Quote from: Admin on April 03, 2013, 09:15:22 AM
TulsaNow will be offering tours of the recently-remodeled former City Hall building on April 11th, starting at 5pm. You will get to see the ins-and-outs of the new Downtown Aloft Hotel before it opens. These tours are open to the public, but reservations are required.
Reservations are on a first come, first served basis. Click here (https://tulsanow.org/wp/index.php/aloft-tour/) to make your reservation.
You'll see what a true tax shelter looks like! And is Tori Avenue finished? You gotta love municipal welfare.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 03, 2013, 12:30:07 PM
Now that we have heard from the resident naysayer...
I want to go on this tour. This family brought the Mayo hotel back to life after more than a decade of sitting dormant. Now they are building another hotel in another vacant building.
They are stepping up and spending millions to renovate this building and adding new restaurants at the same time.
I thank them for doing it. The fact that tax dollars are being spent to open the street for access is irrelevant to me. The Fire department insists on it to make it a hotel.
I think you mean resident realist, but you should keep that negative name calling out in the open so we can understand you are not all prim and proper.
They are spending millions canabilizing their own room count. Tulsa has way too many hotel rooms.
And thank you for making the distinction between yourself, a liberal who believes in government handouts, and myself, a progressive who believes affluence should not merit getting tax breaks and handouts from government.
BTW RM, why did the fire marshals not require city hall have access for that building? Perhaps, the head of public works could manipulate them?
Quote from: davideinstein on April 03, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
What would you have done with the property?
PS - Made a reservation for two, may just be me, but I'll see you guys there regardless.
I would have made city hall stay there and find a high tech national company for that building they are in....
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 03, 2013, 03:06:22 PM
I think you mean resident realist, but you should keep that negative name calling out in the open so we can understand you are not all prim and proper.
They are spending millions canabilizing their own room count. Tulsa has way too many hotel rooms.
And thank you for making the distinction between yourself, a liberal who believes in government handouts, and myself, a progressive who believes affluence should not merit getting tax breaks and handouts from government.
BTW RM, why did the fire marshals not require city hall have access for that building? Perhaps, the head of public works could manipulate them?
I am glad you are like me and don't believe the city, state or federal government should be in the road building/transportation business. Things would be much more compact and a LOT less sprawling if that were the case.
Lets see, the Snyders have built... two hotels, 70 homes (with another 82 slated for the old Y along with retail), several restaurants and a coffee house, a bar, event spaces, a small parking garage and only one tiny strip of additional road built that will also need to be maintained, snow shoveled, policed, etc. Not perfect, but much better than any other typical south Tulsa development with as many new homes, restaurants, hotels, etc. Urban infill can be quite cost effective infrastructure wise, more people and businesses paying for X amount of road versus fewer and fewer paying for it like our usual development trend has seen (more and wider roads, with more lanes, and ever fewer people per mile paying for it and people have the gall to wonder why the same amount of their tax dollars sees the streets deteriorate?).
Quote from: TheArtist on April 03, 2013, 04:30:18 PM
I am glad you are like me and don't believe the city, state or federal government should be in the road building/transportation business.
Who builds the roads in your world? They would be toll roads paved by the rich as investments?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 03, 2013, 04:35:46 PM
Who builds the roads in your world? They would be toll roads paved by the rich as investments?
Who builds homes in your world? And where?
My parents bought a lot in an area near Beaver Lake in Arkansas. At first it was just a gravel road that led for miles out to their home. But over time as dues were collected and as more people have moved in to pay those dues, more and more of the roads have been paved. It's not a toll road, anyone can use it, and as more and more people reside and work along it, the better it gets.
As for longer roads and roads/rail between cities, well we already see toll roads, toll bridges, and corporate rail lines and corporate airlines, parking garages and parking lots, and once upon a time, private trolley lines. And remember, less of us would be using or have any need for cars, and there would be fewer roads over all.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "dues" collected from residents did not pave all those roads.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 03, 2013, 05:00:56 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "dues" collected from residents did not pave all those roads.
Did to start with. They later did vote to have the county take over and charge a tax. Dues, taxes, whats the difference? There was also a deal that they could have worked out with the county whereby the residents paid for the materials and then had the county lay the asphalt and do maintenance. Not sure of the exact specifics of what they have now, but they could have voted to keep or turn over as much autonomy as they liked, and most of the roads out there are still not paved, though each year they do add a bit more. Some of the property owners have private "driveways" out there that stretch on forever and are better than the road leading up to them lol.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 03, 2013, 04:35:46 PM
Who builds the roads in your world? They would be toll roads paved by the rich as investments?
Every housing addition (5) I have lived in was built and paid for by the person doing the building. Then the cost recovered in the lot price. After the build out, the roads were turned over to the cities involved for ongoing maintenance. Mostly built very badly to start, but the next to most recent was neglected by the city for 35 years and was finally given a 2" skim coat of asphalt about 2 years ago. Still crappy road, but slightly better....
A slightly older one built in early 50's made it through by going with a gravel road - larger lots of about 3/4 acre. In 1962 the city paved it and since we were on a corner - two sides - we paid double the amount of everyone else along the street. $1,900 - a lot of money on a $6,000 a year income and a house valued at $17,000.
One from late 20's had one time been brick, then most of that torn out and replaced by asphalt in the 50's. At homeowner expense.
Not sure how Tulsa does it today, but I bet the city won't pay for the first time.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 03, 2013, 06:42:53 PM
Dues, taxes, whats the difference?
Dues are voluntary. Taxes must be paid or you go to jail.
This is your earlier statement..." don't believe the city, state or federal government should be in the road building/transportation business". I think that you are naïve or delusional if you think all roads would magically appear and be maintained with just darn good neighbors working together.
RM,
There are now many ways you can go to prison for disagreeing with the government. In the future there will be many more. That's how progress works. ;)
Hereon,
You are correct. Developers are responsible for construction of roads in subdivisions (the city of course approves the design, engineering, and materials). Those are then turned over to the city, but not always.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 04, 2013, 06:22:42 AM
Dues are voluntary. Taxes must be paid or you go to jail.
This is your earlier statement..." don't believe the city, state or federal government should be in the road building/transportation business". I think that you are naïve or delusional if you think all roads would magically appear and be maintained with just darn good neighbors working together.
Homeowners dues in modern subdivisions aren't voluntary. If you don't pay them they file a lien on your house. You may not pay until the house is sold but you'll pay eventually.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 03, 2013, 03:56:24 PM
I would have made city hall stay there and find a high tech national company for that building they are in....
This way both buildings are revenue producing. Your way...only one would be.
Not sure why you are so negative on downtown. I'm glad the Snyders have worked so hard to make it better, doesn't matter if you do or not, you are in the minority here.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 04, 2013, 09:25:03 AM
I am not fond of windows that go all the way down to the floor. I like the false sense of security that a bit of solid wall above the floor level gives. It's a lot like guard rails on a bridge. I've never hit one but a bridge with no side guards would be spooky.
Wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here....aren't YOU the guy who goes up inside a tiny little aluminum "soda-can" - thousands of feet in the air - with one little aluminum engine and a large bucket of extremely volatile hydrocarbons strapped to the truss right above your head....and presumably enjoys it?? And I bet, no parachute!!
And you think bridges with no side rails are spooky??
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 04, 2013, 06:22:42 AM
I think that you are naïve or delusional if you think all roads would magically appear and be maintained with just darn good neighbors working together.
I don't think that at all. That's just a negative idea that came out of your own mind, don't put it on me.
The whole point of what I was saying was to take what the clown was saying and take it to it's most absurd conclusion. He was against the government putting that road in front of the Hotel... so unless he is the sole arbiter of "where to draw the line" what roads deserve to be built and where, or whether he has some set of rules that should be followed to govern such descisions, the only other conclusion is that it's a notion based on the Repuclican argument you hear over and over "government shouldn't be in the transportation business". Again, otherwise where do you draw the line and what are the rules for where the line is to be?
Republicans often frustrate me with their arguments saing things like "Government shouldn't tell businesses what they can and can not do or put on harmful regulations etc." But then while at a Republican convention last year was approached by a guy with a petition he was asking me to sign against a casino being built in BA? What happened to the principed Republican argument of keep government out?
Basically it's "Government is fine doing things I want but not what you want". The Republican want roads and autos and zoning to support that, the Democrat wants transit and pedestrian friendly streets and zoning to support that. So whenever the Democrat asks for rail funding or zoning changes to support transit,,, the Republican chimes in "Government shouldn't be in the transportation business" but by golly if the Republican wants a new highway or road built, well that's a perfectly sound place for government spending and intervention. So in order to knock them down I take the principal to its logical conclusion and say "The government shouldn't be building any roads or rails period." Otherwise it's just them getting what they want and making up excuses for the other guy to not get theirs. Zoning is fine if it helps autocentric living (you have to have minimum parking), zoning is "the government telling people what they can and can not do with their property (you have to build up to the sidewalk)" if we want it to help pedestrian/transit friendly living.
They hate government welfare and think that should be left to the private sector and non-profits and religious institutions. Government has waste and corruption and should show proof that what they are doing works so as not to waste my tax dollars. Giving away free cell phones, really? The other day I saw this church group giving away bicycles. I couldn't help but wonder "where is the proof that this is helping anyone?" "Where are the statistics?" They demand statistics from the government, do they also demand statistics from the churches? Waste and accountability, they demand it from the government, do they demand it from the churches? We have "less government" in Oklahoma and more "giving" more churches and church going people... where are the statistics showing that it's reducing crime, drug abuse, homelessness, improving health, etc? People make up the institutions of both churches and government. Both are prone to the same ills and I think we should doing both better.
If you make a principled argument, you have to stick by it... all the way. You can't just pick and choose when YOU think the principle should and should not be applied.
You can't say the government should not interfere with businesses and regulating their pollution (Democrats saying the pollution hurts people and we must protect them from the pollution "thats the Nanny State") and then turn right around and interfere with a business (like the casino) regulating where it can and can not go (Republicans saying gambling hurts people and we must protect them from it "and that's not the Nanny State?").
And on and on we could go.
My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.
I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.
We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.
This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 04, 2013, 10:25:56 AM
My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.
I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.
We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.
This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.
Absolutely right...the main arteries are the big connection that lets all of this work.
And we have so much institutionalized rot in the process, you get those $30 million messes. And I bet they will "pave" that with asphalt, too!
County commissioner structure in this state is one of the more obvious messes - visible at or near the "surface". That same thing happens with a little less transparency at city level.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 04, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
They demand statistics from the government, do they also demand statistics from the churches?
The local church cannot throw me in jail if I don't contribute to their kitty.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 04, 2013, 10:25:56 AM
This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.
I have no problem with improving a street downtown. In return, I want arterial improvements farther out.
In my wish bag, I would like a bridge across the Arkansas to feed both Yale and Delaware. Part of that needs to be improving Yale all the way north to maybe the Fairgrounds.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 04, 2013, 11:58:17 AM
The local church cannot throw me in jail if I don't contribute to their kitty.
So?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 04, 2013, 10:25:56 AM
My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.
I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.
We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.
This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.
RM, Tori Snyder basically made the street improvement a demand on the city if the sellers were to turn the property over for a tax shelter to Levinson/Snyder. Also, please explain how the library and courthouses survived all these years without Zachary Street?
RM, what is a PFPI ????? Explain to your spooners what it is, how it differs from a normal city improvement, and why we have this designation.
I don't feel compelled to respond to your demands and negativity.
You feel rightous in attacking anything positive about downtown and any new restaurant in town. You are a miserable person and should be banned for any rational conversation.
(http://www.mylargescale.com/1stclass/vsmith/Thread_Drift.jpg)
Quote from: TheArtist on April 04, 2013, 01:13:39 PM
So?
I thought it was obvious. I guess not.
I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it. I do care if my tax dollars are wasted. I don't have to give money to a church. I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 04, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
I thought it was obvious. I guess not.
I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it. I do care if my tax dollars are wasted. I don't have to give money to a church. I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.
You must want to do something to better the world and help people. That is either going to require you giving of your time and or money. So your going to be giving one way or the other. Whether that giving is coerced through threat of jail time or going to hell, or just of your own good nature.
The Republicans say that our money and or time should not go to government programs to "do the good works" "to reduce crime, poverty, etc." because the government is wasteful and ineffective, but that it should instead go to the non-profit and religious sector to "do the good works". I am not saying that the notion is wrong. If I were not giving through my taxes, I would give through some other means. My beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones. If people were only to give as they felt "would the end result be as effective?" or does coercion through the threat of jail time have it's place? Lets say everyone did give to the best of their ability without that threat, from what I have seen, many a church program has just as many flaws, wasteful spending, ineffective outcomes as some of the government ones they decry, and without the democratic process of "throw the bums out" for at least some level of accountability. If your saying you wouldn't give at all, if you weren't coerced by the threat of jail time... well, that seems to be the best argument of all for why a democratically elected government MUST be involved.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 04, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
I thought it was obvious. I guess not.
I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it. I do care if my tax dollars are wasted. I don't have to give money to a church. I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.
Goes into the general category of "paying your dues"...and since, by definition, the US Government was the one that initiated ALL property possession and ownership in this country beyond the original 13 colonies - they "bought" it or took it, and the granting of privileges upon those lands with certain conditions that included an ongoing obligation of some sort to that government, then you actually DO owe the government it's due. By definition, in exchange for being born in this country, and enjoying all the perks and privileges of that lucky accident of birth, ALL the previous generations of citizens and representatives have decided what is required to do certain things as action items by the government. This flows down to state and local, also, within the constraints of the Constitution....and while one can debate the scope of "all other rights" reserved to the states, that just means the state can do it's own similar imposition upon you. i.e. Property Tax...
You can complain and lobby, as we all do so massively here...but the election of representatives by the citizens gives corporate America it's resource to buy what it wants. Oh, wait...gives you the opportunity to have your wishes and desires expressed in the operation of all those governments.... (lol,...anyone still believe that last statement...?)
After statehood, for all of the states, there no longer existed such a thing as the "rugged individualist", free to go his own way with no obligation to the state or freedom from paying the dues... really didn't exist before statehood either, but enforcement was problematic. Example - when France owned the center of the country, I suspect there were taxes due that were totally ignored - and were unenforceable.
This is the history and legacy of the human species. You are either have allegiance owed to you or by you to the "biggest guy on the block". Welcome to reality!!
Quote from: TheArtist on April 05, 2013, 07:29:39 AM
You must want to do something to better the world and help people. That is either going to require you giving of your time and or money. So your going to be giving one way or the other. Whether that giving is coerced through threat of jail time or going to hell, or just of your own good nature.
The Republicans say that our money and or time should not go to government programs to "do the good works" "to reduce crime, poverty, etc." because the government is wasteful and ineffective, but that it should instead go to the non-profit and religious sector to "do the good works". I am not saying that the notion is wrong. If I were not giving through my taxes, I would give through some other means. My beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones. If people were only to give as they felt "would the end result be as effective?" or does coercion through the threat of jail time have it's place? Lets say everyone did give to the best of their ability without that threat, from what I have seen, many a church program has just as many flaws, wasteful spending, ineffective outcomes as some of the government ones they decry, and without the democratic process of "throw the bums out" for at least some level of accountability. If your saying you wouldn't give at all, if you weren't coerced by the threat of jail time... well, that seems to be the best argument of all for why a democratically elected government MUST be involved.
I file as single, no dependents. The government gets plenty of my money. I gripe, of course, but recognize that government provides many things that I want and need so I don't gripe tooooo loudly.
One of the problems with government is that they continually try to level a 4 leg stool to sit on uneven ground when they should be building 3 leg stools. If you cut a leg off twice and it's still too short, don't cut it again. What you see as an attempt to reduce poverty, someone else may see as a waste of money because it doesn't work. There will always be those differences of opinion so I just bring it up as an example, not as something specific that I wish to continue discussing.
I understand your beef:
QuoteMy beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones.
My point is that if the other programs are freely chosen, poor results
can result in being un-chosen. One person's standards of a program's success may be different than another person's. What you see as an inefficient church program, someone else may see as an opportunity to hire a fellow church member that needs some help. You are free to not give to that program.