I think some of these details are not as obvious as they could be. I generally vote yes for improvements, but I take my time to research what I am voting for.
$748.8 million divided among 603,403 people (2010 census of Tulsa County) works out to $1,240 per person. The tax doesn't start until the other one expires in 2017 and runs till 2029 (12 years! wow...) so the $1,240 by year is $103 or $2 a week per person if it passes.
Of course, I have a family of four so it would be $8 for me (but my kids will be hopefully gone from my house by the time it kicks in).
Are these projects worth $2 a week to me?
Some of them are important to me. I think the Juvenile Justice Center is vital. I think the river levee improvements will be a great way to protect developments and add recreation opportunities. $7 million for County Parks seems reasonable and I think the county has done a great job with their parks. I am interested in seeing what projects the City of Tulsa comes up for their portion.
That's well and good, but their priorities are not mine. I prefer the money be invested in education, environment, and infrastructure.
What are your priorities? Falling in line and corporate welfare?
We are already one of the highest taxed towns in America. I could care less about trying to attract business. If your city has the right ingredients, then the economic base will expand.
I am appalled you would even be willing to fund a Chamber bribe account. That really is the sickest thing about extending 2025....and the fact that this was suppose to be a one time tax with an end point unlike the 3rd penny lie.
I don't mind spending the money on designated projects with oversight but I trust our city and county leaders to take care of themselves and that's it. I don't trust them with hundreds of millions of unallocated money and no oversight.
I am not for paying for needed maintenance at the airport so all the tenants will stay. Most have discounted rent as it is, except for the smaller companies that could really use it, and all have paying for their facilities maintenance as a part of their agreement.
New facilities may be needed but again, if the renters aren't going to maintain it as their lease requires, then why do I want to give them something better?
Yes, every city that AA is in gives them essentially free rent and facilities. They've recieved hundreds of millions in tax breaks in Tulsa and other cities and recieve billions from the the feds yet they continually lose money and threaten to pull of town. I see no reason to to spend a hundreds of millions on facilities they will threaten to abandon in 5-10 years if we don't come up with millions more for them.
As for Gilcrease. Maybe we do need it. Maybe it will help. Why is it not proposed as toll like the Creek? Could it be that the OTA doesn't see it as having enough traffic to pay for its completion? Serious question. They jump at a chance build another toll road yet they don't like one up there?
More river BS. For whatever reason the city seems hellbent on studying the river and not doing a damn thing with it except nicen up the trails (which they have done well at). Studies show that studying studies of studies studied in preparation for new studies does nothing but cost money and are a way to prevent progress.
The cities around the county don't know what to spend this money on although they will find something. If this was so important you think these communities would have a list of items to drop this dime on but instead they're saying, well, uh, I guess, uh, we might spend it on, uh, some improvements to our, uh, downtown or um, uh our infrastuctures.
NO NO NO!
And I was 100% behind the original 2025.
A couple of things. One, the buildings that AA and IC reside in are hell to work in from what I've heard from workers there. The buildings can be maintained without improvements but if AA and the bus company leave, we will have to either rent or sell the buildings and I'm not sure they can be sold. So, it behooves a landlord to invest in his properties to make them more rentable should the worst happen and its not good to wait till you have no rent coming in to do so. Its a public property and we should invest in its saleability or rentability.
Two, the authorities know that the improvements necessary would not pass on their own merits if put to a vote. So, they sweeten the pot and try to coat tail on the more popular V2025 issue. Offering the surrounding communities some of the pie was the key element to V2025 passage.
I've changed my view over time about the Gilcrease bridge. The Gilcrease is a good idea whose time never seems to come. Just because it couldn't survive as a toll road doesn't mean it isn't good planning. Its just expensive and longer payback.
Conceptually, I am less bothered by the airport improvements and bribery/closing fund portion of this package than the undefined projects for the county/cities. As for the airport issue, Tulsa has allowed its assets to become run down due to a lack of maintenance (a running theme with many city assets). Spending money to improve those properties makes sense to me because I assume Tulsa never had enough leverage to get a lease that required the tenants to pay for such improvements. I get it that this is not a normal landlord-tenant relationship and these are no triple net commercial leases. Therefore, the City needs to step up to fix up our property and be prepared for come what may with respect to AA. To the extent this part of the package means spending money directly for AA, such as buying equipment or tools, then I think that is a bad idea. As for the closing fund – I don't like it but it is a fact of life. We are not successfully getting companies to move here with out it. Even worse, companies already here are being recruited by other communities to move away. We can bemoan corporate welfare, et al. until the cows come home, but we've got to protect what we have and try to grow our business base if we want all the development bells and whistles we love to talk about on this site.
I have real concerns about the other part of the package – the unspecified projects in every city and town. As an initial matter, it doesn't make much sense to have this county tax if the money is going to be spilt back up pro rata according to population. What's the point? If Bixby wants to raise its sales tax to fund some needed project, then that is up to them. This is simply a transparent attempt to give every community a stake in the outcome, when in reality it simply shows how poorly thought out and rushed this concept really is. Plus, I suspect Tulsa is a net loser under this distribution plan because I suspect a disproportionate share of the taxes are collected from Tulsa businesses.
This tax proposal appears like an effort to create regionalism in which the local governments of the many communities of Tulsa County cede authority and power to a centralized county government. That may be a good idea, but I don't think it should be done covertly.
Finally, the process for this package stinks. Every lesson learned from Susan Savage's two failed "vision" votes and the successful Vision 2025 vote is being cast aside. This has been a rushed top down process and the voters are being asked to lock down money until 2029 without a good idea of what projects they will get in return. As discussed above, serious consideration of potential "mass transit" ideas in downtown and midtown need to be considered. Maybe we could even discuss how to use those new railroad tracks on our fancy new bridge over the Arkansas. I'm sure there are a lot of other good ideas that could and should be considered. If this money gets locked up for the next 17 years, where will the money come from if Tulsa wanted a downtown trolley loop system or the city wants to pick up the slack on funding for the Oklahoma Pop museum when the legislature screws us again? "Sorry, we're building a sand box park in Collinsville with that sales tax money" is a pretty lousy answer.
Did the local politicians and chamber leaders completely miss the John Sullivan primary loss 2 months ago? Whether you agree or not with the message the primary voters were sending is not the point. Local leaders ignore that message at their peril.
This plan should be renamed "Reaction 2012" as there is no vision present in it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 12:47:38 PM
This plan should be renamed "Reaction 2012" as there is no vision present in it.
+1
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 14, 2012, 01:57:48 PM
RINO! (Reactionary in name only....) ;)
Whatever, but this is the most opposite of visionary.
At least Vision 2025 had some decided improvements in quality of life. Regardless of what happened to the economy we ended up with the world class BOK Center as well as community enhancements to towns all around Tulsa County.
Why doesn't the city come up with something and get the county out of the sales tax business? County government is just be used as a tool to spread the money back out. They figured it out. Where do most of the people spend their money...Tulsa. How do they get it back? Besides, all of the burbs are pretty reliant on the core city anyways.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what firm gets most of the underwriting business for the city and county?
Quote from: erfalf on August 14, 2012, 03:55:34 PM
Whatever, but this is the most opposite of visionary.
Why doesn't the city come up with something and get the county out of the sales tax business? County government is just be used as a tool to spread the money back out. They figured it out. Where do most of the people spend their money...Tulsa. How do they get it back? Besides, all of the burbs are pretty reliant on the core city anyways.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Sales taxes are the most regressive tax ever conceived as it is imposed on those who are least can afford them. They are the most progressive of any tax ever conceived by a controlling bureaucracy in a socialist republic form of government. The loaf of bread costing $1 dollar when taxed at 8 cents and its cost is increased to $2 dollars a loaf the sales tax is increased to 16 cents without any effort on the part of bureaucracies. The burden then falls on the job of the bureaucrats to dump this money in so called quality-of-life schemes which can include everything.
By the sales taxing it encourages the pressure to increase inflation on the necessities of life support. Thus it becomes a tool of further planning that can be project from quality-of-life into socialism of transferring private ownership into a state of communism
Now who would want to take away from our non replacing leaders this free money that are dead set on creating an environment of roads to socialism of public ownership?
I'm going to go ahead and throw out the new Vision3 program. We can take $800 million from tax payers and build class A office space for Oneok and Bok. Then we will build new manufacturing facilities on the West side for Aaon, Baker Hughes, and Nordam. If there is any money left we will plant a tree and clean up a park to make the peasants happy, but don't hold your breath.
Who's with me?
Since we've decided to turn our city's vision projects into corporate welfare, why not go whole-hog? After all, we're living in the land of Obamanomics where corporate bailouts are the Hope & Change.
Does the city own any of those facilities? I don't believe that to be the case. Not that I think funneling a bunch of money in AA's direction is a great plan or anything, but it does make somewhat more sense than your modest proposal.
Now from a purely selfish perspective, where AA is the only US airline worth flying, I would like us to please do whatever it takes to keep them in business. I wouldn't want to have to stoop to the level of flying in the same cabin as ma and pa kettle. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 08:26:56 AM
Does the city own any of those facilities? I don't believe that to be the case. Not that I think funneling a bunch of money in AA's direction is a great plan or anything, but it does make somewhat more sense than your modest proposal.
Now from a purely selfish perspective, where AA is the only US airline worth flying, I would like us to please do whatever it takes to keep them in business. I wouldn't want to have to stoop to the level of flying in the same cabin as ma and pa kettle. ;)
I think the city owns all of it
Quote from: Gaspar on August 15, 2012, 07:09:13 AM
I'm going to go ahead and throw out the new Vision3 program. We can take $800 million from tax payers and build class A office space for Oneok and Bok. Then we will build new manufacturing facilities on the West side for Aaon, Baker Hughes, and Nordam. If there is any money left we will plant a tree and clean up a park to make the peasants happy, but don't hold your breath.
Who's with me?
Since we've decided to turn our city's vision projects into corporate welfare, why not go whole-hog? After all, we're living in the land of Obamanomics where corporate bailouts are the Hope & Change.
In fairness, V2025 contained goodies for AA and Boeing, but only the AA monies were collected and spent because our bribe to Boeing wasn't accepted.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 15, 2012, 07:09:13 AM
I'm going to go ahead and throw out the new Vision3 program. We can take $800 million from tax payers and build class A office space for Oneok and Bok. Then we will build new manufacturing facilities on the West side for Aaon, Baker Hughes, and Nordam. If there is any money left we will plant a tree and clean up a park to make the peasants happy, but don't hold your breath.
Who's with me?
Since we've decided to turn our city's vision projects into corporate welfare, why not go whole-hog? After all, we're living in the land of Obamanomics where corporate bailouts are the Hope & Change.
Gas... This has been going on in cities all across the country. We are not the lone gunman. It has nothing to do with Obama or Bush policies. I don't know when it started, but I remember Whirlpool getting a nice cushy deal to open their plant back in the nineties and I know that was common for them. Cities do what they do to entice businesses. We can bite our thumb at the process, but if you don't play the game, you will always be the loser. Tulsa has to do what it can to bring in businesses. Sure we have a good location-- center of the country and close to a water port. But with rail, air freight, ground freight, over night shipping etc. any location can be a hub for a business.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on August 15, 2012, 10:37:42 AM
Gas... This has been going on in cities all across the country. We are not the lone gunman. It has nothing to do with Obama or Bush policies. I don't know when it started, but I remember Whirlpool getting a nice cushy deal to open their plant back in the nineties and I know that was common for them. Cities do what they do to entice businesses. We can bite our thumb at the process, but if you don't play the game, you will always be the loser. Tulsa has to do what it can to bring in businesses. Sure we have a good location-- center of the country and close to a water port. But with rail, air freight, ground freight, over night shipping etc. any location can be a hub for a business.
Big, big difference. I am aware that incentive plans are always part of these things, and for the most part, if they offer a return in jobs, infrastructure, or other improvement, I have little problem with them. As with any INVESTMENT in a company, it is important to vet that company to make sure that first, a return is possible, and second that the company will be a good steward of your investment. AA has consistently shown that they are willing to make management decisions, and financial decisions that point them directly towards continued bankruptcy. In turn, they are looking to the communities that support them for financial incentive, not to grow, but to survive. The idea of my tax money going to temporary plans to prop up failure is the definition of the Obamanomic system. If we want to be offering incentive, it needs to be devoted to viable businesses, not knee-jerk reactions towards failure.
Someone clearly thinks a little too highly of the airline business. Not a one of them has ever figured out how to make money over the long haul. Southwest does OK because they're smart enough to keep their route network small and focus on point to point trips. Unfortunately, there's only so much of that to be done.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
Someone clearly thinks a little too highly of the airline business. Not a one of them has ever figured out how to make money over the long haul. Southwest does OK because they're smart enough to keep their route network small and focus on point to point trips. Unfortunately, there's only so much of that to be done.
...and quick gate turns...and flying one aircraft type...and one class of airfare...and not taking it up the tailpipe from unions...
I read somewhere that the overall history of the passenger airline industry has been a net loss.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 01:18:07 PM
...and quick gate turns...and flying one aircraft type...and one class of airfare...and not taking it up the tailpipe from unions...
And then they bought AirTran.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2012, 06:13:13 PM
And then they bought AirTran.
They still do incredibly quick gate turns, because the pilots know, especially at smaller fields, how to land to minimize taxiing. In the summer at TIA it's not such a huge issue because most planes land to the south and the terminal is on the south end, at the end of the rollout. However, during north winds, if it's not too brisk and not IFR, SW pilots as often as they can will ask for the crosswind runway (that dumps off just north of the terminal). If they had to land on the north/south runway, they'd have a nearly 1 and 1/4 mile taxi back to the gate. That can shave almost 10 minutes off gate turnaround.
Quote from: Hoss on August 16, 2012, 06:23:45 PM
They still do incredibly quick gate turns, because the pilots know, especially at smaller fields, how to land to minimize taxiing. In the summer at TIA it's not such a huge issue because most planes land to the south and the terminal is on the south end, at the end of the rollout. However, during north winds, if it's not too brisk and not IFR, SW pilots as often as they can will ask for the crosswind runway (that dumps off just north of the terminal). If they had to land on the north/south runway, they'd have a nearly 1 and 1/4 mile taxi back to the gate. That can shave almost 10 minutes off gate turnaround.
This reminds me of landing at Fairbanks "international" airport. The pilots would land, slam the brakes and be in the gate within a single minute. Of course that airport only had 4 gates, but still.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on August 17, 2012, 09:13:03 AM
This reminds me of landing at Fairbanks "international" airport. The pilots would land, slam the brakes and be in the gate within a single minute. Of course that airport only had 4 gates, but still.
Kansas City used to be that way. About the time the reverse thrusters finished off the landing sequence, the plane would turn sharply and you would just about screech into gate docking position. The sky-waitresses couldn't make the "please stay seated" announcement fast enough.
BTW, don't call them sky-waitresses. They hate that.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2012, 03:23:00 PM
Kansas City used to be that way. About the time the reverse thrusters finished off the landing sequence, the plane would turn sharply and you would just about screech into gate docking position. The sky-waitresses couldn't make the "please stay seated" announcement fast enough.
BTW, don't call them sky-waitresses. They hate that.
Nor call them 'stewardess'. They REALLY hate that.
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2012, 03:26:44 PM
Nor call them 'stewardess'. They REALLY hate that.
Especially when it's a dude.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 17, 2012, 03:27:55 PM
Especially when it's a dude.
Well, obviously. But even the women. Don't call men 'stewards', either. Equally as offensive.
Some more numbers....and disagreements. Another reason why we should be careful.
QuoteJazz Hall of Fame owes $30,000 in unpaid electric bills
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
Published: 8/19/2012 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 8/19/2012 8:01 AM
The Tulsa County Industrial Authority on Monday will discuss in an executive session what to do about more than $30,000 in unpaid electric bills at the Jazz Hall of Fame.
The Jazz Hall of Fame leases the Union Depot at First Street and Cincinnati Avenue, a facility purchased and refurbished by the county with $4 million in Vision 2025 funds.
"We have received notice from PSO that the Jazz Hall of Fame is behind by a considerable amount on their utility payments," said County Commissioner John Smaligo, who is chairman of the Industrial Authority.
Smaligo said one of the first issues that needs to be resolved is why the Jazz Hall of Fame has not put the utility bill in its name, as called for under its lease with the Industrial Authority.
Smaligo said it is his understanding that the bills have been sent to the Jazz Hall of Fame but continue to name the Industrial Authority as the customer.
"We need to find out if the service is still in the name of the Industrial Authority, and if so, why?" Smaligo said.
Jason McIntosh, chief executive officer of the Jazz Hall of Fame, said that what is owed to the Jazz Hall by the Industrial Authority will more than offset the Industrial Authority's claim.
"To characterize it as anything else is incorrect," said McIntosh, who didn't elaborate on what the county owed the Jazz Hall of Fame.
The utility payments are the latest in a series of run-ins the Jazz Hall of Fame has had with the Industrial Authority over late payments and bounced checks.
Earlier this year, a $3,882 check from the Jazz Hall of Fame to the Industrial Authority to cover half a year of insurance on the Union Depot arrived months late and then bounced.
At the time, McIntosh described the incident as an embarrassing error.
"Systems are now in place to prevent that from happening," he said.
Smaligo would not discuss what actions the Industrial Authority could take in response to the late payments. But the Industrial Authority's agreement with the Jazz Hall of Fame includes the option of terminating the lease if certain financial obligations are not met.
Questions about the financial condition of the Hall of Fame surfaced in 2010, when the authority agreed to pay $222,881 in operating expenses the organization had incurred at the Union Depot building from June 2007 through October 2009.
Then-Hall of Fame CEO Chuck Cissell said at the time that the authority's payment was part of the Hall of Fame's lease and that the organization had lived up to all of its contractual obligations.
Original Print Headline: Jazz hall owes PSO $30,000
Maybe, there should be a merging of the POP Hall of Fame and The Jazz Hall Of Fame. Do away with duplicitous, unnecessary government expenditures.
Quote from: Hoss on August 17, 2012, 03:26:44 PM
Nor call them 'stewardess'. They REALLY hate that.
Nor. . .
Sugar
Honey buns
Sweetie
Baby Doll
Pumpkin
Blumpkin
Quote from: Gaspar on August 20, 2012, 08:31:34 AM
Nor. . .
Sugar
Honey buns
Sweetie
Baby Doll
Pumpkin
Blumpkin
You sound like you're reciting that list from experience.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2012, 09:40:32 AM
Big, big difference. I am aware that incentive plans are always part of these things, and for the most part, if they offer a return in jobs, infrastructure, or other improvement, I have little problem with them.
That's right. You're all for the thumb of government on the scales of the free market any time you think it's a good idea. But if you don't think it's a good idea, the ghost of Milton Friedman will get us in our sleep!
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2012, 08:26:56 AM
Does the city own any of those facilities? I don't believe that to be the case. Not that I think funneling a bunch of money in AA's direction is a great plan or anything, but it does make somewhat more sense than your modest proposal.
Much of the expensive equipment on the AA base is owned by the airport trust. As it was 'splained to me long ago, the idea is that it remains here in Tulsa even if AA decides to pull out. That's not just the buildings. The trust owns the docks, I'm told, and even has some of the more expensive equipment in our avionics shop.
Modern aircraft electronics, those so-called black boxes, are becoming more integrated. The 727 had three separate autopilot boxes for roll, yaw, and pitch. More modern flight control computers have it all in one box, and may include the circuit cards necessary to provide virtual instruments and more. As a result of this integration, the test equipment is becoming far more complex and expensive, driving many airlines toward sending their boxes back to the manufacturer for repair. This makes the involvement of the airport trust far more important. If the airline buys the equipment with the assistance of the trust, it's going to remain in Tulsa.
Seems the land belongs to the airport trust which is exempt from the FOI but the building was built and owned by the federal government. After the war it was put up for sale with all the tools in the building included. The aircraft manufacturer in the building I believe offered 7 million dollars. The trust said it was worth 14 million dollars and maneuvered the proposed sale to where the building and tools were turned over to the trust free of any charge.
AA Tulsa, is a service company and not a manufacturing company. It could be assumed that in the event they chose to do the service work elsewhere they would only have to get their hat and say here the keys we have made a better deal. (because of the time passing this post could have errors)
Quote from: shadows on August 20, 2012, 08:05:05 PM
Seems the land belongs to the airport trust
Most likely. I own a Tee Hangar at Riverside/Jones Airport (by Jenks) but I only own the building. The "Airport" owns the land under it and leases it to me.
Quote from: shadows on August 20, 2012, 08:05:05 PM
Seems the land belongs to the airport trust which is exempt from the FOI but the building was built and owned by the federal government. After the war it was put up for sale with all the tools in the building included. The aircraft manufacturer in the building I believe offered 7 million dollars. The trust said it was worth 14 million dollars and maneuvered the proposed sale to where the building and tools were turned over to the trust free of any charge.
AA Tulsa, is a service company and not a manufacturing company. It could be assumed that in the event they chose to do the service work elsewhere they would only have to get their hat and say here the keys we have made a better deal. (because of the time passing this post could have errors)
The Airport Trust? Another can of worms?