortunately I don't see the people here having that sort of vision. So if they are going to do the dams and such. Do them right, go all out and make it something that generations will be able to enjoy. If like someone said you parse out the cost over the miles of the river it will effect, and then you also parse out the costs of having something that can make a difference over generations. Then what we are doing now is a fair price. It's ok to spend a good chunk now if our children and grandchildren will be able to use this investment.
I also think all the parks should be part of the project. I think Phil is wrong in that article when he says that the park in Sand Springs will not be a regional attraction. If all the cities in our area have great amenities near the river, I think that helps us all just as much as Tulsa having good amenities. I think having a diversity of interesting attractions and parks along the river would only be a plus.
What I don't like about the proposals they are putting out there is, if I have this right, they are apparently going to tap into the 2025 money to pay for Police and Fire? I am not against adding more police and fire but the Vision money should be for Vision items. You use several hundred mill for dams, several hundred mill for police and fire, and you have gutted future vision projects (like a Tulsa Art Deco Museum). Shouldn't fire and police be part of a 3rd penny tax? Vision money should mostly go for things that last, or that add "things" to our city which build up our attractions and amenities that generations of people can enjoy and help build value, jobs, tourism, etc. that way. We use these funds, which were not intended for this use, for police and fire, after its gone, we will then have to lay them off or re-up the tax, again robbing us of Vision money for projects, or go back to another source. I don't like this and I don't hear much discussion about it.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 09, 2015, 08:32:41 AM
I am still torn a little on the Dams. On the one hand, as an artist I appreciate the beauty of the way things are now. I like the dramatic changes of season, from roiling rapids to meandering streams going through wide sand bars, rocky outcroppings and wildflowers, driftwood, etc. I wish we would embrace what we have. I blame artists for not showing people the beauty and drama of what we have. Other places embrace the nature of the place as it is. Remember Tucson and how their architecture, art, public infrastructure, etc. had design elements reflecting... well, rocks dirt, scrubby brush, lizards etc. They saw the beauty in it and went with it making their places, home. However it's probably too late to really make that case, and unfortunately I don't see the people here having that sort of vision.
Its never too late to create a vision, or correct the vision you have. I am glad to see you understand and appreciate the beauty of nature though I am dismayed that you are so easily persuaded to negate it for someone else's vision of what it ought to look like.
Mostly I am surprised at the gullibility of people who actually think this is a project that will have widespread return to the community either in tax dollars, quality of life or potential retail use. That seems to me to be a stretch. Its returns are specious and narrow in scope. If this were a business proposition by a group of entrepreneurs, what do you think would be financiers or investor responses? //
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 09, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
I like that the Sand Springs dam will even the flow out during the day for the whole river so it's more natural than the on/off periods created by power generation at Keystone.
This also could be a good opportunity to move the outlet mall to the west bank like was envisioned years ago. Save Turkey Mountain and keep development in the core where new infrastructure isn't needed.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 09, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
The banks of the Arkansas are already filled with trucking, concrete operations, refineries, sewage treatment plants and such. They aren't going anywhere either without an exhorbitant price and they represent real taxpaying jobs.
Make note of OKC's attractions. I do each week when I pass over the bridges. Occasional rowing club activities, stalled progress on the water park and I never have seen the "ferry". Yes, the rocks and red dirt are covered with water, but otherwise not such a great tourist attraction. if there are hard figures showing its financial return I haven't seen them. Seems they would have been used to justify our investment. I strongly support repairing or remodeling the existing dam here in Tulsa. That at least keeps one historical vision intact.
*What most visitors and Tulsans see now when crossing I-44 at Riverside.......will look and smell, exactly the same. Rocks, debris, sand bars, shopping carts, pipes etc.
*Ask why if the Sand Springs dam is so important to the outcome, it is not the first dam scheduled? Why is it the Jenks dam? Because when the overruns kill the plan, or the money dries up, at least the Creeks will have their pet project completed.
Yes, being ignored hurts the river. There is no association that has taken on the task to clean up the century of abuse we have given it. We tore concrete bridges down and left the debris, we have oilfield remnants, acres of manmade trash, and littered banks. The insistence that the only vision for the river has to include multiple, expensive, ecologically impactful dams that just cover it all up may be just as damaging.
There's more rowing activity than anyone would realize. Many rowers are out in the pre-dawn hour(s). Not much in the middle of the day.
Being designated as a U.S. Olympic training center is a nice feather in the cap, but I agree, not sure what the net ROI is other than livability points.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 09, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
This is pretty much how I feel.
I think this needs to get done. It can be done in stages.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 09, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
Using the inflation calculator, it would have been $146M 20 years ago. It would have cost more than it was worth then too.
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
;D
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 09, 2015, 10:41:46 PM
We can just sit here and ignore our river, fill the banks with truck lots, refineries and casinos while OKC builds two rivers from scratch with boathouses, tourist attractions and everything that goes with it.
Do I think it's worth $225Million? maybe not. I think it was worth half that to do it 20 years ago when this should have been done, but definitely not worth the $500M it will take to do it 20 years from now.
+1 (or 2 or 3, as I am late to comment...) For those looking for a hard-dollar ROI, it's not going to happen. Probably didn't happen for OKC, either, but they have their dams and water and we don't. Was it justified? Who knows, but I bet they'd rather have it than not. If we try to put an ROI on it, nothing along the river (the actual river) will ever get done. Find a number that we can live with and get something done. The longer we wait, the further behind we get...
Quote from: rebound on May 11, 2015, 12:52:37 PM
+1 (or 2 or 3, as I am late to comment...) For those looking for a hard-dollar ROI, it's not going to happen. Probably didn't happen for OKC, either, but they have their dams and water and we don't. Was it justified? Who knows, but I bet they'd rather have it than not. If we try to put an ROI on it, nothing along the river (the actual river) will ever get done. Find a number that we can live with and get something done. The longer we wait, the further behind we get...
Other things the ROI numbers don't work too well on:
BOK Center
ONEOK Field
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Turkey Mountain
River Parks
Healthcare Reform
That's cute. Nor does ROI work on growing grass, sweeping your walk and tearing down recreation centers. Not really germane. But hey, hard ROI? Heck, I'd settle for a whisper of a return.
Why subject it to the same scrutiny that businessmen use to justify investment and employment? You seriously think the promoters/developers/politicians/businessmen involved with planning the BOK, ONEOAK, River Parks and HealthCare reform didn't consider ROI? They just loved the idea of the way those things looked and sounded? That is too naïve for you guys. You're making me feel like a libertarian talking to a pointy headed liberal. Shame on you for that!
If you love this plan so much, just show me where $225-300 million gets an East Tulsan, a north Tulsan, a West Tulsan, a Sandite or a non Native American who lives north of 71st street a return at all in the foreseeable future. Should be easy but its not. Tourism? Retail taxes? Increased ad valorem? Or is it the catchall phrase, "Quality of Life"?
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 11, 2015, 04:08:27 PM
Other things the ROI numbers don't work too well on:
BOK Center
ONEOK Field
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Turkey Mountain
River Parks
Healthcare Reform
but but but
BOK Center"The venue continues to set records, win awards and provide a return on the investment in the form of increased local revenues and a growing reserve fund dedicated to future improvements."http://vision2025.info/index.php/archives/390
I want someone to convince me that the rewards for this are widespread and not just focused on the contractors, casino, politicians, government administrators, etc. I am not against river development any more than I was against the Arena. In fact, most folks I spoke to during that time who were involved with the entertainment industry didn't think it would draw concerts and certainly not top name entertainment. They were wrong because their vantage point was too narrow.
It comes down to what Artist and others have pointed out frequently. We are barely, if at all, growing in population. The corollary to that is that disposable income continues to concentrate at higher levels. Therefore the pie is staying the same and the players are taking larger slices of that pie. In this case, the taxpayer is baking the pie.
And that to me is the "crux of the biscuit" (Frank Zappa). If this can be shown to be a PR success, that grows Tulsa's image as a growing, progressive, innovative, youth oriented city that not only turned its vacant downtown into a vibrant cultural location, but is now focused on its natural resources, then perhaps that grows the population as well. Then we all benefit.
But that isn't the case being presented. As it stands we would attract more population by sinking that money into attracting large employers developing the ones we have or spreading out the wealth in some other manner.
That's my take anyway.
There is more than one way of looking at things. There is no consensus at all that population growth is desirable. If there had been, more effort would be made to create conditions conducive to population growth. My own feeling is that a community either grows or withers and dies, but many times I feel like a lonely voice in the wilderness. This is one reason I keep reading TulsaNow.
"Quality of life," has been treated as a pretext in this discussion, when I think it is absolutely critical to attracting new business and the educated workforce that those businesses need. There is one line of reasoning in Oklahoma that low taxes alone should be enough. We are seeing from the experience of our immediate neighbor to the north, my home state of Kansas, that low taxes alone don't cut it. Infrastructure can be narrowly defined and limited to things like streets, highways, energy, water supply and the like, or it can be broadly defined as the entire community support system that sustains businesses and their employees. Tulsa is making headway toward recognizing the bigger picture, but it has refused to commit to a global effort involving both the private and public sector in creating an environment that attracts people to this area. The current political leadership of the city is divided between a Mayor who does nothing and a handful of councilors who would do more if they weren't limited by the powers given to the Mayor under the Charter. In a way, the current situation is precisely the reverse of what we had during the Taylor administration. Under Taylor, the Mayor had a vision and had to drag along a council stuck in a negative and reactionary mode. Now, with the council agenda being pushed by those who would be more positive, the Mayor is simply ignoring them and doing as little as he can. To be fair, there's little that can be done that would require money when the city is mainly funded by consumption taxes, which is another area in which effective political action could benefit Tulsa.
I haven't been sold on the idea that "water in the river" is a quality of life benefit that will help Tulsa turn the corner, but I'm at least willing to listen to the proponents' case.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 12, 2015, 10:58:46 AM
I want someone to convince me that the rewards for this are widespread and not just focused on the contractors, casino, politicians, government administrators, etc. I am not against river development any more than I was against the Arena. In fact, most folks I spoke to during that time who were involved with the entertainment industry didn't think it would draw concerts and certainly not top name entertainment. They were wrong because their vantage point was too narrow.
It comes down to what Artist and others have pointed out frequently. We are barely, if at all, growing in population. The corollary to that is that disposable income continues to concentrate at higher levels. Therefore the pie is staying the same and the players are taking larger slices of that pie. In this case, the taxpayer is baking the pie.
And that to me is the "crux of the biscuit" (Frank Zappa). If this can be shown to be a PR success, that grows Tulsa's image as a growing, progressive, innovative, youth oriented city that not only turned its vacant downtown into a vibrant cultural location, but is now focused on its natural resources, then perhaps that grows the population as well. Then we all benefit.
But that isn't the case being presented. As it stands we would attract more population by sinking that money into attracting large employers developing the ones we have or spreading out the wealth in some other manner.
That's my take anyway.
Quote from: cynical on May 12, 2015, 11:21:12 AM
There is more than one way of looking at things. There is no consensus at all that population growth is desirable. If there had been, more effort would be made to create conditions conducive to population growth. My own feeling is that a community either grows or withers and dies, but many times I feel like a lonely voice in the wilderness. This is one reason I keep reading TulsaNow.
"Quality of life," has been treated as a pretext in this discussion, when I think it is absolutely critical to attracting new business and the educated workforce that those businesses need. There is one line of reasoning in Oklahoma that low taxes alone should be enough. We are seeing from the experience of our immediate neighbor to the north, my home state of Kansas, that low taxes alone don't cut it. Infrastructure can be narrowly defined and limited to things like streets, highways, energy, water supply and the like, or it can be broadly defined as the entire community support system that sustains businesses and their employees. Tulsa is making headway toward recognizing the bigger picture, but it has refused to commit to a global effort involving both the private and public sector in creating an environment that attracts people to this area. The current political leadership of the city is divided between a Mayor who does nothing and a handful of councilors who would do more if they weren't limited by the powers given to the Mayor under the Charter. In a way, the current situation is precisely the reverse of what we had during the Taylor administration. Under Taylor, the Mayor had a vision and had to drag along a council stuck in a negative and reactionary mode. Now, with the council agenda being pushed by those who would be more positive, the Mayor is simply ignoring them and doing as little as he can. To be fair, there's little that can be done that would require money when the city is mainly funded by consumption taxes, which is another area in which effective political action could benefit Tulsa.
I haven't been sold on the idea that "water in the river" is a quality of life benefit that will help Tulsa turn the corner, but I'm at least willing to listen to the proponents' case.
With our consumption-based revenue system, population growth coupled with job growth is essential for the tax base to expand. Either that or Tulsa has to become more of a tourist mecca. Is $225 million in river infrastructure really necessary to successfully commercialize the banks of the Arkansas River? I don't think a full river or dry prairie river would make much difference in getting someone from Muskogee or Owasso to drive in to dine, drink, and walk around on the river banks.
It's really nothing spectacular or unique and not really much of a different draw than any number of watering holes at any of the area recreational lakes.
We don't have beaches nor mountains close enough by to drive the sort of tourism enjoyed by other cities. I'm not being pessimistic that there is nothing to do or see in Tulsa, I simply don't think more consistent water in the corridor from Bixby to Sand Springs will vastly change our fortunes or make Tulsa more livable.
Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown. They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas. But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend. I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year. Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.
Personally, I prefer our less commercialized riverfront so I can get away from every day trappings for an hour or two. But that's just my middle aged rantings, what do I know?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2015, 04:02:13 PM
With our consumption-based revenue system, population growth coupled with job growth is essential for the tax base to expand. Either that or Tulsa has to become more of a tourist mecca. Is $225 million in river infrastructure really necessary to successfully commercialize the banks of the Arkansas River? I don't think a full river or dry prairie river would make much difference in getting someone from Muskogee or Owasso to drive in to dine, drink, and walk around on the river banks.
It's really nothing spectacular or unique and not really much of a different draw than any number of watering holes at any of the area recreational lakes.
We don't have beaches nor mountains close enough by to drive the sort of tourism enjoyed by other cities. I'm not being pessimistic that there is nothing to do or see in Tulsa, I simply don't think more consistent water in the corridor from Bixby to Sand Springs will vastly change our fortunes or make Tulsa more livable.
Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown. They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas. But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend. I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year. Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.
Personally, I prefer our less commercialized riverfront so I can get away from every day trappings for an hour or two. But that's just my middle aged rantings, what do I know?
Seems a narrow perspective.
There are already quiet a few people from the burbs that go to Riverparks everyday for a jog, a walk, a family outing, etc and that's with the river looking pretty fugly south of the pedestrian bridge. I've driven from Owasso on several occasions just to take my kids to walk the river and it is always active pending the weather.
There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2015, 04:02:13 PM
Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown. They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas. But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend. I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year. Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.
I feel the same way about OKC. Does anyone really travel regionally to go to the Bricktown area or does it just move the dollars spent from the OKC suburbs more toward downtown?
Weatherdemon-
Unfortunately the river will still be perceived as fugly for you. It will not change from the Zink lowater dam to the 71st street bridge. And won't change much at Zink till the last dam is built in sands springs years later (if it ever is).
Quote from: Weatherdemon on May 13, 2015, 07:41:18 AM
Seems a narrow perspective.
There are already quiet a few people from the burbs that go to Riverparks everyday for a jog, a walk, a family outing, etc and that's with the river looking pretty fugly south of the pedestrian bridge. I've driven from Owasso on several occasions just to take my kids to walk the river and it is always active pending the weather.
There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.
Nowhere did I say that River Parks isn't attracting people from the suburbs. It most definitely does. Would a full river attract more people? I seriously doubt it.
My main point was, more water in the river will not create more of an attraction unless it is safe and offers recreational opportunities for most everyone. As someone who has been a member of Tulsa Rowing Club, I'd love to see more water in Zink Lake on a consistent basis and I'd re-up my membership with them. Still, rowing isn't for everyone, and one regatta a year isn't one of the larger tourist draws for Tulsa.
I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw. Regional in scale? That's hard to predict. Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return? I'd hope there would be a reason to return.
My personal feeling on commercial development along River Parks is I'd rather leave it the way it is, rather than wall-to-wall restaurants and bars in certain areas along the west bank that the city is proposing to commercialize.
Quote from: AquaMan on May 13, 2015, 08:33:59 AM
Weatherdemon-
Unfortunately the river will still be perceived as fugly for you. It will not change from the Zink lowater dam to the 71st street bridge. And won't change much at Zink till the last dam is built in sands springs years later (if it ever is).
Maybe so. But there is alot that could be done to clean it up around there.
The bulk of the estimates call for about $200 million to construct three low-water dams in Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby, and to rebuild Tulsa's Zink Dam near 31st Street and Riverside Drive. These may not be completed for 5-10 years but if no money is ever approved then nothing will be done.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2015, 09:32:21 AM
Nowhere did I say that River Parks isn't attracting people from the suburbs. It most definitely does. Would a full river attract more people? I seriously doubt it.
My main point was, more water in the river will not create more of an attraction unless it is safe and offers recreational opportunities for most everyone. As someone who has been a member of Tulsa Rowing Club, I'd love to see more water in Zink Lake on a consistent basis and I'd re-up my membership with them. Still, rowing isn't for everyone, and one regatta a year isn't one of the larger tourist draws for Tulsa.
I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw. Regional in scale? That's hard to predict. Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return? I'd hope so.
My personal feeling on commercial development along River Parks is I'd rather leave it the way it is, rather than wall-to-wall restaurants and bars in certain areas along the west bank that the city is proposing to commercialize.
I agree that a river full of water in and of its self wouldn't be a major draw unless, like you said, there are plenty of safe recreational opportunities there.
I do think it would work well in conjunction with the Gathering Place.
As far as commercial development, I'm torn. I would like to see some eateries, gift shops, maybe a couple of restaurants with nice bars, and touristy stuff on the west side but, I don't want that to be a huge negative on the more natural east bank.
I think the two could work in conjunction unless you allow the stuff on the west side to get too loud and obnoxious.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on May 13, 2015, 09:44:45 AM
I agree that a river full of water in and of its self wouldn't be a major draw unless, like you said, there are plenty of safe recreational opportunities there.
I do think it would work well in conjunction with the Gathering Place.
As far as commercial development, I'm torn. I would like to see some eateries, gift shops, maybe a couple of restaurants with nice bars, and touristy stuff on the west side but, I don't want that to be a huge negative on the more natural east bank.
I think the two could work in conjunction unless you allow the stuff on the west side to get too loud and obnoxious.
The truck lot Clay Bird was proposing in the Riverwest Festival Park was what I perceived as one of those loud and obnoxious developments, though I could be entirely wrong about what kind of draw it is.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on May 13, 2015, 07:41:18 AM
There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.
You specifically mention Wichita - they have already done something similar to what we are talking about here. On the same river, Upstream of all the salt additions before it gets to Keystone.
It also has more water in a longer stretch of the river.... for part of the time. Google earth shows the sand river bed in Wichita in its latest views. I was there about 3 weeks ago, and the river was full for miles. Their "hundreds of millions" (no idea how much they really spent) left them with a part time river, but water for a slightly longer percentage of the year. As will ours. It is NOT going to be a full time river like the Missouri or Mississippi...no matter what we do. If we put infrastructure in to make it that way, we would have Keystone II. And would likely lose a lot of the 'shoreline' we are supposedly trying to "enhance".
Ya can't get there from here....
This whole plan is a corporate welfare enterprise.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2015, 09:32:21 AM
I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw. Regional in scale? That's hard to predict. Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return? I'd hope there would be a reason to return.
It has the potential to be a regional draw with a full river next to it with the Zink Dam improvements and what they have planned for the whitewater chute. The success of the park is tied to the river.
Doesn't it already have a whitewater area? The "Tulsa Wave"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov4Mou4RGj8
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2015, 10:06:33 AM
The truck lot Clay Bird was proposing in the Riverwest Festival Park was what I perceived as one of those loud and obnoxious developments, though I could be entirely wrong about what kind of draw it is.
If they don't have electric ran to them then there will be the lovely natural sound of generators everywhere... ugh.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 13, 2015, 10:53:51 AM
You specifically mention Wichita - they have already done something similar to what we are talking about here. On the same river, Upstream of all the salt additions before it gets to Keystone.
It also has more water in a longer stretch of the river.... for part of the time. Google earth shows the sand river bed in Wichita in its latest views. I was there about 3 weeks ago, and the river was full for miles. Their "hundreds of millions" (no idea how much they really spent) left them with a part time river, but water for a slightly longer percentage of the year. As will ours. It is NOT going to be a full time river like the Missouri or Mississippi...no matter what we do. If we put infrastructure in to make it that way, we would have Keystone II. And would likely lose a lot of the 'shoreline' we are supposedly trying to "enhance".
Ya can't get there from here....
This whole plan is a corporate welfare enterprise.
I mentioned Wichita because Wichita had been mentioned.
I understand it will never be full time water in Tulsa and the dryness in Tulsa has been exacerbated by the prolonged drought but, I still think it would much more inviting to have water in it as whenever possible.
Quote from: TeeDub on May 13, 2015, 12:14:03 PM
Doesn't it already have a whitewater area? The "Tulsa Wave"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov4Mou4RGj8
The plan for the Zink Dam rebuild that is part of this estimate includes a separate whitewater area on the east side of the dam. It's part of the PDF that Vision 2025 posted. It potentially could be used more adjacent to the park as opposed to right by PSO where you have to dodge the rebar from the old dam still in the river.
It also appears that the estimate is not just for dams/maintenance but also shoreline improvements behind the dams.
Quote from: SXSW on May 13, 2015, 02:20:38 PM
The plan for the Zink Dam rebuild that is part of this estimate includes a separate whitewater area on the east side of the dam. It's part of the PDF that Vision 2025 posted. It potentially could be used more adjacent to the park as opposed to right by PSO where you have to dodge the rebar from the old dam still in the river.
It also appears that the estimate is not just for dams/maintenance but also shoreline improvements behind the dams.
The whitewater feature on the east side of the river shouldn't require down-stream impoundment for it to function though.
The Zink dam has been on its last legs for years and it's never been safe for people to be around. This plan fixes that. The new Zink dam/lake and the improvements that will be made to it will be an important part of the new park.
It also adds additional lake areas within the riverbed, especially in the area from 104th to 71st which is actually a major tourist draw for Tulsa. The casino, like it or not, adds thousands of jobs to the area. Maybe people will travel to Tulsa for the Gathering Place, maybe not. But they do come to the casinos. And will many more come more with the new Margaritville construction. Even more so with the Golf venue at The Riverwalk and REI at 71st.
The river being constantly completely empty isn't normal, and it's not just the drought. It's that water is held back at Keystone for power generation decreasing the flow during most of the daylight hours. This plan fixes that for the four miles of the river in midtown Tulsa that would not have a dam.
The rest of what 2025 will be isn't out yet. I would add $60 million to buy out the concrete plant and offer that to Simon in trade for the Turkey Mountain land for an Outlet Mall as part of 2025 v2. Turkey Mountain recreation area grows, we get rid of an eyesore on the West Bank and keep commercial development in Tulsa and near downtown where existing infrastructure can handle the traffic. And the mall can complement The Gathering Place as a draw to people from out of town.
Sorry swake, can't resist with the housing project across the street. I'd actually made this regarding the Bales Park Land Swap Clay Bird was proposing for Simon:
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/lghcf_zpspj1ygqso.jpg)
Big problem for an outlet mall along that site is access issues. You'd have trouble moving an extra 750 or so (Simon's numbers, not mine) cars per hour through 23rd & Jackson, especially with the dysfunctional entrance and exit system off SW Boulevard. Word around the campfire has them eyeing the River District property in Jenks. Regardless what curmudgeons like Mike Sanditen keep claiming, the Horizon project in east Tulsa is quite viable and would generate more sales tax and ad valorem revenue than Simon's project due to the restaurants, hotels, and office space proposed. Not to mention new housing it would likely help spur, according to the developers.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2015, 03:08:14 PM
Big problem for an outlet mall along that site is access issues. You'd have trouble moving an extra 750 or so (Simon's numbers, not mine) cars per hour through 23rd & Jackson, especially with the dysfunctional entrance and exit system off SW Boulevard. Word around the campfire has them eyeing the River District property in Jenks. Regardless what curmudgeons like Mike Sanditen keep claiming, the Horizon project in east Tulsa is quite viable and would generate more sales tax and ad valorem revenue than Simon's project due to the restaurants, hotels, and office space proposed. Not to mention new housing it would likely help spur, according to the developers.
DING! DING! DING! DING!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6009/6097700508_47a4ae5237_z.jpg)
Please choose a prize from the top row.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 13, 2015, 03:43:06 PM
DING! DING! DING! DING!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6009/6097700508_47a4ae5237_z.jpg)
Please choose a prize from the top row.
Top row??
But I want a froggy!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 13, 2015, 10:53:51 AM
...It also has more water in a longer stretch of the river.... for part of the time. Google earth shows the sand river bed in Wichita in its latest views. I was there about 3 weeks ago, and the river was full for miles. Their "hundreds of millions" (no idea how much they really spent) left them with a part time river, but water for a slightly longer percentage of the year. As will ours. It is NOT going to be a full time river like the Missouri or Mississippi...no matter what we do. If we put infrastructure in to make it that way, we would have Keystone II. And would likely lose a lot of the 'shoreline' we are supposedly trying to "enhance"...
Somebody (Conan?) help me here. But as I remember it, back in the late 80's and early 90's (when the dam was working properly) Zink lake was always full. The Tulsa rowing club crewed on it, etc.
"The river" we are talking about is almost completely dependent upon (generally regular) releases from Keystone dam for water. So obviously, if they turn that off then the flowing water disappears. But that's the purpose of the dams. To hold impounded water so that even with the flow cut off temporarily there is still "water in the river. The River might not flow full time, but there would be water in the lakes all the time.
Quote from: rebound on May 13, 2015, 04:23:02 PM
Somebody (Conan?) help me here. But as I remember it, back in the late 80's and early 90's (when the dam was working properly) Zink lake was always full. The Tulsa rowing club crewed on it, etc.
"The river" we are talking about is almost completely dependent upon (generally regular) releases from Keystone dam for water. So obviously, if they turn that off then the flowing water disappears. But that's the purpose of the dams. To hold impounded water so that even with the flow cut off temporarily there is still "water in the river. The River might not flow full time, but there would be water in the lakes all the time.
The Sand Springs dam is designed to even out the water flow through the day back to a more normal river flow.
Quote from: swake on May 13, 2015, 04:53:24 PM
The Sand Springs dam is designed to even out the water flow through the day back to a more normal river flow.
and the proposed dam would do it properly...
Quote from: swake on May 13, 2015, 04:53:24 PM
The Sand Springs dam is designed to even out the water flow through the day back to a more normal river flow.
Except that it is, by definition NOT a more normal river flow...for the Arkansas. It is the opposite of normal river flow.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 13, 2015, 08:43:36 PM
Except that it is, by definition NOT a more normal river flow...for the Arkansas. It is the opposite of normal river flow.
How so?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2015, 03:08:14 PM
Sorry swake, can't resist with the housing project across the street. I'd actually made this regarding the Bales Park Land Swap Clay Bird was proposing for Simon:
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/lghcf_zpspj1ygqso.jpg)
Big problem for an outlet mall along that site is access issues. You'd have trouble moving an extra 750 or so (Simon's numbers, not mine) cars per hour through 23rd & Jackson, especially with the dysfunctional entrance and exit system off SW Boulevard. Word around the campfire has them eyeing the River District property in Jenks. Regardless what curmudgeons like Mike Sanditen keep claiming, the Horizon project in east Tulsa is quite viable and would generate more sales tax and ad valorem revenue than Simon's project due to the restaurants, hotels, and office space proposed. Not to mention new housing it would likely help spur, according to the developers.
Buy out the Section 8 complex too then. With the medical school right there and being right next to downtown and the new park the west bank area has incredible potential. Eventually the area should also have a rail stops coming out of downtown on our new river bridge, one at the medical school and one at the outlet mall site.
Quote from: swake on May 13, 2015, 09:55:01 PM
How so?
The river would "normally" go mostly dry. You hear old stories of the ferries that would take people across the river before the bridge was built and they would often operate only part of the year for the rest of the time you could get or your horse and buggy across without the ferry. Seen pictures of cattle drives going across the riverbed without a bridge or ferry. Hence my earlier comment of how dramatically the river could change with the seasons.
Quote from: swake on May 13, 2015, 09:58:33 PM
Buy out the Section 8 complex too then. With the medical school right there and being right next to downtown and the new park the west bank area has incredible potential. Eventually the area should also have a rail stops coming out of downtown on our new river bridge, one at the medical school and one at the outlet mall site.
I thought the city already owns this land?
Quote from: carltonplace on May 14, 2015, 08:04:08 AM
I thought the city already owns this land?
Does the city own that complex?
Quote from: rebound on May 13, 2015, 04:23:02 PM
Somebody (Conan?) help me here. But as I remember it, back in the late 80's and early 90's (when the dam was working properly) Zink lake was always full. The Tulsa rowing club crewed on it, etc.
"The river" we are talking about is almost completely dependent upon (generally regular) releases from Keystone dam for water. So obviously, if they turn that off then the flowing water disappears. But that's the purpose of the dams. To hold impounded water so that even with the flow cut off temporarily there is still "water in the river. The River might not flow full time, but there would be water in the lakes all the time.
IIRC, until the dam started leaking, Zink Lake always had water in it.
You can do a historical check at the corps website. They have depth gauge that hangs off the 66 bridge. It seems to me it was less frequent but not unusual to be dry in late summer. That is also peak demand time for southwest power. Meaning a nightly draw down.
Quote from: swake on May 14, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
Does the city own that complex?
Riverview Park Apts at the corner of 23rd & Jackson is owned by Tulsa Housing Authority. The Brightwater Apts that are along Southwest Blvd are owned by a commercial LP and not THA.
The ROI on the purchase and remediation of the concrete plant doesn't make sense for an outlet mall in my opinion. If public dollars are going to that it better be for a whole lot better than second rate clothing and accessories.
Hey look! Water in the river!
(Just saved everyone $316 million. Now can we invest in transit, parks, smart infill development, entrepreneurs...?)
Quote from: PonderInc on May 20, 2015, 01:26:18 PM
Hey look! Water in the river!
(Just saved everyone $316 million. Now can we invest in transit, parks, smart infill development, entrepreneurs...?)
No no no...wider streets, more parking, Gilcrease expressway expansion, brighter/more street lights...
Quote from: PonderInc on May 20, 2015, 01:26:18 PM
Hey look! Water in the river!
(Just saved everyone $316 million. Now can we invest in transit, parks, smart infill development, entrepreneurs...?)
It will be gone in about two days....
Quote from: Townsend on May 20, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
No no no...wider streets, more parking, Gilcrease expressway expansion, brighter/more street lights...
Hit the nail on the head with that one. Let's give $100+ million so people can park their car next to "WATER IN THE RIVER!" That will surely boost those sales at the new outlet mall!
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/Zhr9RG.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/idZhr9RGp)
This go back to show that the development along the Arkansas will not be controlled in a way that promotes and ensures the highest and best use and exemplary design on land that fronts this natural asset. I'd rather put the money into streetcars, light rail, brt, public parks, our universities, etc. over the river because of that above. It's a complete joke.
The only damn I can support is Zink Lake. If the Jenks damn is on the upcoming vote I will be voting NO on this package.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on May 21, 2015, 12:33:22 AM
Hit the nail on the head with that one. Let's give $100+ million so people can park their car next to "WATER IN THE RIVER!" That will surely boost those sales at the new outlet mall!
This isn't on the bank of the river. That land is still undeveloped.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 21, 2015, 09:46:45 AM
This isn't on the bank of the river. That land is still undeveloped.
Where is this exactly then, is that the Creek Turnpike on the top?
Quote from: SXSW on May 21, 2015, 10:18:18 AM
Where is this exactly then, is that the Creek Turnpike on the top?
This picture gives a better look at the area around the site. It's actually well off the river.
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/dd/5ddacfd0-add0-5943-8345-e1df0b89ffc3/555d73b1d0b71.image.jpg%3Fresize%3D300%252C130)
This map shows it even better
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0127664,-95.9620685,16z
I copied the site plan onto a few maps to give people a better idea. The orange areas are lots owned by the River District LLC that looks to not be bought by Simon. Essentially a small peice of land between the Outlets and land that is not develop-able and is proposed for public amenities (green)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/fAsTjp.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyfAsTjpj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/673/izRSvj.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipizRSvjj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/vHt6ib.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyvHt6ibj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/661/q2sNTQ.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/idq2sNTQj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/913/qn3jc2.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/pdqn3jc2j)
This development means there's essentially no chance of any major interaction with the river here. Good thing we are going to vote to build a very expensive dam here, so that way the River District owners can sell those lots right next to the river to a few more Holiday Inn's just like on the other side of the Creek. Man! What a great return on our tax dollars!! Those Holiday Inn's would never be built anywhere if we don't put water in the river!
LandArchPoke, the added orange lines stopped well short of the river bank, which contradicts a good many other developments in place along the river. What is different about this property than the property the Riverwalk Crossing or KingsPoint Landing is located on. Both of those developments, located within Jenks, are built right up to the river bank as some of your pictures show. You totally reject that as a possibility here. Why?
Quote from: cynical on May 21, 2015, 12:48:24 PM
LandArchPoke, the added orange lines stopped well short of the river bank, which contradicts a good many other developments in place along the river. What is different about this property than the property the Riverwalk Crossing or KingsPoint Landing is located on. Both of those developments, located within Jenks, are built right up to the river bank as some of your pictures show. You totally reject that as a possibility here. Why?
Mainly because their ownership ends where the parcel lines are. Any further east is the Arkansas River. It took the Creek Nation over 2 years with the Fed's to be able to modify and build on the same land, do you honestly think there is a developer (or these developers) would go through the same process? Other areas of the shoreline have ownership rights all the way up to the banks, which is what is the case where the Riverwalk and Aquarium went it. It is not the case here. Why? I do not know. I'm going from what the parcels maps from County records are showing.
Likely, that will become park land when any shoreline modifications are done with the dam. Which means this development is basically it when it comes to waterfront development here. We'll be lucky if we get a few suburban style hotels and restaurants to the east of this mall.
Not exactly a high ROI on that very expensive dam, they're asking us to pay for.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on May 21, 2015, 11:15:04 AM
This development means there's essentially no chance of any major interaction with the river here. Good thing we are going to vote to build a very expensive dam here, so that way the River District owners can sell those lots right next to the river to a few more Holiday Inn's just like on the other side of the Creek. Man! What a great return on our tax dollars!! Those Holiday Inn's would never be built anywhere if we don't put water in the river!
I doubt very seriously that's how Jenks will play this. Jenks will tie up the dam and riverbank improvements into the TIFF for the mall for whatever portion The Creek Nation isn't going to pay for. Jenks isn't even going to vote, there's no need now.
The Creek Nation is going to pay too, the whole cost would be just a fraction of the nearly $400 million in construction they have going on along the banks of the river right now between Riverwalk's Flying Tee and Margaritaville and they need that dam to tie all those properties together.
Don't forget Jenks Public Works is on the hook for Jenks Aquarium Authority debt once the Vision 2025 payments stop. They have some fiscal decisions to make at Jenks City Hall.
There are plenty of ways for the development company to gain access to the river. Think public-private partnerships. Jim Inhofe. Who still supports river development after all these years. As long as the project isn't a casino, it shouldn't take two years to gain approval. Trade completion of riverbank stabilization and public recreation infrastructure (multi-use trails, etc.) for land.
Quote from: swake on May 21, 2015, 02:36:44 PM
I doubt very seriously that's how Jenks will play this. Jenks will tie up the dam and riverbank improvements into the TIFF for the mall for whatever portion The Creek Nation isn't going to pay for. Jenks isn't even going to vote, there's no need now.
The Creek Nation is going to pay too, the whole cost would be just a fraction of the nearly $400 million in construction they have going on along the banks of the river right now between Riverwalk's Flying Tee and Margaritaville and they need that dam to tie all those properties together.