Why is Glenpool doing this? I know it's not going to happen, but seriously, who comes up with these ideas?
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0207/399768.html (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0207/399768.html%22)
Doesn't sound like such a crazy idea to me. I predicted it in another thread, though not Glenpool, but its quite plausible.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doesn't sound like such a crazy idea to me. I predicted it in another thread, though not Glenpool, but its quite plausible.
After all the money that was just spent fixing the place up??
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Doesn't sound like such a crazy idea to me. I predicted it in another thread, though not Glenpool, but its quite plausible.
After all the money that was just spent fixing the place up??
Not that they'll actually do the deed. Its just a reminder of unintended consequences. The city should recognize this as a possibility. The new buildings would be snapped up by some developer and perhaps ending up making the city its tax dollars anyway.
It's a bluff. Call 'em on it, City Council.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's a bluff. Call 'em on it, City Council.
Ditto. But a well-orchestrated display of county political machinery.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's a bluff. Call 'em on it, City Council.
They learned by watching Bell's! :)
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It's a bluff. Call 'em on it, City Council.
Yep. If this Council and Mayor flinch they are totally gutless.
I got a kick out of Medlock's (//%22http://www.chrismedlock.com/2007/02/glenpool-cant-say-these-folks-lack.html%22) take on this.
I think this would be a great idea but I can't see it happening because of the tax base the county draws from where it is now.
I went to the boat show a couple of weeks ago at the IPE building and I won't be going back there anymore. Except for the new barns our current fair grounds is nothing but a huge toilet that serves me no purpose. Like most Tulsa County ran projects it's nothing more than a toll gate with little effort put into it.
Let them go. Move the city offices over to the fairgrounds and urbanize the plaza.
Stupid bluff. Nothing but the city council using their position to make a political statement.
Bixby also wants a piece:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070223_Ne_A7_Fairg14612
What is so stupid about it? The fairgrounds would be much freer to operate in the manner it once did when it was on the edge of the city of Tulsa. It could operate stock car races again. There is horse breeding in the Glenpool area that might support horse racing. And the demographic might be better for the fairgrounds in either of these areas. They could invite Bells' back in. Build a better water park. It should seriously be considered.
Put it in Bixby and the south tulsa bridge becomes more important. It opens a huge area for mid-town development and right now any move in this city is better than just waiting for the Arena dollars to cascade in.
Whatever happens, you can probably count on one thing, the fairgrounds will be annexed.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What is so stupid about it? The fairgrounds would be much freer to operate in the manner it once did when it was on the edge of the city of Tulsa. It could operate stock car races again. There is horse breeding in the Glenpool area that might support horse racing. And the demographic might be better for the fairgrounds in either of these areas. They could invite Bells' back in. Build a better water park. It should seriously be considered.
Put it in Bixby and the south tulsa bridge becomes more important. It opens a huge area for mid-town development and right now any move in this city is better than just waiting for the Arena dollars to cascade in.
There are benefits, but the county won't let it's cash cow leave. The cost of rebuilding everything alone would negate any short term, possibly long term, gains. It would require massive public funding which no-one but glenpool would really support.
Besides does this protect the County from possible annexations in the future by these municipalities?
Considering it will be in the fenceline, the answer is no. Randi Miller better take a cue from Bob Dick and spare herself an embarrassing reelection loss. I'll be willing to bet she'll have opponents lining up across the political spectrum to challenge her.
I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!
The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone. Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave. Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.
Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable. Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area. Something has to be workable.
Or the County could give the 3 mils in property tax back to the City and I'll bet the city would walk away from this annexation proposal. That's a real compromise. If the City annexes the fairgrounds they need to collect sales taxes on all events.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What is so stupid about it? The fairgrounds would be much freer to operate in the manner it once did when it was on the edge of the city of Tulsa. It could operate stock car races again. There is horse breeding in the Glenpool area that might support horse racing. And the demographic might be better for the fairgrounds in either of these areas. They could invite Bells' back in. Build a better water park. It should seriously be considered.
Put it in Bixby and the south tulsa bridge becomes more important. It opens a huge area for mid-town development and right now any move in this city is better than just waiting for the Arena dollars to cascade in.
How many millions were just spent improving the current fairgrounds? how many million more will it take to build a facility as good or better? Who is going to pay for all of it? A decision to move the fairgrounds after so much has been spent improving the current?? This is the kind of wasteful spending that makes this liberal guy still vote for Republicans.
I'm sure this is just Glenpool putting the offer on the table, I just think it's a colossal insult. If this had been offered ten years ago, I could understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!
The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone. Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave. Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.
Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable. Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area. Something has to be workable.
This guy is not interested in compromise. Cannon, you have some insight as to how business/govt work. He has a grudge because of the 3 mills. This is a battle between hard headed okies that steal from each other and call the other a thief. If it happened in a city park with two thieves the guns would already be drawn. BTW, aa, city councilors have been known to lose their elections over pissy stuff like this too. If you're so sure this is going to happen, give us a date. I'm betting on compromise because they don't think like you.
Tulsa 1603, consider the possibilities. Anything is possible. The city could buy the property with buildings and operate it themselves. They don't have much confidence in the county anyway. The buildings could be disassembled and moved, they aren't all that permanent except the Expo. Or the entire operation could be farmed out to Murphy Bros. They operate much of it anyway (the water park, the fair). I am not naive. I know this couldn't be done quickly or easily but if this is going to be a continuous battle between the city boys and the country boys, it can be done.
So the county owns the buildings and can move them wherever they want? Would they still own them if the city annexed the fairgrounds? Otherwise if the buildings were to stay then who is going to spend the money to build new ones in Bixby or Glenpool? I wouldn't vote for a county tax that would do that. It would have to be the suburb that paid for building a new fairground, that was equal to or better than the old one in order to compete. If its the suburb that would be fronting the cost of building new facilities... Whats to stop any suburb from doing so and wooing, for instance, the Arabian Horse show away from Tulsa? Whats to stop any city anywhere from doing that? I don't think those shows or events give a crap what suburb or city even in another state they go to, they just want to go where they can get the best deal and the most people at the best facilities. Go ahead let the suburbs compete with Tulsa, if they can do a cheaper job and build better facilities, more power to em. Bring it on, let the competition begin. Little putzy suburbs. We will show em who the big dog is. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!
The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone. Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave. Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.
Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable. Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area. Something has to be workable.
This guy is not interested in compromise. Cannon, you have some insight as to how business/govt work. He has a grudge because of the 3 mills. This is a battle between hard headed okies that steal from each other and call the other a thief. If it happened in a city park with two thieves the guns would already be drawn. BTW, aa, city councilors have been known to lose their elections over pissy stuff like this too. If you're so sure this is going to happen, give us a date. I'm betting on compromise because they don't think like you.
Tulsa 1603, consider the possibilities. Anything is possible. The city could buy the property with buildings and operate it themselves. They don't have much confidence in the county anyway. The buildings could be disassembled and moved, they aren't all that permanent except the Expo. Or the entire operation could be farmed out to Murphy Bros. They operate much of it anyway (the water park, the fair). I am not naive. I know this couldn't be done quickly or easily but if this is going to be a continuous battle between the city boys and the country boys, it can be done.
Oh Waterbuoy, cry me a river. This will happen, the Councilors will support it. Why? Because the majority of Tulsans support (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5480%22) this.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!
The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone. Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave. Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.
Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable. Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area. Something has to be workable.
This guy is not interested in compromise. Cannon, you have some insight as to how business/govt work. He has a grudge because of the 3 mills. This is a battle between hard headed okies that steal from each other and call the other a thief. If it happened in a city park with two thieves the guns would already be drawn. BTW, aa, city councilors have been known to lose their elections over pissy stuff like this too. If you're so sure this is going to happen, give us a date. I'm betting on compromise because they don't think like you.
Tulsa 1603, consider the possibilities. Anything is possible. The city could buy the property with buildings and operate it themselves. They don't have much confidence in the county anyway. The buildings could be disassembled and moved, they aren't all that permanent except the Expo. Or the entire operation could be farmed out to Murphy Bros. They operate much of it anyway (the water park, the fair). I am not naive. I know this couldn't be done quickly or easily but if this is going to be a continuous battle between the city boys and the country boys, it can be done.
Oh Waterbuoy, cry me a river. This will happen, the Councilors will support it. Why? Because the majority of Tulsans support (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5480%22) this.
You linked to a poll that showed everyone who responded...against annexation.
You have all the inside info AA. I'm just a taxpayer.
I like your verve Artist. Thats pretty much what I'm saying. The county could dismantle those buildings and take them or sell them I suppose. Re-election be damned! And wherever they move, they could still compete with the original fairgrounds site if it still operated as a promotional venue. A taste of the free market thrust upon the government.
This has got to be one of the dumbest bluffs I've ever heard of.
The county is going to pick up the IPE building and the Pavilion, and the Armory, and Fair Meadows, and the Driller Stadium, and Big Spash, and . . . all of the new state-of-the-art facilities county residents are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build or rehab, and move them all to . . . a pasture in Glenpool or Bixby?
I hope they don't think they can take Vision 2025 and 4-to-Fix funds with them. Those were approved for improvements to Expo Square.
Or, maybe they'll just abandon all that. It's perfect for re-use as . . . I don't know, county fairgrounds. Maybe the voters of Tulsa County will approve a billion dollars or so to rebuild it all in Gomer's back 40. I don't think I'd count on the votes of the 67% of Tulsa County residents who live in the city of Tulsa, though.
By the way, has anyone ever addressed why the county doesn't waive its sales tax for Expo Square vendors, as it's asking the city to continue to do? Has the county asked the state to waive its sales tax?
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
By the way, has anyone ever addressed why the county doesn't waive its sales tax for Expo Square vendors, as it's asking the city to continue to do? Has the county asked the state to waive its sales tax?
The county doesn't collect the sales tax do they? I thought they were remitted by the vendors to the state to be redistributed. Its not collected I suppose because its not city property, that's why they want to annex it. The same reason would also apply to the state I guess. A gentlemen's agreement that bodies of govt don't tax each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
This has got to be one of the dumbest bluffs I've ever heard of.
The county is going to pick up the IPE building and the Pavilion, and the Armory, and Fair Meadows, and the Driller Stadium, and Big Spash, and . . . all of the new state-of-the-art facilities county residents are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build or rehab, and move them all to . . . a pasture in Glenpool or Bixby?
I hope they don't think they can take Vision 2025 and 4-to-Fix funds with them. Those were approved for improvements to Expo Square.
Or, maybe they'll just abandon all that. It's perfect for re-use as . . . I don't know, county fairgrounds. Maybe the voters of Tulsa County will approve a billion dollars or so to rebuild it all in Gomer's back 40. I don't think I'd count on the votes of the 67% of Tulsa County residents who live in the city of Tulsa, though.
well, duh. Of course it won't happen. Its a way of communicating a position and it has worked pretty well. The city council looks just as foolish to me as the county only a little more greedy. This s**t should have been figured out before taken to the press and a city council meeting.
And btw, "state of the art" in this case means erector set buildings that can be disassembled and moved like fair rides. The Armory? Who wants it? Same with the Ice Capades building. The Drillers? Get real, they want to move it downtown anyway. Big Splash? I'm sorry, its worn out. Did you not notice or have you not been in the last few years? Fair Meadows is a dirt track built on the old stock car raceway. Someone will run it. The only thing that couldn't either be discounted or carried away is the IPE. I'm sure someone, like Murphy Bros. or the city can run it, leaky roof and all.
I frankly wish the county had moved it out of town before spending so much money on it.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
By the way, has anyone ever addressed why the county doesn't waive its sales tax for Expo Square vendors, as it's asking the city to continue to do? Has the county asked the state to waive its sales tax?
The county doesn't collect the sales tax do they? I thought they were remitted by the vendors to the state to be redistributed. Its not collected I suppose because its not city property, that's why they want to annex it. The same reason would also apply to the state I guess. A gentlemen's agreement that bodies of govt don't tax each other.
The state collects sales tax for cities and counties. That doesn't mean county and state sales taxes aren't applied. That's like saying everything I buy online is free, because Amazon doesn't collect money from my bank account. I remit it to Visa instead.
Vendors aren't "bodies of govt." They're fully taxable, and are, in fact, taxed by the county and state -- not the city, even though the city provides many costly services and substantial infrastructure to make those vendors' sales possible.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
And btw, "state of the art" in this case means erector set buildings that can be disassembled and moved like fair rides. The Armory? Who wants it? Same with the Ice Capades building. The Drillers? Get real, they want to move it downtown anyway. Big Splash? I'm sorry, its worn out. Did you not notice or have you not been in the last few years? Fair Meadows is a dirt track built on the old stock car raceway. Someone will run it. The only thing that couldn't either be discounted or carried away is the IPE. I'm sure someone, like Murphy Bros. or the city can run it, leaky roof and all.
That's an awfully cavalier attitude about facilities we've spent and are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
And btw, "state of the art" in this case means erector set buildings that can be disassembled and moved like fair rides. The Armory? Who wants it? Same with the Ice Capades building. The Drillers? Get real, they want to move it downtown anyway. Big Splash? I'm sorry, its worn out. Did you not notice or have you not been in the last few years? Fair Meadows is a dirt track built on the old stock car raceway. Someone will run it. The only thing that couldn't either be discounted or carried away is the IPE. I'm sure someone, like Murphy Bros. or the city can run it, leaky roof and all.
That's an awfully cavalier attitude about facilities we've spent and are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on.
Not at all. Its simply the method of construction. These are metal truss buildings with metal siding on poured slabs. I can buy one similar for a farm off the net. The largest expense was probably in having them custom designed. It seems you all are missing the point.
I don't care what happens with the fairgrounds, the annexation, the river authority, whatever. Just pointing out what is obvious to anyone but those with a horse in the race. It was appalling to see how little the councilors and the county seemed to know about each others operations. The councillors were practically drooling, they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to and were oblivious to the impact of annexation.
To not have seen what the result would be says a lot about the insight of this august body we chat on.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
By the way, has anyone ever addressed why the county doesn't waive its sales tax for Expo Square vendors, as it's asking the city to continue to do? Has the county asked the state to waive its sales tax?
The county doesn't collect the sales tax do they? I thought they were remitted by the vendors to the state to be redistributed. Its not collected I suppose because its not city property, that's why they want to annex it. The same reason would also apply to the state I guess. A gentlemen's agreement that bodies of govt don't tax each other.
The state collects sales tax for cities and counties. That doesn't mean county and state sales taxes aren't applied. That's like saying everything I buy online is free, because Amazon doesn't collect money from my bank account. I remit it to Visa instead.
Vendors aren't "bodies of govt." They're fully taxable, and are, in fact, taxed by the county and state -- not the city, even though the city provides many costly services and substantial infrastructure to make those vendors' sales possible.
We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.
Lot's of questions for such a simple annexation.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.
I see. Let's put it this way. Have the County Commissioners and Expo Square officials paraded vendors in front of the state legislature or the Oklahoma Tax Commission, pleading with them not to impose the state sales tax, as they have with the city? Have County Commissioners declined to apply county sales taxes on Expo Square vendors?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to....
How is asking questions in a public hearing (and not knowing the answers before the questions are asked) considered ill-advised? Isn't that what a public hearing is for?
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to....
How is asking questions in a public hearing (and not knowing the answers before the questions are asked) considered ill-advised? Isn't that what a public hearing is for?
Sorry. That's just a policy that most parties in a business setting adhere to. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Not much good can happen when you do. The security issues raised by Glanz was a good example. Maybe they couldn't discuss this stuff behind closed doors but they could surely have done research and not been surprised by the County's answers.
This was touted as a simple solution. One that just made sense and was fair and just. It didn't take long to show that was a simplistic view. I don't know beans about govt. and I saw this was misguided when a compromise should have been effected. Why didn't they?
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.
I see. Let's put it this way. Have the County Commissioners and Expo Square officials paraded vendors in front of the state legislature or the Oklahoma Tax Commission, pleading with them not to impose the state sales tax, as they have with the city? Have County Commissioners declined to apply county sales taxes on Expo Square vendors?
I don't know. Why would they? Is the city asking that vendors be required to remit city sales tax when they are not transacting business within the city of Tulsa?
Regardless of whether those buildings could technically be moved or not, it would cost about the same if not more to do so and have them rebuilt elsewhere. The pads would have to be redone, the stonework redone, many things like sheetrock, insulation, wiring, plumbing, sealants, etc. etc. could not readily be reused. Not to mention much would be damaged and could even become unusable during the whole dismantling and moving process. Many things have fasteners and such that could not be reused, the new jobsite would be a mess, it wouldn't be as though they would be getting windows, for instance, right out of the box etc. And many times in construction, the labor cost just as much or more than the material, and you would have twice or more the labor costs. Its not as though these things are "a cherished old mansion" or something worth the cost and tender loving care. I doubt what could be salvaged would be worth the time, effort, and frustration of trying to move. Be cheaper to just build from scratch and sell the old ones. Regardless we all know they wouldnt move the danged things and the point remains the suburb would have to spend hundreds of millions to be able to compete. As soon as any tax came up for a vote in those suburbs to consider building a fairgrounds to equal Tulsa's, they would see the expense and balk real quick.
But again, if the economic benefit of having it outweighs the cost, and they think they can compete...There has never been anything stopping them from doing so. If thats the case, why lose money to the county, since they said they would not be annexing the fairgrounds and thus not collecting a city tax on the fairgrounds. If the fairgrounds is not going to be paying to build and the suburb is,,, why doesn't the suburb just build it and tax it, or not, as they decide? Why force yourself to deal with another entity when you can be the sole "decider" and control things yourself, especially if your paying for it?
No mas. I give up.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!
The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone. Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave. Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.
Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable. Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area. Something has to be workable.
This guy is not interested in compromise. Cannon, you have some insight as to how business/govt work. He has a grudge because of the 3 mills. This is a battle between hard headed okies that steal from each other and call the other a thief. If it happened in a city park with two thieves the guns would already be drawn. BTW, aa, city councilors have been known to lose their elections over pissy stuff like this too. If you're so sure this is going to happen, give us a date. I'm betting on compromise because they don't think like you.
Tulsa 1603, consider the possibilities. Anything is possible. The city could buy the property with buildings and operate it themselves. They don't have much confidence in the county anyway. The buildings could be disassembled and moved, they aren't all that permanent except the Expo. Or the entire operation could be farmed out to Murphy Bros. They operate much of it anyway (the water park, the fair). I am not naive. I know this couldn't be done quickly or easily but if this is going to be a continuous battle between the city boys and the country boys, it can be done.
Oh Waterbuoy, cry me a river. This will happen, the Councilors will support it. Why? Because the majority of Tulsans support (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5480%22) this.
You linked to a poll that showed everyone who responded...against annexation.
You have all the inside info AA. I'm just a taxpayer.
I like your verve Artist. Thats pretty much what I'm saying. The county could dismantle those buildings and take them or sell them I suppose. Re-election be damned! And wherever they move, they could still compete with the original fairgrounds site if it still operated as a promotional venue. A taste of the free market thrust upon the government.
I'm just a blue collar greaser. BTW, about that poll, does no mean yes in your world? The ladies must love you.
^ If you look at the poll results its a Yes. The opinions of posters on the thread are not the poll and do not reflect its results.
Bates (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003061.html%22) and Medlock (//%22http://www.chrismedlock.com/2007/02/faqs-regarding-fairgrounds-annexation.html%22) debunk the annexation myths.
IMO every time the County shows up to the City Council Meetings unprepared, with lame excuses, and spouting bogus doomsday paranoia about the economic collapse of Tulsa if this annexation goes through; they look increasingly ineffectual, irresponsible, incompetent, and irrelevant.
My favorite County revelation of the meeting:
Admittal that the County is losing money in the contract they signed with the Arabian Horse Show.
My favorite moment of irony:
When the County bemoaned sales taxes as economic development killers while they promote the Vision 2025/Four to Fix sales taxes as the greatest economic generators ever to grace Tulsa, claiming that every new private investment that that's made in the County is due to these sales taxes.
My favorite special guest appearance:
TIE: Lil' Jimmy Inhofe Jr and Dan "Caveman" Hicks.
I was talking to a friend last night who is in town now for a horse show, he works in the industry for a horse magazine to get advertising. I mentioned to him about the fairgrounds being annexed by the city. He said it would be a terrible idea. He says the fairgrounds does a great job, why add another layer of beuracracy. Plus the horse show industry is extremely competitive and adding more taxes would definitely be a negative. The economic impact of even this small show was about 10million but most of the money by far that is generated by these shows is done so outside the fairgrounds, at hotels, restaurants, etc. In other words the risk and the hassle for the small amount of revenue on the fairgrounds wouldn't be worth it.
So if they are losing money with the Arabian Horse Show, it would mean to me that the horse show is not paying enough to cover the expenses incurred by the fairgrounds to put the show on? That means the Arabian Horse Show is only going to pay so much or they will simply go someplace else.
It seems to me that if the industry says the fairgrounds is doing a good job, and that most of the economic benefit is going to the city, not the county, anyway. Why mess with things?
You are such an easy mark. This Arabian Horse show thing is a bluff, just like the Glenpool move. Let me ask you this, if the County proceeds with some sort of river development tax, don't you think it would be collected at the fairgrounds? They sure would , IMO. I haven't heard anything but hysterical doomsday scenarios that can't be backed up from the people against annexation.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I was talking to a friend last night who is in town now for a horse show, he works in the industry for a horse magazine to get advertising. I mentioned to him about the fairgrounds being annexed by the city. He said it would be a terrible idea. He says the fairgrounds does a great job, why add another layer of beuracracy. Plus the horse show industry is extremely competitive and adding more taxes would definitely be a negative. The economic impact of even this small show was about 10million but most of the money by far that is generated by these shows is done so outside the fairgrounds, at hotels, restaurants, etc. In other words the risk and the hassle for the small amount of revenue on the fairgrounds wouldn't be worth it.
So if they are losing money with the Arabian Horse Show, it would mean to me that the horse show is not paying enough to cover the expenses incurred by the fairgrounds to put the show on? That means the Arabian Horse Show is only going to pay so much or they will simply go someplace else.
It seems to me that if the industry says the fairgrounds is doing a good job, and that most of the economic benefit is going to the city, not the county, anyway. Why mess with things?
The "Real" question to ask is....
Are the Fairgrounds being used for their full earnings potential..?
In the opinion of the County it would appear so..
IMHO the Fairgrounds have assets that have yet to be realized.....
The City of Tulsa has plenty of motivation and the proper personnel in place to make that happen in a very rapid fashion..
For Tulsa to move forward it must discover and utilize new directions to "turn a buck"..
The Annexation of the Fairgrounds should be one of those means..
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
You are such an easy mark. This Arabian Horse show thing is a bluff, just like the Glenpool move. Let me ask you this, if the County proceeds with some sort of river development tax, don't you think it would be collected at the fairgrounds? They sure would , IMO. I haven't heard anything but hysterical doomsday scenarios that can't be backed up from the people against annexation.
I suppose a river tax would be collected. So then it would be 3cents plus the river tax. I have no idea of whether that amount would make the horse shows and such not come. I doubt it actually, surely the price or whatever could be lowered and the benefit the city got from having the show in town would make up for that. Just still gathering opinions and info, and asking questions. Trying to weed through the hysteria. [;)]
I get lost in these discussions on collecting sales taxes which was installed with a 1mill coin and on it's flip side was printed that ½ of the mill went for "Old Age Assistance."
Course that was a time when the fair was a rural event where the farmer displayed his products and manufacturers displayed theirs new farm equipment.
I have heard of county fairs but this new concept of a city fair seem to be lacking in the purpose except for the pop and hotdog venders to double their prices.
The county might make an agreement with the Bell's to move the county structures back to the country so the rural folks could show and be judged on their hand work.
The city could arrange for WalMart to build a super, super store in the middle of that 230 acres and use the rest of the ground for customer parking. That way they there would be no need for a super store downtown and we could remain on the road maps as Tulsa and not be known as WalMart Tulsa.
Here's a thought, we get our state Legislators to pass legislation to exempt County Fairgrounds from the 4 cent state sales tax. The city annexes the fairgrounds and taxes are lowered 1 cent at the fairgrounds.
Just my personal opinion. I've lived in Glenpool since I was 3 and I remember when almost every road around here was still that pebble rock that when you ran over it, it sounded like you were driving through a mob riot. Today, all these roads have been resurfaced and widened. Today, Glenpool is or has developed well over 10 new neighborhoods (and still growing) throughout its area and grown considerably. Businesses are starting to find the threshold of how far south they can move and discovering Glenpool and some "future home of" signs are popping up every now and then in the city. I remember when 151st Street (the proposed street for Bell's) use to be completely vacant between its two lane stretch from Kiefer to Bixby. Now, although still somewhat vacant, things are being built around that area as well. I knew from the minute they widened that road that it was going to be the endpoint of the Tulsa metropolis. I thought one day that 151st street would be where development stops but would be completely filled up and down because of how much potential that land has. And there is plenty of open land down there. Mind you they do the annual "Day in the Country" on 151st. And as someone here already stated, if it does move in this area, they better start getting serious about the Yale bridge.
I think I would like to take the time to note that starting from the Creek Turnpike bridge going north to Highway 75 bridge into Downtown...there is no more than 4 miles of open space without a bridge. Yet, the distance between the Creek Turnpike and the Bixby (memorial) bridge is over 7 miles. Both the Jenks and Bixby bridges receive way too much traffic...