http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070621_238_A1_hOKto84204 (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070621_238_A1_hOKto84204%22)
Country river tax vote proposed
OK to advance master plan sought
Tulsa County voters could be asked this fall to approve a $277 million tax initiative to implement portions of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, officials said Wednesday.
If approved, the private sector will add more than $100 million, the largest private donation for a city-county project in state history, said Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation.
The foundation is spearheading the private donation collection.
"Here's an opportunity to actually implement a plan which citizen input has been included at the ground level and reflects what they really want on the river," said Jerry Lasker, executive director of the Indian Nations Council of Governments, which created the master plan.
This initiative would address 25 miles of the 42-mile plan, he said.
"It's wonderful to get the public and private sector together to actually get this plan started," Lasker said.
Local philanthropist George Kaiser is championing the public-private partnership.
"I don't know how long the people have been expecting and promised this kind of development," Kaiser said."It's time they get it."
Mayor Kathy Taylor, who supports the initiative, said this step is just a continuation of the work that was done on the river corridor master plan.
"We, as public officials, have been saying how do we implement what now has been studied, and how do we do it responsibly," Taylor said.
The plan rests on a countywide tax increase vote, which the County Commission could put to a vote later this year, possibly in October.
Randi Miller, chairwoman of the Tulsa County Commission, said the county will likely decide in early August whether to call a vote.
One possible tax source would by the 0.4 percent sales tax approved by county voters in 2003 as part of the Vision 2025 tax increase and designated for incentives to Boeing to build airplanes in Tulsa. The Boeing deal never came to fruition, and the tax was never collected.
If voters again OK'd that sales tax, it would likely take seven years to raise the necessary public portion of the funding.
Tax money would pay for infrastructure and land acquisition.
The public funding includes low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and work on the Zink Lake dam near 31st Street. Tax money also would be used for pedestrian bridges across the river at 41st Street and 61st Street, and a 500-foot-wide channel created in the river to ensure continuous water flow from below Zink Dam to 71st Street.
The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank.
Some $17.7 million from various county tax sources has already been designated for river improvements, including the design and engineering of dams envisioned in the project.
Private donations would enhance current gathering locations and create new ones on the east bank at 31st, 36th, 41st, 61st and 71st streets.
Miller said she supports the plan because it will be the catalyst to transforming the river.
"For the seven years I've been an elected official, I have supported river development and have been at the table working to get it done. It's very important to me," she said.
Commissioner John Smaligo said he is "impressed with this version in particular with the commitment from the private sector."
"It seems like it is obviously a much more equitable plan put forward to start river development," he said.
Smaligo said the timing of the interest in the private sector "has to be weighed in the decision. You don't want to lose the opportunity of the private sector funds that may not return again."
Commissioner Fred Perry said it is important for the public to know this is the implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and "not just dreamed up in a back room."
Perry said he likes the plan and the way it came together, but he wants to hear from the public.
Taylor said this plan "is our ability to make a world-class enhancement of the 42-mile plan. I think that is what we all think Tulsa deserves."
Chet Cadieux, QuikTrip president and chief executive officer and Tulsa Metro Chamber chairman, is a businessman who has pledged to financially contribute. He said this river has had more plans than any in the country.
"We've planned it to death," he said. "Yet those plans have never been implemented."
The reason for the high level of interest from the private sector standpoint is "frustration," he said.
"Every time we go do something for the city, you hear people saying 'Hey, I thought the river was next,' "Cadieux said."Let's quit planning and go do it."
Keith Bailey, former Williams Cos. chairman and chief executive officer, and a volunteer with the project, said the idea comes at the right time because environmental studies needed to accomplish it are already under way.
Kaiser said the concept is to do the most obvious improvements first -- the three dams. That would be followed by the river channeling work -- the so-called living river -- in two stages, Kaiser said.
Once water is flowing in the river, then the two pedestrian bridges would be constructed.
"The entire plan includes things the public has been saying for years that they want to have and things are absolutely necessary elements for the river to make it physically attractive and a natural gathering spot for people," Kaiser said.
Taylor said as soon as the public approves the initiative, the city can acquire land and begin seeking proposals for private development along the river.
Officials believe that the public could see actual construction begin as early as two to three years.
The plan works closely with previously announced improvements in River Parks.
By September, the public will begin seeing efforts to transform the trail system in River Parks between 11th Street and 71st Street on the west and east banks, Kaiser said.
The George Kaiser Family Foundation donated $12.4 million to the project and $2.6 million is funded from the city's third-penny sales tax.
Levit said the work to bring water into the river is legitimately a public responsibility, whereas bank beautification, enhancements of community gathering spots, and recreation areas like playgrounds or art gardens are that of the private sector.
Dams: The dam in Sand Springs will act as a holding tank for water released from Keystone Dam to ensure the control of constant water flow downstream.
Lasker said the two new dams and the Zink dam after it is rebuilt will be safer. The dams will have a step-style design to cascade water down the river, eliminating dangerous rolls of water under the current dam.
The dams also would be designed to allow for fish migration and sand movement through the river corridor.
Retrofitting the Zink Dam would also enhance the "Tulsa Wave," an area south of the dam near AEP-PSO that is popular with kayakers, Lasker said.
Living River: Miller said the living river plan is basically part of the master plan because it is puts water in the river, which is the goal of that plan. At one time, low-water dams were planned for the area, but they were ruled out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she said.
"This is just another way to get water in the river," she said.
Kaiser's conceptual plan would keep water in the river at low flow by creating a narrower channel that would meander through the river bed.
While the river has some water at low flow, it is spread across the 1,500-foot-wide channel, exposing much of the river bottom and allowing water to pool in some places and become stagnant.
By concentrating that water into a 500-foot-wide naturally designed channel, it would create a constant flow of water and "recreational zone" that could be navigable with a small craft such as a canoe or kayak.
The dry areas of the river, during low flow, would be an environmental corridor with sandbars and some vegetation that could be viewed from either river bank, yet not obstruct high water flows.
At high flow, the water would be free to flow throughout the entire width of the river.
The project would be compatible with an effort to protect nesting areas for least terns in the Arkansas River, planners have said.
Pedestrian bridges: "It's important to bring people to the river not just to run a couple of miles and then go home, but to spend the day, walk across the bridges to logical areas where there are logical activities on the other side," Kaiser said.
The planned pedestrian bridge at 41st Street will connect what would likely be the most developed gathering spot on the east bank to existing soccer fields, where there is room for west bank development, Kaiser said.
The planned bridge at 61st Street would connect to Turkey Mountain, where there is a wilderness area and trail.
Bridges could be elegant or basic in design, he said.
Acquisition: "If you're going to do a prudent development of a new area," Kaiser said, 0 "you want to assure you have all of the land you may need for future purposes."
Land opportunities lie along the river a little on the east bank, but more on the west bank south of the 11th Street Bridge, he said.
Also, there may be opportunities with American Electric Power-Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Sinclair refinery, he said.
Taylor said that once land is assembled, the city would have control over what is developed by seeking development proposals from the private sector.
Cadieux said developers take an enormous risk in assembling land.
If a city does that, then "there isn't any risk for the city because they know it will be developed, it is just a matter who the developer is," he said.
Kaiser said its important for the public to have control of the land to be developed so that it can protect the tax investment in the project.
Community Gathering Spots: The goal of the project is to follow traditional public patterns, and not reshape the way people use the area, Kaiser said.
Natural places are already established and will be enhanced, he said.
Cadieux said QuikTrip will sponsor the gathering spot between 36th to 41st streets and he envisions a play ground for children, some of which will include large water features to play in, climbing walls and musical bridges.
"I'm talking about features that you can't probably ever do with public money."
Kaiser said River Parks will not be commercialized by the amenities created at the gathering spots. He also said those amenities will vary from one spot to another.
Kaiser said the private sector also wants to provide "connectors" tying the river to downtown through Centennial Walk, a historic walking route through downtown already funded with Vision 2025 money.
The goal would be to create a "visible portal" to the river where there is common signage, sidewalk material and lighting, Kaiser said.
"We want to lead people to the river," he said.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/070621_A1_hOKto84204_riverfeat21.jpg)
/tulsaworld- you really need to stop only using a spellcheck program and get a human to proofread your crap... three articles today have either the wrong word correctly spelled or homophones...
Related poll:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6887
Now this is a plan I can get behind. Add in Tulsa Landing, and the vibrant river is achieved.
Speaking of Tulsa Landing - I'm reading between the lines and seeing that this includes public funding for that venture, correct? So we won't have to worry about a second vote coming to a bond-weary electorate.
I'm hoping this vote plus a tiff does the above shown projects plus the landing.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I'm hoping this vote plus a tiff does the above shown projects plus the landing.
amen, brother
but they've got to come up with something better than "gathering area" for the various locales... they all stick out over the water so i say we call 'em "piers"...
what excites me the most is the blair property acquistion...
re-direct riverside through the blair front yard and then you'll get space for riverfront retail/mixed/public use development?
fekkin' a, that is brilliant... i will crap golden eggrolls if that happens...
I am reserving judgment until I read the article in the TW over lunch. But at very least, people are thinking big (and practical!). The Channels team deserves some credit for bringing this close to reality I suppose - just by raising the level of debate.
I really like that this plan's focus is on the Tulsa portion of the river (even though it relies on the impoundment of water in Sand Springs to do it).
Tactically, the use of the "living river" concept of narrowing the river to maintain its channel is one that I have proposed to anyone who would listen for the last few years. That is quite gratifying.
This plan could be the one.
I am all for this, but there need to be some safeguards as to what we are getting. First, the site between 11th and 21st on the west bank. Before we just hand over land or money to the guys from Branson, we need to dictate style, design and build standards and get from them exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Tulsa Hills on the river is not an option if they want public assistance. Second, the standards need to be applied to the entire riverbank, no more Kum and Go stores backing the river. Let's do this, and let's do this right.
I like this a lot better than "The Channel$".
This is obscenely better than the channels.
Welcome back to Waterboy!
While I share excitement with the blair concept shown, I am really hoping there is no excreting of eggrolls involved.
What is really great is that all these plans get people off of riverside drive and closer to the river, sometimes over it. Too bad they couldn't throw in a bit more in the 71st and south areas to draw people up from the riverwalk/aquarium.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
what excites me the most is the blair property acquistion...
re-direct riverside through the blair front yard and then you'll get space for riverfront retail/mixed/public use development?
fekkin' a, that is brilliant... i will crap golden eggrolls if that happens...
pancakes?the drawing in the paper changed...
the part that showed the blair property development is gone... that sucks, without that this looks like just a big park...
holy ****... 100 bucks says somebody spilled the beans...anyone have an archived version?
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
anyone have an archived version?
The dude abides.
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
It's a very good package in many respects.
Include $ for streetcar or light rail line from Downtown to the West Bank, to Jenks, with proper land use policies to encourage TOD and River mixed use development, and it's a brilliant plan.
JMO.
Seems much more practical than the Channels. Im scratching my head wondering why people in Broken Arrow, Owasso, or East Tulsa would vote for their money to go to the river though.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
anyone have an archived version?
The dude abides.
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
well done
This is very exciting news! I've been in favor of this plan for a while now, and I'm excited that it's finally more concrete.
I'm also very happy that the rest of the country has decided that Tulsa needs river development ("country" sales tax=national? [}:)]).
When all is said and done, and supposing that Tulsa Landing comes to fruition, the Arkansas will have been changed for the better of the whole area.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
This is obscenely better than the channels.
Welcome back to Waterboy!
While I share excitement with the blair concept shown, I am really hoping there is no excreting of eggrolls involved.
What is really great is that all these plans get people off of riverside drive and closer to the river, sometimes over it. Too bad they couldn't throw in a bit more in the 71st and south areas to draw people up from the riverwalk/aquarium.
Thank you. I wish there were a way to fast track the project. As far as county wide support, I would hope the rest of the county realizes their growth is leveraged by ours.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Seems much more practical than the Channels. Im scratching my head wondering why people in Broken Arrow, Owasso, or East Tulsa would vote for their money to go to the river though.
Willing to bet more than a few people from the areas you mentioned go to the Aquarium and River Crossing.
This would be a good regional draw.
Besides, they owe us for V 2025. [;)]
It would benefit them overall as a good investment for the local economy. Im just thinking SOME people might be short sighted and just bottom line it that they dont live by the river so they'll vote no. Especially if it is posed as a "River tax"
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
It would benefit them overall as a good investment for the local economy. Im just thinking SOME people might be short sighted and just bottom line it that they dont live by the river so they'll vote no. Especially if it is posed as a "River tax"
After all the recent ways we've been hit up for improvements and EMSA, anything marketed as a "tax" is going to have a negative connotation.
Personally, I think it's a better investment than BOK Center. But that's just me, I'm not a fan of 18K seat monoliths.
Do you think Bells could be involved in this development?
wow, who is passing out the koolaid?
I would make three changes that would possibly sweeten this plan.
What if:
1. The temporary tax was raised from .4 cent to a full 1 cent but for a shorter time period. The object would be to fast track the project so that the public actually sees something happening.
2.Add an inexpensive impound device (wing dam, inflatable low water dam etc.) at the Newblock Park area to back up water to below the Chandler Park area. This way the Sand Springs dam does not have to impact so much of the river and will not have pressure from Tulsa to release its water for our gain. This was the original site suggested for our first low water dam. The added benefit is the possible redevelopment of land along Charles Page Boulevard. This area deserves some juice too.
3. Write in a public oversight committee to watch over construction and operation of these river areas. The absolute control desired by the city/county needs to be offset with the dispassionate observance of everyday users. The possibility for abuses we have all seen by these entities is inherent in this development.
With these changes the plan would be a winner.
If something like this doesn't happen soon I'm going out there with a shovel and digging my own dam channel!
Oh and do you know where I can get some dam bait?
We could always release thousands of beavers into the river to solve the problem
Lets do it. [8D]
Make sure and shave them so they can be identified.....
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I am all for this, but there need to be some safeguards as to what we are getting. First, the site between 11th and 21st on the west bank. Before we just hand over land or money to the guys from Branson, we need to dictate style, design and build standards and get from them exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Tulsa Hills on the river is not an option if they want public assistance. Second, the standards need to be applied to the entire riverbank, no more Kum and Go stores backing the river. Let's do this, and let's do this right.
I think development on the river represents the biggest opportunity and potential for blunder. The City has got to ensure that each node is done well. As the public will assemble the property it may be an easy opportunity to install a form based code to guide new development. At any rate we have the opportunity to create some great destinations, even neighborhoods, along the river.
On the 36th St. pier, give me a gelatto vendor and a Ferris Wheel and I'll be happy.
I'm also thinking Kenosha could be on to something. Imagine a rail connecting all that suburban excitement that is Jenks to dt Tulsa with several transit and river oriented developments along the way. The rail, trail, and river could act as one serious string of pearls.
I'm all on this measly tax; tax me twice. Beauty is it's not just Tulsans paying for the regional public improvement it's the region paying for it. And of course Ohhwassans, Arrowites that are broken, and Bixbians should support this it's their amenity as well and it certainly adds to their banal quality of life.
I'm also all about some serious infill at the Blair property. Not high rise, don't want to ruffle the Ridgers but give me a nice mix of townhomes and low rise condos over some commercial spaces. Of course, it transitions up in intensity as you move from the neighborhood to the river. All oriented toward the river and built around a great public square that connects the property to the river OVER Riverside. Now that would so rock.
Imagine if you could build something equally impressive or more so just on the other side of the river across the ped. bridge and/or across the 23rd St. bridge. We'd be talking some serious critical mass and the makings of a great area.
I'm glad to see that there is a positive response to developing projects along the river that make sense. I remember in the 70's when they created the pedestrian bridge as part of River Parks and riding my bike from the Hale High School area to there and riding the paths on both sides of the river. When I got older I always thought that something should be done along the river to create something unique for Tulsa.
The city of Tempe has done something similar along a stretch of the Rio Salado which for years was just a dry river bed and has created a new destination there for all kinds of development and events, and is growing with business and residential development. I hope that his venture for the Arkansas River development is a sucess, and it would be great, I think, for some kind of a link between Sand Springs and Jenks along the river.
http://www.tempe.gov/lake/ (//%22http://%22)
Lets not go crazy here. We have a lot of people in this city that don't want any development on the river. This seems like a good compromise position to get something actually done. Plus those "gathering" areas are more about enhancing public park space not developing businesses with gelatos and ferris wheels.
I dont see that its going to be any use to start immediately dreaming up other plans when it may be difficult to get this one passed. Lets focus on getting the task at hand passed, theeen you can push for a next phase. A lot of people have worked hard to develop this, and to immediately start throwing out other ideas seems to make light of it and not take it seriously. That combined with people who are going to be pushing against it could kill it and we will end up with nothing once again.
This is a perfectly good plan as it is. If there are legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for change, then sure go ahead. But to just blow it off and start all over is just going to get us right back here with another plan that others can obviously have ideas about changing or doing this or that etc. We can all dream up an infinity of great ideas, this one seems perfectly good, lets do it and get it done.
River Corridor Summary Report (//%22http://ww3.tulsachamber.com/upload/Arkansas%20River%20Plan.pdf%22)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets not go crazy here. We have a lot of people in this city that don't want any development on the river. This seems like a good compromise position to get something actually done. Plus those "gathering" areas are more about enhancing public park space not developing businesses with gelatos and ferris wheels.
I dont see that its going to be any use to start immediately dreaming up other plans when it may be difficult to get this one passed. Lets focus on getting the task at hand passed, theeen you can push for a next phase. A lot of people have worked hard to develop this, and to immediately start throwing out other ideas seems to make light of it and not take it seriously. That combined with people who are going to be pushing against it could kill it and we will end up with nothing once again.
This is a perfectly good plan as it is. If there are legitimate concerns and well thought out arguments for change, then sure go ahead. But to just blow it off and start all over is just going to get us right back here with another plan that others can obviously have ideas about changing or doing this or that etc. We can all dream up an infinity of great ideas, this one seems perfectly good, lets do it and get it done.
I completely agree with you. The info that I gave from Tempe was not an overnight deal and is still developing today. Most of what is in the video clips happened over the last 8 years. It was not an overnight thing. I think that there are some good plans and ideas for developing the river that can eventually suit alot of things to get people to live there and businesses to develop there and provide alot of events for people to go there. I hope that this can become a draw to Tulsa on all levels.
So how is the funding provided for the river through Vision 2025 impacted? Is it included in the costs as well? I think there was about $150 million for parks inlcuding low water dams and bank improvements in Vision 2025 proposition 4.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
So how is the funding provided for the river through Vision 2025 impacted? Is it included in the costs as well? I think there was about $150 million for parks inlcuding low water dams and bank improvements in Vision 2025 proposition 4.
According to Gaylon Pinc in this morning's World, 5.6 million of V2025 funds was set aside for design and engineering. The cost for the low water dam constrution will total about $150 million for all three. This .4% along with the private funding will accomplish that.
Great question Nellie. We earmarked money for the river, did the studies, and then the Corps vetoed it. Someone should kill those river terns over whatever they are so we can get some stuff done. But really, what happened to that money? Sucked into the arena along with the nature center?
- - -
Page 7 of the PDF linked about makes in REALLY clear that the Blair property is a target.
- - -
I have decided to support this project. I feel that Tulsa was in decline for far too long and we need to step up the game and get our act together. After traveling recently to OKC, KC, Des Moines, Omaha, and even Little Rock - those cities seems new and shiny compared to most of Tulsa. I do not think this is due to recent changes in Tulsa, but an extended policy of neglect.
Thus, my tax hating self is willing to help foot the bill to bring things back to where they should be - one of the most beautiful cities in America. The fact that the Kaiser foundation and private donors are willing to help support this confirms that this is a well thought out and logical plan for the future of Tulsa.
On the development: one thing that I hear creeping into the conversation (more at Tulsaworld.com discussion) is that people do not want to see the river "commercialized." I disagree. I want to see life in, around, and near the river. To accomplish this and to maintain its integrity it is important to give people a stake in the area. Note the parks near "River's Edge" always have more people, see less trash, and new features from time to time.
I think such smaller scale commercial ventures periodically along the river would be a huge plus. Perhaps an ice cream shop or coffee house or a bar on the pier. Somewhere to go from downtown for outdoor lunch or gather after work. A place to rent paddle boats or canoes. A small workshop for artists to rent kiosk space to sell wares, do portraits or whatever. Maybe even a little side 'harbor' where you could rent remote control boats or sail your own. In America, commerce = life. I do not want it to be 71st street nor a mall, but some commerce in the river corridor would be an investment in the area, a draw for more people, and a vote of confidence by the private sector.
As I understand it, this is included in the master plan and I hope it come to fruition.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
So how is the funding provided for the river through Vision 2025 impacted? Is it included in the costs as well? I think there was about $150 million for parks inlcuding low water dams and bank improvements in Vision 2025 proposition 4.
According to Gaylon Pinc in this morning's World, 5.6 million of V2025 funds was set aside for design and engineering. The cost for the low water dam constrution will total about $150 million for all three. This .4% along with the private funding will accomplish that.
WB- is there any mention so far for putting rip-rap along the banks to stabilize it like they have on the "Oklahoma River" in OKC?
I think the weedy-seedy look and erosion along our river banks is one of the least attractive aspects of the Arkansas River.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
WB- is there any mention so far for putting rip-rap along the banks to stabilize it like they have on the "Oklahoma River" in OKC?
I think the weedy-seedy look and erosion along our river banks is one of the least attractive aspects of the Arkansas River.
I'm of the opposite opinion. the river in okc looks like a drainage ditch. River banks should be natural, not concrete.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
So how is the funding provided for the river through Vision 2025 impacted? Is it included in the costs as well? I think there was about $150 million for parks inlcuding low water dams and bank improvements in Vision 2025 proposition 4.
According to Gaylon Pinc in this morning's World, 5.6 million of V2025 funds was set aside for design and engineering. The cost for the low water dam constrution will total about $150 million for all three. This .4% along with the private funding will accomplish that.
WB- is there any mention so far for putting rip-rap along the banks to stabilize it like they have on the "Oklahoma River" in OKC?
I think the weedy-seedy look and erosion along our river banks is one of the least attractive aspects of the Arkansas River.
Under the heading "bank stabilization and beautification". I remember seeing illustrations of rip-rap. I like the natural boundaries in some areas and the rip-rap makes for horrendous access to the river but it does serve a purpose and provides definition. Recent addition of wide swaths of concrete debris (old bridge debris, bricks, re-bar etc.) along the north river bank at Gilcrease Museum Drive by a large petroleum marketer is simply awful viewed from the river. That is the worst method of reinforcement. Who allowed that?
I also agree with CF that trying to stop commercialism is both a subjective process and urinating into the wind. Not all of the population enjoys running, biking and bird watching, yet they will contribute their tax dollars and deserve to enjoy the river too. I foresee sectors of the river that can accomodate both groups.
This is the best sounding proposal I've heard for the river so far. I think it's important to address the river banks so they are safer and more accessible to the public, but they need to retain a natural look. (No light green painted concrete walls.)
They could use natural stone and plantings to accomplish this.
Tulsa needs to do something with the river, it's our natural asset, along with the trees, which we seem bent on allowing the developers to cut down as fast as they possibly can. The whole city is going to look like Yale Avenue between I-44 and 51st Street if they keep it up. Ugly, ugly, ugly. We need to preserve the beautiful trees we have.
I hope this happens, it's long overdue.
So the Vision 2025 money for the river has already been spent? I thought the Incog study was completed way before V2025 was voted on?
Is there a plan for infrastructure along Riverside? How will the additional traffic be handled. Is Riverside going to be turned into a 35 mph road with lights every couple of blocks to accommodate all the added traffic and pedestrians.
That is really a concern for me. I am so disappointed in the state of Tulsa's streets and the lack of planning for infrastructure when ever something new is built. Riverside is a busy, high speed link to south Tulsa. What will slowing down the traffic and adding more pedestrians to the mix do to the traffic in and out of downtown? Will the city put in left and right turn lanes?
My other concern is parking. We have a beautiful green space that is open and filled with wildlife. If there are restaurants, stores and other commercial enterprises built on the river's edge, are we going to "pave paradise to put up a parking lot?"
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
So the Vision 2025 money for the river has already been spent? I thought the Incog study was completed way before V2025 was voted on?
Is there a plan for infrastructure along Riverside? How will the additional traffic be handled. Is Riverside going to be turned into a 35 mph road with lights every couple of blocks to accommodate all the added traffic and pedestrians.
That is really a concern for me. I am so disappointed in the state of Tulsa's streets and the lack of planning for infrastructure when ever something new is built. Riverside is a busy, high speed link to south Tulsa. What will slowing down the traffic and adding more pedestrians to the mix do to the traffic in and out of downtown? Will the city put in left and right turn lanes?
My other concern is parking. We have a beautiful green space that is open and filled with wildlife. If there are restaurants, stores and other commercial enterprises built on the river's edge, are we going to "pave paradise to put up a parking lot?"
The city has already added turning lanes and lights at 31st and 41 so there are turning lanes and/or lights at Denver, 21st, 31st, 41st,2 at I-44, 61st, 66th, Peoria, 71st, 75th, 81st, The Creek Casino, 91st, Deleware/96th, 2 at The Creek Turnpike and 101st. That really should cover it.
The money from the 3rd Penny and 2025 is in the reports as being added to these funds, so it is not gone. Also if you look at the plans, there is a very substantial amount of parkland in the plans, by far most of the existing park would be untouched by commercial development.
Now, Riverside in sections is badly in need of reconstruction, I would like to see the street rebuilt, but major changes aren't needed. Maybe a light and turn lanes at 36th.
I really like this plan (always have...).
Another idea that may have been tossed around already...Has anyone thought of, or proposed, a simple lock system in the low water dams (specifically the one on Zink Lake)to allow for boats (canoes, rafts, kayaks...no motorized boats) to move through the low water dam into the "Living River"? I think it would be cool to put in at Zink Lake, paddle around for awhile, go through the dam lock, and then ride the "Tulsa Wave" along the "Living River" down to a designated get out location. This would be fun to do, and it would be fun to watch as well.
As this is put forth as a county tax, what are the chances that it could be done through property tax instead of sales tax? I am not anti-tax, and honestly I would probably end up paying more through my property tax than a sales tax. I just hate to continue increasing sales tax. It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor. I know politicians love to use sales tax, because its incremental, and people don't notice it that much. But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on grocercies, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax. To me, it just seems more equitable to attach that money to property, which would increase or decrease depending on the value of the land.
This plan gets Hometown's stamp of approval.
Only concern is the financing. Pmcalk's points are on target.
Also concerned about possible smoke filled back room deals being made on the assembling of land for development on the west side.
Excited about the reference to possible acquisition of (some or all? of) Sinclair property. Maybe someone somewhere in power will acknowledge that Tulsa's perpetual refinery stink is a problem.
Anyway, things are looking up at the Arkansas. Now all we have to do is get rid of the animal art.
Except for the major intersections, traffic on Riverside will be affected. It already is. When people try to turn left from Riverside into the neighborhood, it can be downright dangerous. If they widen Riverside to include a left turn lane the entire length, that would be a great improvement. 36th street and Riverside is a nightmare.
I would like to see River improvements but there are so many other things in Tulsa that are in dire need, though. Our streets are in deplorable condition. We have abandoned buildings by the score. Our code enforcement is a joke. Tulsa can not afford to continue its policy of patching and deferred maintenance.
I just can't help but think of the old saying...something about lipstick on a pig.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor.
It cuts into potential revenue but creates actual revenue, so that's a wash.
Not to mention, the poor pay a higher percent of property tax that you imagine. What do you think the owners of apartment buildings or rent houses do when their property tax goes up? They pass the entire sum on to the renters and use it as an excuse to pad their income a little (trust me).
Likewise, businesses have to raise prices to cover the additional expense. If a grocery store's expenses go up they do not take a hit on their bottom line, they raise prices to compensate. Causing the poor to again pay more for groceries. For sales tax, they are only taxed for the money thee spend. If they spend less, they inherently are taxed less.
Not arguing one way is better than another, just pointing out the flawed thinking that property do not effect the poor.
Sorry Nellie, couldn't resist.
(http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/lipstick_on_a_pig.jpg)
Hee hee
Don't apologize to me -- I think that's the perfect depiction of Hillary.
Nellie, what's with the new avatar pic?
You like? Just wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
You like? Just wishful thinking.
Yeah, I like being roughed up by the cops every now & then. Just ask Wilbur. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor.
It cuts into potential revenue but creates actual revenue, so that's a wash.
Not to mention, the poor pay a higher percent of property tax that you imagine. What do you think the owners of apartment buildings or rent houses do when their property tax goes up? They pass the entire sum on to the renters and use it as an excuse to pad their income a little (trust me).
Likewise, businesses have to raise prices to cover the additional expense. If a grocery store's expenses go up they do not take a hit on their bottom line, they raise prices to compensate. Causing the poor to again pay more for groceries. For sales tax, they are only taxed for the money thee spend. If they spend less, they inherently are taxed less.
Not arguing one way is better than another, just pointing out the flawed thinking that property do not effect the poor.
Good points, and not something I thought of. Mostly, I was thinking of the elderly who live on fixed incomes. Because they can qualify for double homestead, they are less likely to be affected by property tax increase. I also wonder about the ability of sales tax to really distinguish between an average citizen and the super rich. After all, there is only so much you can spend on food (and only so much that you can cut back), no matter how much money you have. The amount you can spend on a house is virtually limitless.
Ultimately, the fairest approach would be a local income tax (coupled with a decrease in sales and property tax). But I am not holding my breath on that one.
quote:
Originally posted by jtcrissup
I really like this plan (always have...).
Another idea that may have been tossed around already...Has anyone thought of, or proposed, a simple lock system in the low water dams (specifically the one on Zink Lake)to allow for boats (canoes, rafts, kayaks...no motorized boats) to move through the low water dam into the "Living River"? I think it would be cool to put in at Zink Lake, paddle around for awhile, go through the dam lock, and then ride the "Tulsa Wave" along the "Living River" down to a designated get out location. This would be fun to do, and it would be fun to watch as well.
I agree. However, when I have proposed this to INCOG planners, they just laugh. It goes like this-
Me: "We need to make each of the impoundments inter-connected with some sort of method to increase their functionality. So you could take one trip from Sand Springs on the river and end up in Bixby"
Them: "No one has asked for that but you."
Me: "But no one knows they should ask for this feature".
Them: It is too expensive and there is no demand.
If more people kept bringing it up they may pay attention.
Hey, how about a lock system? I'd love to sail by Hobie from Tulsa down to the Riverwalk Crossing in Bixby for a beer. Or paddle... whatever.
Imagine how cool it would be to see a sail boat on the river? That should sell them Waterboy. No matter how much it costs, think of the post cards.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hey, how about a lock system? I'd love to sail by Hobie from Tulsa down to the Riverwalk Crossing in Bixby for a beer. Or paddle... whatever.
Imagine how cool it would be to see a sail boat on the river? That should sell them Waterboy. No matter how much it costs, think of the post cards.
What's the bridge clearance on a Hobie? I might just have to buy one. Of course it might suck beating to windward going back up river against the current. [;)]
Here's the kicker. OKC has locks on their fake river. I'm more into paddling at the moment but at 57,000cfs its more like going along for the ride downstream and forget about going upstream.
I watched one of my daughter's rowing practices in an 8 hull when we had 20-25 kt. winds out of the south and a strong current coming down river on the Arkansas a few weeks ago. They were pretty beat by the time they had gone back up channel.
Are you coming to lunch w/ us on Tues?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As this is put forth as a county tax, what are the chances that it could be done through property tax instead of sales tax? I am not anti-tax, and honestly I would probably end up paying more through my property tax than a sales tax. I just hate to continue increasing sales tax. It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor. I know politicians love to use sales tax, because its incremental, and people don't notice it that much. But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on grocercies, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax. To me, it just seems more equitable to attach that money to property, which would increase or decrease depending on the value of the land.
I think you'd have to change state law to do this Pmcalk.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I watched one of my daughter's rowing practices in an 8 hull when we had 20-25 kt. winds out of the south and a strong current coming down river on the Arkansas a few weeks ago. They were pretty beat by the time they had gone back up channel.
Are you coming to lunch w/ us on Tues?
I'll try.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As this is put forth as a county tax, what are the chances that it could be done through property tax instead of sales tax? I am not anti-tax, and honestly I would probably end up paying more through my property tax than a sales tax. I just hate to continue increasing sales tax. It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor. I know politicians love to use sales tax, because its incremental, and people don't notice it that much. But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on grocercies, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax. To me, it just seems more equitable to attach that money to property, which would increase or decrease depending on the value of the land.
I think you'd have to change state law to do this Pmcalk.
You can fund capital improvements through a general obligation bond issue. When a G. O. bond issue passes, the property tax rate for the jurisdiction is increased by a sufficient amount to repay the bonds.
Municipalities and school districts use G. O. bond issues all the time. In fact, that was Tulsa's traditional method for funding streets, sewers, etc., until the first Third Penny was passed in 1980.
It may be that counties don't have that authority in state law, but I suspect the reason a G.O. bond issue isn't being discussed is because sales taxes have become the usual way to fund this sort of thing.
Kudos to Mr Kaiser. He seems to really want river development and he's willing to put his money forward to promote it. I can tell he has spent a lot of time thinking, dreaming, wishing and listening to come up with a long term solution that is not just a legacy or vanity project for him (The Channels?) but something that Tulsan's will enjoy and utilize long term. Maybe I'm naive but these quotes speak volumes to me:
"I don't know how long the people have been expecting and promised this kind of development," Kaiser said."It's time they get it."
"The entire plan includes things the public has been saying for years that they want to have and things are absolutely necessary elements for the river to make it physically attractive and a natural gathering spot for people," Kaiser said.
"It's important to bring people to the river not just to run a couple of miles and then go home, but to spend the day, walk across the bridges to logical areas where there are logical activities on the other side," Kaiser said.
"If you're going to do a prudent development of a new area," Kaiser said, "you want to assure you have all of the land you may need for future purposes."
" The goal of the project is to follow traditional public patterns, and not reshape the way people use the area", Kaiser said.
Kaiser said River Parks will not be commercialized by the amenities created at the gathering spots. He also said those amenities will vary from one spot to another.
Kaiser said the private sector also wants to provide "connectors" tying the river to downtown through Centennial Walk, a historic walking route through downtown already funded with Vision 2025 money.
The goal would be to create a "visible portal" to the river where there is common signage, sidewalk material and lighting, Kaiser said.
"We want to lead people to the river," he said.
He is already funding a trails project on both sides of the river and pledging another $100 million if we approve this tax, and I'd bet that there is more to come.
I'm sold.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As this is put forth as a county tax, what are the chances that it could be done through property tax instead of sales tax? I am not anti-tax, and honestly I would probably end up paying more through my property tax than a sales tax. I just hate to continue increasing sales tax. It cuts into the city's potential revenue and it hurts the poor. I know politicians love to use sales tax, because its incremental, and people don't notice it that much. But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on grocercies, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax. To me, it just seems more equitable to attach that money to property, which would increase or decrease depending on the value of the land.
I think you'd have to change state law to do this Pmcalk.
I thought the county could use property tax for revenue, just not the city. Why would you need to change state law?
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Kudos to Mr Kaiser. He seems to really want river development and he's willing to put his money forward to promote it. I can tell he has spent a lot of time thinking, dreaming, wishing and listening to come up with a long term solution that is not just a legacy or vanity project for him (The Channels?) but something that Tulsan's will enjoy and utilize long term. Maybe I'm naive but these quotes speak volumes to me:
"I don't know how long the people have been expecting and promised this kind of development," Kaiser said."It's time they get it."
"The entire plan includes things the public has been saying for years that they want to have and things are absolutely necessary elements for the river to make it physically attractive and a natural gathering spot for people," Kaiser said.
"It's important to bring people to the river not just to run a couple of miles and then go home, but to spend the day, walk across the bridges to logical areas where there are logical activities on the other side," Kaiser said.
"If you're going to do a prudent development of a new area," Kaiser said, "you want to assure you have all of the land you may need for future purposes."
" The goal of the project is to follow traditional public patterns, and not reshape the way people use the area", Kaiser said.
Kaiser said River Parks will not be commercialized by the amenities created at the gathering spots. He also said those amenities will vary from one spot to another.
Kaiser said the private sector also wants to provide "connectors" tying the river to downtown through Centennial Walk, a historic walking route through downtown already funded with Vision 2025 money.
The goal would be to create a "visible portal" to the river where there is common signage, sidewalk material and lighting, Kaiser said.
"We want to lead people to the river," he said.
He is already funding a trails project on both sides of the river and pledging another $100 million if we approve this tax, and I'd bet that there is more to come.
I'm sold.
yeah, all we need are 4 more kaisers and then they won't have to come begging for money.
So whats this about? From the TW, " County Commissioner Fred Perry said. "It remains to be seen if the river plan is going to go to a vote of the people or not."
Is this thing already dead?
I sure hope not!
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on groceries, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax.
I think your math is wrong.
It would only be an additional $24 a year.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
But even a modest .04% adds up--if you spend $500 a month on groceries, you'll end up paying $240 more a year in sales tax.
I think your math is wrong.
It would only be an additional $24 a year.
I have never claimed that math is one of my strengths.
The total sales tax burden does add up. The current 8.517% is slightly more than one/twelve of a dollar.
If you spend 500 dollars a month on groceries, you pay just over 500 dollars a year in sales tax.
Eat twelve months then fast for a month.
The City of Tulsa gets and uses two of those eight and a half cents to pay for police, fire, parks, etc.
Two cents does add up in your wallet or purse, but it takes lots of us to pay for the services we want.
It costs about 100,000 dollars to pay and equip a policeman for a year. That means we have to spend five million dollars a year on groceries to pay for each officer.
You want more police (or fire or parks personnel)...go shopping in Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hey, how about a lock system? I'd love to sail by Hobie from Tulsa down to the Riverwalk Crossing in Bixby for a beer. Or paddle... whatever.
Imagine how cool it would be to see a sail boat on the river? That should sell them Waterboy. No matter how much it costs, think of the post cards.
Having sailed many a Hobie and Sailboard in moving water, including the river at Zink lake and in others such as the North Platt River in Nebraska, the Columbia River at Hood River Oregon (aka "the George")... moving water and sailing is not as fun as it sounds... put the wind and flow opposite and you'll have quite a ride... not to mention short tacking till your arms fall off!
Oh and bridge clearence for a Hobie 16 is 28'
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So whats this about? From the TW, " County Commissioner Fred Perry said. "It remains to be seen if the river plan is going to go to a vote of the people or not."
Is this thing already dead?
So we won't be given a chance to vote on it?
Clearance on my 18 would be something like 32', so not a real option. Just dangling something pretty in their face...
He didn't say it won't be going for a vote, just that he doesn't know.
Well with the beater Sunfish I just bought, bridge clearance isn't an issue but tacking upstream against current would not be a joy. Sailboats on the Arkansas River? That's what Keystone and Kaw are for. [;)]
But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.
As far as I've seen, they haven't had an actual concrete proposal to decide whether they want to vote or not. How many months was the channels around unsure on whether we were voting or not?
The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.
Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.
The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.) communities to vote yes.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.
Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.
The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.) communities to vote yes.
Considering the Tulsa County Republican Party passed a resolution against a river tax, I'd say there's more convincing to do than that.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.
Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.
The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.) communities to vote yes.
I have heard that the leadership in Owasso is very much for the river plan. They realize quite acutely how important it is for Tulsa to thrive. They realize that basically, Tulsa is the draw that brings people and jobs to the area many of whom then choose to live in Owasso. By helping us they help themselves. Hopefully the regular voter in Owasso will be as enlightened. (Never thought I would say the word Owasso and enlightened in the same sentence. lol)
I wrote my county commissioner..."I read in the Tulsa World article in which you were quoted as saying " "It remains to be seen if the river plan is going to go to a vote of the people or not." This is greatly troubling to me. We really need to get moving on some plan for the river. I have lived here practically all my life and my family is 3rd and 4th generation from the area. We all know very well how tenuous river plans can be. We have seen them come and go to no avail. I know you serve the people of Bixby as well as many Tulsans, but I would think it a terrible thing if such a promising plan as this one were lost to a thousand tiny cuts and squabbles as so many other plans have that have come before. Although I do not live in Bixby, I do live in your district and I am getting very frustrated at not seeing something done along our river. I am very afraid that if we add yet another amount to the 277million we could lose our chance to see this development happen. Please lets have a vote on this plan."
He responded back...
"William: Thanks for writing; I value your opinion. I agree that it is a promising plan. We have found that Bixby can be included without raising the amount much over the $277 million. The original plan developed by INCOG and the engineers they hired, at the direction of Tulsa County, was a 42 mile plan. If you are for the plan, then it makes sense to have 32 miles of the plan included rather than just 25 miles. This will make it more saleable and it is the fair thing to do when you consider how serious Bixby has been in river development. Thanks again for writing. Fred Perry"
I think it was nice that he wrote me back. Hopefully this plan can be worked out, modified a bit, and actually come to a vote and happen.
There might be a little more convincing to do on the west side too, I spoke to a few westsiders who are unhappy about the shuck and jive they are getting with the 41st St Pedestrian bridge in this deal. They felt like it was another example of Tulsa giving the west side the image of including and connecting them with the rest of Tulsa while still keeping them isolated. It might just take a vehicular bridge to get this passed. That's just what folks are saying. The west side deserves progress as promised. Randi Miller strikes again! Her party is opposed to a river tax and the west side is feeling shafted by it. She should have an interesting primary.
I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.
I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.
No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.
To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?
I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.
As far as I've seen, they haven't had an actual concrete proposal to decide whether they want to vote or not. How many months was the channels around unsure on whether we were voting or not?
Yea but that was a huuuge undertaking and asking for a lot of things that needed to be thought out, planned, checked for engineering viability, etc. This mostly has things that are already "on the books" so to speak.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.
I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.
No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.
To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?
I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.
This isnt just for "beautifying Tulsa", though it certainly will do that on an impressive scale. Its to add to our quality of life by having great facilities and even more activities along the river. This will also add to our competitiveness with other cities. Plus it will improve any river development that does happen along our part of the river and Jenks and Bixby.
As for the tax thing, we have been through this argument before. Oklahomans have, in total, one of the lowest tax burdens in the US. 277 million is not a huge amount compared to the improvements we will be getting to our city and lifestyle, for generations to come. Not to mention, how many other cities that have great fortune for someone to step up and GIVE 111 million on top of the publics investment? This is an opportunity to have a standard of living comparible to places where you would pay double for the average rent etc. Having such a low tax burden is a fortunate circumstance whereby we can do some investing, and STILL have a very low tax burden yet make great improvements and be very competitive with other large cities with our amenities.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.
I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.
No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.
To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?
I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.
This isnt just for "beautifying Tulsa", though it certainly will do that on an impressive scale. Its to add to our quality of life by having great facilities and even more activities along the river. This will also add to our competitiveness with other cities. Plus it will improve any river development that does happen along our part of the river and Jenks and Bixby.
As for the tax thing, we have been through this argument before. Oklahomans have, in total, one of the lowest tax burdens in the US. 277 million is not a huge amount compared to the improvements we will be getting to our city and lifestyle, for generations to come. Not to mention, how many other cities that have great fortune for someone to step up and GIVE 111 million on top of the publics investment? This is an opportunity to have a standard of living comparible to places where you would pay double for the average rent etc. Having such a low tax burden is a fortunate circumstance whereby we can do some investing, and STILL have a very low tax burden yet make great improvements and be very competitive with other large cities with our amenities.
Yes taxes are low but as noted on another thread we average less than $15 hr income here. Less than the national average. Like most averages, this one doesn't tell the whole story. Once you factor in the huge income that is driving the castle boom in South Tulsa and the McMansions in Midtown, then factor out the unemployed and the illegals, you are left with an income mode that I would guess is less than $10 hr. This group makes up the majority of the city and they are worried about house payments. I don't think the issue is a slam dunk approval by any means.
It would be nice if the state would spend some of its largesse from oil tax collections to help but it seems doubtful.
That could very well be true. People here do also pay less for housing... But to argue against it for tax reasons versus income reasons could muddy the issue. If we want to improve our city, arguing that taxes are, or will be, too high, versus talking about income can lead to different results and us not tackling the right issue or placing the topic in the right context.
Well, someone is paying surveyors money to survey W. 41st St. from Union on back east. I don't think they'd be doing that all for the intentions of a pedestrian bridge. It's got tongues wagging about a vehicle bridge.
What exactly, do most of you think is missing along the east and west water front from 11th to 51st other than some semblance of commercial development?
We have nice, well-traveled trails on both sides, an under-utilized amphitheatre, an attractive apartment complex, a ped bridge at 31st.
This isn't a loaded question, I'm just trying to figure out what in other people's minds specifically should be added to the banks.
Since the amphitheatre is largely un-used these days, I don't think a larger outdoor venue makes any sense.
We've gotten so far out on how to pay for it, what Bixby and Jenks want, low water dams, and the "evil" intentions of the county commissioners that it's clouding for the average citizen what we even need or want to come of this in "our" part of the river.
With the money for the river from the 3rd Penny and 2025 and the money Kaiser has already donated, this will make for almost $450 million in new public development of the river. This plan also pays for the land for commercial development on the west bank that the Branson Landing people want.
With just the Branson Landing style development adding private commercial dollars and nothing else this vote on less than half a cent of sales tax will bring a billion dollars in river development. Add that to the hundreds of millions in river development already done or being done on the south river portion and the already great Riverparks and Tulsa's riverfront will be something very special. For less than half a penny we will get at least a Billion dollars in new river development.
We will truly regret not having planned for travel upon the river utilizing locks and dams or some sort of connection. Very short sighted. Especially since foundation money is now starting to roll in.
It reminds me of how we build housing and shopping in South Tulsa around soon to be clogged two lane roads (91st, 101st, 111th etc.) with no left turn lanes. Then when the inevitable happens and the area is bringing in tax dollars, we tear up the roads, create havoc by widening and re-configuring.
This topic is sort of ironic talking about visions and beautifying Tulsa and the millions to go along with it and we can't even cut our own grass down.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.
I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.
No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.
To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?
I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.
I second your opinions exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
This topic is sort of ironic talking about visions and beautifying Tulsa and the millions to go along with it and we can't even cut our own grass down.
Grass, police, schools, roads, etc. each have their own pot of money and budget. You just cant pull from one "penny" or estimated yearly budget, to pay for another. Plus, I am sure many of us would have liked to have had a bit less rain and a bit less mowing from fast growing, overly watered, grass in our own yards. The city will catch up.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.
I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.
No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.
To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?
I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.
I second your opinions exactly.
How much tax does go to beautifying Tulsa? What projects are you speaking of that haven't been finished because we have jumped to another one?
I am really anxious to see some specifics on this plan. From what I can tell it follows what INCOG worked on and came up with. They and many citizens of Tulsa have put a lot of work into the master plan for the river. Sooner or later, if we wanted anything done with the river, it would have to be paid for somehow. I think we are quite lucky to have someone wanting to chip in over 100 million to help pay for it. The reason INCOG came up with this plan is because it was felt that there needed to be a plan for the river. Where things could be developed, where they should not be and kept as conservation space, the extent of any development and its place within the context of future city growth, etc.
My favorite part of the INCOG plan was the 71st park area. I love playing Volley Ball there. For years as soon as it was warm enough until the fall loss of light made it too difficult, I would play out there with dozens and dozens of people every week. And dont forget the annual Sandblazer Vball Tournament that can have over 100 teams playing. Its a fun sport people can play at all skill levels, and it always offers a lively and favorable impression on our city to visitors who see people out there playing. However the facilities could be greatly improved. They basically dont have any facilities there now other than sand pits and porta potties. Would be nice to have actual restrooms, a drinking fountain, outdoor shower/fountain to rinse sand off and some parking wouldn't be bad either.
Here is an old INCOG rendering of a possible concept of what could be put there.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2516/71stconceptwebsh5.jpg)
Here is the River Corridor Master Plan if any of you havent seen it before. Also note that any plan will also most likely include something for the Tulsa Wave, another great asset that can be improved upon.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf
I just found this from something that Kaiser had apparently sponsored. We have heard mention of piers, so this may be something like what they are talking about. It was dated as being March of this year. Don't know if its what their final ideas are hoping to be or if it was just a general starting concept. However...Where are our Vball courts!
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5204/71stconcept2webtj3.jpg)
Here is an old INCOG rendering of part of a 41st pedestrian bridge concept.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1391/41stpedestrianbridgewebds2.jpg)
The Kaiser plan does not include a 41st bridge, but does include a 41st pedestrian bridge. I really hope that they place the pedestrian bridge off to the side a ways so that a Bridge can be added at a later date without any trouble.
Here is an INCOG rendering of a development idea for the west side of the river near the PSO plant. This would be faaaaar in the future. But if we ever want to be able to develop there, we must plan ahead, keeping this in mind, so that we will not waste any money by having to redo, or undo, anything that we are doing now.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9158/livingpsowebrr8.jpg)
With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.
Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed. I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support. Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!
Of the eight items listed, I can only support two. If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.
Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed. I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support. Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!
Of the eight items listed, I can only support two. If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.
Yea, we wouldn't want to actually have anything to go to on those roads and do on the water now would we?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.
Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed. I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support. Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!
Of the eight items listed, I can only support two. If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.
Yea, we wouldn't want to actually have anything to go to on those roads and do on the water now would we?
It would have been nice to actually see a road on the infrastructure list, but no roads.
And the 'something to do' part is the responsibility of private business, not my government. When government has fixed what they are responsible for, then we can talk about things to play with.
Before I can support this proposal they are going to have to convince me they can maintain what now exists plus the new additions.
This thread appears to be going in three different directions. Different people want to know about public infrastructure, funding, and private development. This is an important issue and this thread may be too confusing to new members and readers of this forum.
This thread will become the public infrastructure thread. Comments on funding and taxes need to be placed under "funding", private or commercial development need to be addressed under "commerical/private development".
Yes, the west bank is already purchased to be developed. Isn't it ironic that it's being developed by the same people who are propsing the tax for bridges etc.... Wouldn 't it be nice if every time we wanted to do something we could make the entire county foot the bill?
What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?
What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?
There is money to be made by this development - but not by the citizens of Tulsa County and certainly not by citizens who don't live in the City of Tulsa. The people who will bennefit are the members of the Kaiser Foundation pushing this.
I would think they are all intertwined.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?
What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?
Actually major waterfront and/or urban developments have contributed to a positive overall perception of many other cities. Generally speaking, generation Y isn't willing to take an at-market value job in a non-trendy, non-
urban location. Tulsa doesn't have much of a reputation as an urban, trendy city to outsiders, specifically, regional outsiders, which compose most of Tulsa's tourism and move-in target market. Urban projects create demand for Tulsa, because they highlight the city's unique features. In order to be competitive now-a-days, it's not enough to compete with other cities for the next new suburban mall store or restaurant, you have to have a unique and trendy culture. Believe it or not, a city's perceived culture plays a role in where young job-seekers decide to look for jobs, which ultimately affects the labor pool.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would make three changes that would possibly sweeten this plan.
What if:
1. The temporary tax was raised from .4 cent to a full 1 cent but for a shorter time period. The object would be to fast track the project so that the public actually sees something happening.
2.Add an inexpensive impound device (wing dam, inflatable low water dam etc.) at the Newblock Park area to back up water to below the Chandler Park area. This way the Sand Springs dam does not have to impact so much of the river and will not have pressure from Tulsa to release its water for our gain. This was the original site suggested for our first low water dam. The added benefit is the possible redevelopment of land along Charles Page Boulevard. This area deserves some juice too.
3. Write in a public oversight committee to watch over construction and operation of these river areas. The absolute control desired by the city/county needs to be offset with the dispassionate observance of everyday users. The possibility for abuses we have all seen by these entities is inherent in this development.
With these changes the plan would be a winner.
Sounds like window dressing to me. Lipstick on a pig.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?
What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?
Actually major waterfront and/or urban developments have contributed to a positive overall perception of many other cities. Generally speaking, generation Y isn't willing to take an at-market value job in a non-trendy, non- urban location. Tulsa doesn't have much of a reputation as an urban, trendy city to outsiders, specifically, regional outsiders, which compose most of Tulsa's tourism and move-in target market. Urban projects create demand for Tulsa, because they highlight the city's unique features. In order to be competitive now-a-days, it's not enough to compete with other cities for the next new suburban mall store or restaurant, you have to have a unique and trendy culture. Believe it or not, a city's perceived culture plays a role in where young job-seekers decide to look for jobs, which ultimately affects the labor pool.
Translation: Drink more of the Kathy Kool-Aid. We know what's best for you. You don't know jack. It's really simple, good jobs, good, safe, public streets, schools, and infrastructure. That is their real concern. After being the collateral damage and first hand witnesses of the dysfunctional denial and emphasis on style of the self indulgent me,me,me, baby boomers all their lives what they really long for is some substance instead of just the image. Just give us something real, just give us something true.
Double A - I'm blocking your crap from my forum viewing. I recommend everyone else a) do the same, and b) ignore the troll.
Nobody likes Debbie Downers, especially socialist ones. Go cry into a pillow, put on some Coldplay to chill out, but above all, please stop posting.
Incog PDF of the presentation:
http://incog.org/ark%20river/07.18_ArkRiverMaster.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Double A - I'm blocking your crap from my forum viewing. I recommend everyone else a) do the same, and b) ignore the troll.
Nobody likes Debbie Downers, especially socialist ones. Go cry into a pillow, put on some Coldplay to chill out, but above all, please stop posting.
Stay in denial. It's easier to be sheeple instead of free thinking independent minded people. I'd rather be an honest naysayer than a dishonest cheer leader. You seek to inhibit the freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum especially if they criticize a power mad, corrupt, corporate controlled, authoritarian government. Does that make you a fascist?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I am really anxious to see some specifics on this plan. From what I can tell it follows what INCOG worked on and came up with. They and many citizens of Tulsa have put a lot of work into the master plan for the river. Sooner or later, if we wanted anything done with the river, it would have to be paid for somehow. I think we are quite lucky to have someone wanting to chip in over 100 million to help pay for it. The reason INCOG came up with this plan is because it was felt that there needed to be a plan for the river. Where things could be developed, where they should not be and kept as conservation space, the extent of any development and its place within the context of future city growth, etc.
My favorite part of the INCOG plan was the 71st park area. I love playing Volley Ball there. For years as soon as it was warm enough until the fall loss of light made it too difficult, I would play out there with dozens and dozens of people every week. And dont forget the annual Sandblazer Vball Tournament that can have over 100 teams playing. Its a fun sport people can play at all skill levels, and it always offers a lively and favorable impression on our city to visitors who see people out there playing. However the facilities could be greatly improved. They basically dont have any facilities there now other than sand pits and porta potties. Would be nice to have actual restrooms, a drinking fountain, outdoor shower/fountain to rinse sand off and some parking wouldn't be bad either.
Here is an old INCOG rendering of a possible concept of what could be put there.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2516/71stconceptwebsh5.jpg)
Here is the River Corridor Master Plan if any of you havent seen it before. Also note that any plan will also most likely include something for the Tulsa Wave, another great asset that can be improved upon.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf
I just found this from something that Kaiser had apparently sponsored. We have heard mention of piers, so this may be something like what they are talking about. It was dated as being March of this year. Don't know if its what their final ideas are hoping to be or if it was just a general starting concept. However...Where are our Vball courts!
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5204/71stconcept2webtj3.jpg)
Here is an old INCOG rendering of part of a 41st pedestrian bridge concept.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1391/41stpedestrianbridgewebds2.jpg)
The Kaiser plan does not include a 41st bridge, but does include a 41st pedestrian bridge. I really hope that they place the pedestrian bridge off to the side a ways so that a Bridge can be added at a later date without any trouble.
Here is an INCOG rendering of a development idea for the west side of the river near the PSO plant. This would be faaaaar in the future. But if we ever want to be able to develop there, we must plan ahead, keeping this in mind, so that we will not waste any money by having to redo, or undo, anything that we are doing now.
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9158/livingpsowebrr8.jpg)
You should photoshop out the cars and put people on the bridge, since we are not getting the planned progress as promised in regards to that bridge(vehicular bridge). You wouldn't want to be accused of false advertising would you? I would like to see a location made available to the Bell's family on the West bank of the Arkansas river to locate an amusement park with a long term lease $1 a year lease by the county to make amens for the way the County did the dirty to them.
[edit]removed Grumpy Smurf picture and associated comments per moderator below[/edit]
Though, it would be cool if Bell's was on the West bank. Neat seeing a roller coaster from the bank and downtown from the coaster. Of course, Robby could buy the land and be successful in spit of the County if he so desire.
Quote from DoubleA..."You should photoshop out the cars and put people on the bridge, since we are not getting the planned progress as promised in regards to that bridge(vehicular bridge). You wouldn't want to be accused of false advertising would you? "
The bridge with the pier is the 71st bridge. It already exists fyi. I noted in my comments that the 41st bridge will be a pedestrian bridge and that I hoped they made allowances for a future auto bridge by having the pedestrian one off to one side.
Please keep the discussion civil and keep it only on infrastructure issues on this thread. If people wish to engage in personal spats, that is what private messages are for.
Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level? Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money? I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors. Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level? Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money? I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors. Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?
You get a "harumph" from this guy.
Harumph harumph
Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer. However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding? In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet. Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.) So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again. A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by lauraj
Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer. However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding? In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet. Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.) So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again. A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin with this one... so I won't. I'll leave it at this.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan
Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level? Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money? I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors. Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?
Excellent question. Henry needs to put up or shut up.
quote:
Originally posted by lauraj
Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer. However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding? In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet. Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.) So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again. A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.
The Army Corps of Engineers handles this, and will continue to handle it if we add more low water dams. In fact, they have to perform studies and approve of these dams before they are built. So the research and planning will be done to ensure your scenario of flooding "just because we wanted water in the river" does not occur.
FYI, the Corps have to perform a delicate balancing act of floods in the entire Arkansas river basin in situations like the last couple of months. You cannot look at one spot and simply conclude that they did not do their job properly. Like I said, a huge balancing act. They probably did the best job possible of minimizing floods in light of how much rain fell. While the river was very high around Tulsa, it was flooding in "moderate" (which is very extensive flooding) downstream towards Muskogee. They also had to let the floods of the Verdigris river empty into the Arkansas without letting too much out of Keystone to cause a catastrophe while simultaneously letting floodwaters receed in areas like Coffeyville, Dewey, Miami, etc.
Keystone served its purpose in letting the Corps manage the floodwaters instead of them just flowing uncontrolled through the region. Everything in the area eventually runs into the Arkansas, so someone's summer house on the lake in Mannford flooded to keep 100 people from drowning in Kansas.
The water in those pictures needs to be brown. I also realize budgets are budgets but I still can't grasp all this river expansion when we have issues like tall grass and bad roads. That's like putting a 5K dollar paint job on the unearthed Belvedere.
These low water dams really need to be as natural as possible. As long as they have a cascading effect, it will be better. We could also put in hidden speakers along the river and play Seagull cries.
quote:
Originally posted by lauraj
So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson,
OK, the Branson reference gave me the willies. A bunch of screaming Yakov fans makes my undercarriage tense up.
Well, now that the different topics have been segregated by the mods I'll pose my question again:
What in other people's minds would you like to see between 11th St. and 51st St. along the river as infrastructure improvements?
We have trails on both sides which are beneficial and well-utilized, an amphitheater which is under-utilized these days for reasons unknown to me, a pedestrian bridge at roughly the mid-point of the 11th to I-44 stretch. We've got a boat house for a growing rowing program which adds some culture to the city and another positive outlet for our teens, we have mini-parks along the east bank.
What else do people want to see?
Personally, I'd like to see the banks stabilized and cleaned up some. I don't want to lose our mature trees, but weed control is pretty difficult with the banks in their natural state.
What else is missing other than some place to perhaps put in a few more places to sit and watch the sunset whilst enjoying dinner and a cold drink?
We'll have that 'other' place to eat and drink IF they ever finish the Avery Plaza at 11th and Riverside. BUT as usual, the city tears stuff up and leaves it. Would like to have that vacant lot finished or at least landscaped. And I know, it's been raining.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well, now that the different topics have been segregated by the mods I'll pose my question again:
What in other people's minds would you like to see between 11th St. and 51st St. along the river as infrastructure improvements?
We have trails on both sides which are beneficial and well-utilized, an amphitheater which is under-utilized these days for reasons unknown to me, a pedestrian bridge at roughly the mid-point of the 11th to I-44 stretch. We've got a boat house for a growing rowing program which adds some culture to the city and another positive outlet for our teens, we have mini-parks along the east bank.
What else do people want to see?
Personally, I'd like to see the banks stabilized and cleaned up some. I don't want to lose our mature trees, but weed control is pretty difficult with the banks in their natural state.
What else is missing other than some place to perhaps put in a few more places to sit and watch the sunset whilst enjoying dinner and a cold drink?
I would like to see the Zink dam redone as they have planned. It will be designed to be less dangerous and to better enable fish migration, better designed to allow for sediment tranfer and decrease silt build up, plus it will be higher. I do agree that the shoreline should be "hardened" in some places and cleaned up. But we should also make sure that there are natural areas as well, rough tumble, full of weeds and all. This plan will help to further delineate the different areas.
I am ho hum about what they have planned for the area where the house with the big yard is but I will wait to see what exactly they have planned.
I would also like to see the Tulsa Wave area enlarged and improved upon.
I would like to see a dock and boathouse on the improved lake part. Some paddle boats and a boathouse for the Tulsa crew team so they can return to the Arkansas River and for anyone else interested in the sport.
The most important area to have some good shoreline hardening should be where the urban style development should be on the west side near downtown. I would like it so that as your walking along the shops, restaurants, businesses, etc. you can easily see the water and go right down to the waters edge.
Something along these lines would be perfect for that area of Tulsa.
(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9961/riverdevelopmentip1.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Yes, the west bank is already purchased to be developed. Isn't it ironic that it's being developed by the same people who are propsing the tax for bridges etc.... Wouldn 't it be nice if every time we wanted to do something we could make the entire county foot the bill?
What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?
What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?
There is money to be made by this development - but not by the citizens of Tulsa County and certainly not by citizens who don't live in the City of Tulsa. The people who will bennefit are the members of the Kaiser Foundation pushing this.
First: the river is a regional amenity. While the City may encompass the river for a great length it is utilized by many from outside the City and an amenity that each and every person has access to and unlimited use of so why not collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries to collectively improve one of the back bones of our entire community.
Imagine a string of pearls on a wonderful line of nature. Destinations similar however more comprehensive and dense and better connected to the surrounding context than Riverwalk. Potential for a ballpark village (emphasis on village), enhanced aquarium area, Route 66 museum, enhanced Amphitheater as well as a few other destinational pockets of life and culture in which to live, shop, and play in connected by a rail line on the west bank and very pleasant walking/biking trails on both sides. I'm sorry, but that sounds so pleasant I could vomit, twice. I think, if developed to human and community scale (F the emphasis on cars and parking, although necessary) and with the emphasis on getting people out of their cars and onto foot or cycle the river could be a national, or at least, super regional attraction. And, if it's not, well then, we've created something very enjoyable for ourselves.
I don't think it's unreasonable to fork over a few personal extra tax dollars a month to help lay the ground works for a regional element that will add significantly to my quality of life. I do think that we should pursue all avenues of funding. I'm more than cool, as are all of my friends, with the county tax but I would want to ask the state and the feds chip in. This is a Corp managed river and it's improvement will benefit the state too.
I don't think you do this to the detriment to maintianing what we have, as far as infrastructure but at the rate our metropolitan area is growing we are adding new infrastructure everyday that we add to our maintenance rolls. I don't mind attempting to redirect some of that growth to an area within an existing service area as opposed to the fringe of teh area.
Hopefully, this is an economic development tool. It can enhance our identity and interest others from the outside in to invest in and join our exciting quality of life.
Our tax dollars assist in establishing public infrastructure which includes assembling land which we then turn over to developers, at or close to market rate to carry out the private development. I'm cool with them making money to a degree. I don't expect someone to attempt to create a little pocket of Venice on our river and not make a dime for their effort.
As for Kaiser making money, sure. But he's kicking in $100m as initial investment to seed public investment. I don't think he or the foundation will be in on the private development. We can find out if BOK is the sole financier of the private dev. Not quite sure what his direct return will be but hopefully his efforts lead to a better quality of life for his hometown and the home to his corporations that will attract better talent to help make his companies more competitive and profitable. I think that would be the hope for many in the corporate sector.
Family calls...can't proof my comments and finish or connect thoughts...have at it.
I think this statement from above is important to look at again.
"I don't think you do this to the detriment to maintianing what we have, as far as infrastructure but at the rate our metropolitan area is growing we are adding new infrastructure everyday that we add to our maintenance rolls. I don't mind attempting to redirect some of that growth to an area within an existing service area as opposed to the fringe of teh area."
Many on here have complained about the roads. I think the roads could be better as well.
I think having great river facilities and facilitating urban development along parts of the river will draw more people to live in Tulsa and more businesses along the river. More people and businesses within our core where roads already exist. Both will generate more tax dollars for the roads throughout the city.
Lets take a look at a bit of what has contributed to getting us where we are now.
1920......9,240 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
1930......6,540 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
1950......6,844 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
1970......1,929 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
1990......2,002 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
2007......2,084 persons paying road taxes per sq mile
And this only tells part of the story. I am willing to bet that since the 80s and 90s with Tulsa being of similar size and population that we have added a lot more roads that need upkeeping. And now we are seeing on top of that a trend of more people from the suburbs keeping their tax dollars within the suburbs.
Less people paying for more roads.
Perhaps if we raise this tax to fix the roads more people will move to Tulsa? In other words its partly the bad roads in Tulsa that are deterring people from moving here.
I get into the Oklahoma's Forum on occasion and I guarantee you there are quite a number of arguments about who has the worse roads, OKC people saying they do, Tulsans arguing back that they do lol. Its probably a draw but despite how horrible their roads may be they have found a great deal of pride and improvement in their city by upping their taxes to invest in their river areas. Could we get as much return by investing in our roads instead?
Sure I want our roads to be better. But I think this or some river proposal like it will bring more people, businesses, and tax dollars to our city resulting in better roads and some great places for us to enjoy.
I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that if they collect sales taxes to build up infratructure, partnet with private development, those private developments then pay property tax which funds the city.
Maybe we should tell BA they get no share of the property tax money from Riverwalk Crossing, Tulsa Landing, or any other future river projects.
Where were BA, Glenpoop, and the 'burbs complaining about the 2025 tax? Everyone and their dog knew the City was going to get the dubious privilege of the financial cost of the A-ream-a but the burbs went along for it. Now the non-riparian cities in the County want to play it all the other way and take a seat on their high-horses about sharing responsibility and blah blah blah.
Well F U, 'burbs (FORGET=F)! Either V 2025 and ergo the County should take over the A-ream-a or the rest of the County should shut their faces and pony up with their measly pittances about what benefits the City versus the County.
The last thing I want to hear is some mealymouthed POS suburb creature whining about how unfair these kinds of taxes are. ROTARY FASTENER YOU, BROKEN ARROW! CHOMP ON MY CHICKEN, GLENPOOP!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Where were BA, Glenpoop, and the 'burbs complaining about the 2025 tax? Everyone and their dog knew the City was going to get the dubious privilege of the financial cost of the A-ream-a but the burbs went along for it. Now the non-riparian cities in the County want to play it all the other way and take a seat on their high-horses about sharing responsibility and blah blah blah.
Well F U, 'burbs (FORGET=F)! Either V 2025 and ergo the County should take over the A-ream-a or the rest of the County should shut their faces and pony up with their measly pittances about what benefits the City versus the County.
The last thing I want to hear is some mealymouthed POS suburb creature whining about how unfair these kinds of taxes are. ROTARY FASTENER YOU, BROKEN ARROW! CHOMP ON MY CHICKEN, GLENPOOP!
This forum's IQ has lowered 50 points all of a sudden...
Suddenly? It has taken hundreds of posts to do that (about 478)! [:D]
Glenpoop? I don't even live near there and that sounds like a 14-42 IQ range. [:D][:D]
Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]
Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.
"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"
That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.
We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]
Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.
"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"
That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.
We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.
Interesting remarks. No, Jenks didn't foot all of the bill, but they were the KY jell that made it happen. How does a builder get the millions necessary to buy land (11mil?) and construct a shopping center on the river without lots of gear greasing from the city? Our city kicked in some help too. There is not a river rescue squad in Jenks. Local Jenks officials see no need for one as long as Tulsa's equipment and men are available. Hmmm.
Let's take your thinking to the next level. Broken Arrow doesn't want to contribute to the development of a river that runs through multiple cities because they haven't been able to exploit it, preferring instead to concentrate on other revenue producing areas while Tulsa does the heavy lifting. Well, if Tulsa creates a draw that induces Broken Arrowans to visit our river developments, they must pay a fee just like the Creek Expressway. Their residents can buy a lanyard with a device attached that registers their presence and sends a bill to the BA city treasurer. Pay for play. That way no one gets a free ride, Tulsa or BA.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]
Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.
"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"
That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.
We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.
Interesting remarks. No, Jenks didn't foot all of the bill, but they were the KY jell that made it happen. How does a builder get the millions necessary to buy land (11mil?) and construct a shopping center on the river without lots of gear greasing from the city? Our city kicked in some help too. There is not a river rescue squad in Jenks. Local Jenks officials see no need for one as long as Tulsa's equipment and men are available. Hmmm.
Let's take your thinking to the next level. Broken Arrow doesn't want to contribute to the development of a river that runs through multiple cities because they haven't been able to exploit it, preferring instead to concentrate on other revenue producing areas while Tulsa does the heavy lifting. Well, if Tulsa creates a draw that induces Broken Arrowans to visit our river developments, they must pay a fee just like the Creek Expressway. Their residents can buy a lanyard with a device attached that registers their presence and sends a bill to the BA city treasurer. Pay for play. That way no one gets a free ride, Tulsa or BA.
Look, cities help each other out. No, Jenks does not have a river rescue group, Tulsa helps (and can bill) Jenks out with that service. But the Jenks Fire Department is the first responder to issues at Jones Riverside Airport since the downtown Jenks station is less than a mile from the Airport, and that is Tulsa's airport.
And, Jenks gave land, infrastructure and a ton of support to Jerry Gordon for Riverwalk Crossing. He was far from on his own.
That's the point. I don't like this plan for other reasons. But the "its not our development, we won't pay for it" argument is bad. All the cities in the area stand to benefit.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That's the point. I don't like this plan for other reasons. But the "its not our development, we won't pay for it" argument is bad. All the cities in the area stand to benefit.
Much agreed. When the hub of a metropolitan area gains something, every suburb benefits, and vice-versa.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That's the point. I don't like this plan for other reasons. But the "its not our development, we won't pay for it" argument is bad. All the cities in the area stand to benefit.
Much agreed. When the hub of a metropolitan area gains something, every suburb benefits, and vice-versa.
Wonder if any TV coverage is being provided of the Kaiser Arkansas River Tax debate by TV Networks Telemundo or Univision?
Reason being: Our Meso-American Guest-Workers are a major contributor to the Tulsa County Sales Tax collections.
While our Meso-American Guest Workers may or may not avoid the FICA, Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax burden from their illegal alien employment status, they definitely feel the SALES TAX bite every time they buy goods and groceries in City of Tulsa:
8.517% of EVERY purchase.
Too bad, but these Guest Workers won't get a Vote on the Kaiser River Tax.
Where they ARE voting now along the River is with their FEET.
Anyone spending any time along the Tulsa River Parks area along the Arkansas River will notice a growing presence of our non-English speaking guest workers making free use of River Parks.
For the simple reason that it is LOW-COST recreation, it is fairly anonymous, and they don't have to pay admission like at the former Bell's or Big Splash.
They can freely relax, promenade, picnic, cook-out, use the playgrounds for their children, play soccer, or just leisurely loaf, and if so inclined, fish FOR FREE from along the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge: Free protein.
The young male Meso-American Guest Workers who are laid-off work during the workweek, also like to hang out around the "hubs" at 11st, 21st, 31st, and 41st streets at Riverside Drive.
They like to sit around, talk, and drink beer - all day, and catch a nap on the picnic tables or under the shade trees when they start feeling the alcohol. Again, low cost recreation for them.
Doesn't anyone else notice??Will this changing demographic environment along the River deter those white-bread WASP YP's, "Mid-Town Elitists", and south Tulsa White-Flight from using these future Kaiser River Plan entertainment HUBS?
Kind of like the Whittier Square Area, 61st and Peoria, and East Tulsa have totally changed, becoming Little Mexico's........and they are rapidly displacing the indigenous population.
I think if we proceed with the "Kaiser River Development" plan, we will someday surprisingly discover:
BUILD IT, and they
Will NOT come.
At least, the affluent clientele the Establishment is looking to for the River Plan "Economic Development" recreational/entertainment spending. They will have fled to Bixby, joining former City Councilor John Benjamin, or to Owasso, Jenks, etc. and other points south and north.
By then, the Rooney, Flint, Lorton, and other local Oligarch controlling families will having laughingly skipped off to the bank to deposit their over-brimming construction company & bond underwriting proceeds from the Kaiser River Tax.
[^]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That's the point. I don't like this plan for other reasons. But the "its not our development, we won't pay for it" argument is bad. All the cities in the area stand to benefit.
Much agreed. When the hub of a metropolitan area gains something, every suburb benefits, and vice-versa.
Wonder if any TV coverage is being provided of the Kaiser Arkansas River Tax debate by TV Networks Telemundo or Univision?
Reason being: Our Meso-American Guest-Workers are a major contributor to the Tulsa County Sales Tax collections.
While our Meso-American Guest Workers may or may not avoid the FICA, Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax burden from their illegal alien employment status, they definitely feel the SALES TAX bite every time they buy goods and groceries in City of Tulsa:
8.517% of EVERY purchase.
Too bad, but these Guest Workers won't get a Vote on the Kaiser River Tax.
Where they ARE voting now along the River is with their FEET.
Anyone spending any time along the Tulsa River Parks area along the Arkansas River will notice a growing presence of our non-English speaking guest workers making free use of River Parks.
For the simple reason that it is LOW-COST recreation, it is fairly anonymous, and they don't have to pay admission like at the former Bell's or Big Splash.
They can freely relax, promenade, picnic, cook-out, use the playgrounds for their children, play soccer, or just leisurely loaf, and if so inclined, fish FOR FREE from along the 31st Street Pedestrian Bridge: Free protein.
The young male Meso-American Guest Workers who are laid-off work during the workweek, also like to hang out around the "hubs" at 11st, 21st, 31st, and 41st streets at Riverside Drive.
They like to sit around, talk, and drink beer - all day, and catch a nap on the picnic tables or under the shade trees when they start feeling the alcohol. Again, low cost recreation for them.
Doesn't anyone else notice??
Will this changing demographic environment along the River deter those white-bread WASP YP's, "Mid-Town Elitists", and south Tulsa White-Flight from using these future Kaiser River Plan entertainment HUBS?
Kind of like the Whittier Square Area, 61st and Peoria, and East Tulsa have totally changed, becoming Little Mexico's........and they are rapidly displacing the indigenous population.
I think if we proceed with the "Kaiser River Development" plan, we will someday surprisingly discover:
BUILD IT, and they Will NOT come.
At least, the affluent clientele the Establishment is looking to for the River Plan "Economic Development" recreational/entertainment spending. They will have fled to Bixby, joining former City Councilor John Benjamin, or to Owasso, Jenks, etc. and other points south and north.
By then, the Rooney, Flint, Lorton, and other local Oligarch controlling families will having laughingly skipped off to the bank to deposit their over-brimming construction company & bond underwriting proceeds from the Kaiser River Tax.
[^]
In most cities award public work to local companies is considered a good idea, keeps the dollars local. According to the Bear it's a criminal offence.
Have you heard of bidding?
Ummm, I was at Riverparks last week, and I saw people of all stripes loafing, playing with their kids, etc.
You know, people doing what people do at parks.
You know, Friendly Bear, I saw a lot of black people out enjoying themselves, too.
Horrors!!! <sarcasm>
Sheesh.
I was at RiverParks last week. I was the fat white guy.
I am surprised you missed me. Most people can see me from a distance.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I was at RiverParks last week. I was the fat white guy.
I am surprised you missed me. Most people can see me from a distance.
Were you the one going in and out of the men's restroom......
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
Sure they would bid on it....And then sub it out......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
Sure they would bid on it....And then sub it out......
Name a single dam in the entire United States, or the world for that matter with Manhattan, that either company has built. Find one.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
First, why does the
Forum Administrator let you get by with personal insults. This is a public policy forum, and if they were doing a FAIR job, they would be block, editing, or deleting post where you hurl personal invectives.
So, just stop with the personal insults. I'm not going to get down in the hog swill with you; I'm just not.
Back on Thread:
Easy answer on the Lorton's:
The Lorton's are reportedly principal shareholders of F&M Bank & Trust Co.
An F&M Bank subsidiary received one-half of the Vision 2025 GARVEE Bond underwriting, under a sweet-heart NO-BID award from the County.
You can guess who received the other 1/2.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer, that just coincidentally happened to be run by Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "DEAR" friend - JOHN PIERCEY.
Currently, the embarrassingly prosperous former city Economic Development Director is the County Bond Underwriting Advisor...........
If it's a county tax, I expect the two financial institutions will divide the spoils and get a total reprise of their non-competitive underwriting award for the Kaiser River Tax.
The one thing you can be sure of if that if you do NOT competitively bid for the bond underwriting, the public cannot be assured that the LEAST COST financing method was obtained.
Least Cost financing protects the public purse. Our money. Seems prudent, don't you think??
Get Goldman Sachs, A.G. Edwards, and other involved in the bidding, and there may be tremendous cost savings.
Part of the local connected crony network also involves local bond attorneys and selected accountants who simply re-copy old bond underwriting prospectuses, collect a large fee, and then re-cycle a portion of their fees back to fund other Public Tax Grabs.
It's part of the connected crony network that re-cycles our tax dollars to their bank accounts and then fronts a portion of it for the next Sales Tax or Bond Issue.
The U.S. Attorney's Office refer to it as "Pay-to-Play". Mr. Sparks put us into the picture of his $25K Pay-to-Play contribution on the Vision 2025 Sales Tas increase. When he wasn't selected, he went public. Remember?
Even with competitive bidding as required by State Law, there are many ways for the local authorities and their connected construction company cronies and associated sub-contractors to rig the bidding. How?
For instance, what we saw at TAIT over a period of years and years were draconian bidding requirements that were virtually impossible for an HONEST bidder to comply with.
So, under the General's leadership, we saw honest businessmen, contractors, and tradesmen avoid bidding. As a result, they frequently had only ONE bidder on an airport project. Guess who?
Why, because their connected-crony bidders could easily bid to the very stringent bid requirements and penalties for one, very simple reason:
They KNEW they would never be held accountable to the contract terms. The FIX was in.
And, with a multitude of CHANGE ORDERS (Boy they really LOVE change orders at TAIT and at the County), they made back every red cent then some for the seed money they fronted to promote higher sales and bond taxes, again and again and again and again.
Happens every day in:
The Banana Republic of Tulsa.....[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
Easy answer on the Lorton's:
The Lorton's are reportedly principal shareholders of F&M Bank & Trust Co.
An F&M Bank subsidiary received one-half of the Vision 2025 GARVEE Bond underwriting, under a sweet-heart NO-BID award from the County.
You can guess who received the other 1/2.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer, that just coincidentally happened to be run by Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "DEAR" friend - JOHN PIERCEY.
Currently, the embarrassingly prosperous former city Economic Development Director is the County Bond Underwriting Advisor...........
If it's a county tax, I expect the two financial institutions will divide the spoils and get a total reprise of their non-competitive underwriting award for the Kaiser River Tax.
The one thing you can be sure of if that if you do NOT competitively bid for the bond underwriting, the public cannot be assured that the LEAST COST financing method was obtained.
Least Cost financing protects the public purse. Our money. Seems prudent, don't you think??
Get Goldman Sachs, A.G. Edwards, and other involved in the bidding, and there may be tremendous cost savings.
Part of the local connected crony network also involves local bond attorneys and selected accountants who simply re-copy old bond underwriting prospectuses, collect a large fee, and then re-cycle a portion of their fees back to fund other Public Tax Grabs.
It's part of the connected crony network that re-cycles our tax dollars to their bank accounts and then fronts a portion of it for the next Sales Tax or Bond Issue.
The U.S. Attorney's Office refer to it as "Pay-to-Play". Mr. Sparks put us into the picture of his $25K Pay-to-Play contribution on the Vision 2025 Sales Tas increase. When he wasn't selected, he went public. Remember?
Even with competitive bidding as required by State Law, there are many ways for the local authorities and their connected construction company cronies and associated sub-contractors to rig the bidding. How?
For instance, what we saw at TAIT over a period of years and years were draconian bidding requirements that were virtually impossible for an HONEST bidder to comply with.
So, under the General's leadership, we saw honest businessmen, contractors, and tradesmen avoid bidding. As a result, they frequently had only ONE bidder on an airport project. Guess who?
Why, because their connected-crony bidders could easily bid to the very stringent bid requirements and penalties for one, very simple reason:
They KNEW they would never be held accountable to the contract terms. The FIX was in.
And, with a multitude of CHANGE ORDERS (Boy they really LOVE change orders at TAIT and at the County), they made back every red cent then some for the seed money they fronted to promote higher sales and bond taxes, again and again and again and again.
Happens every day in:
The Banana Republic of Tulsa.....
[;)]
quote:
Easy answer on the Lorton's:
The Lorton's are reportedly principal shareholders of F&M Bank & Trust Co.
An F&M Bank subsidiary received one-half of the Vision 2025 GARVEE Bond underwriting, under a sweet-heart NO-BID award from the County.
The Lorton's do not own F&M, the Davis family does.
quote:
You can guess who received the other 1/2.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer, that just coincidentally happened to be run by Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "DEAR" friend - JOHN PIERCEY.
Currently, the embarrassingly prosperous former city Economic Development Director is the County Bond Underwriting Advisor...........
If it's a county tax, I expect the two financial institutions will divide the spoils and get a total reprise of their non-competitive underwriting award for the Kaiser River Tax.
The one thing you can be sure of if that if you do NOT competitively bid for the bond underwriting, the public cannot be assured that the LEAST COST financing method was obtained.
Least Cost financing protects the public purse. Our money. Seems prudent, don't you think??
Get Goldman Sachs, A.G. Edwards, and other involved in the bidding, and there may be tremendous cost savings.
Part of the local connected crony network also involves local bond attorneys and selected accountants who simply re-copy old bond underwriting prospectuses, collect a large fee, and then re-cycle a portion of their fees back to fund other Public Tax Grabs.
Hey, if George Kaiser and friends wanted to make a buck on this, not donating $111 million dollars would have been a great start, don't you think?
Oh, and Oppenheimer is a massive mutual fund
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Ummm, I was at Riverparks last week, and I saw people of all stripes loafing, playing with their kids, etc.
You know, people doing what people do at parks.
You know, Friendly Bear, I saw a lot of black people out enjoying themselves, too.
Horrors!!! <sarcasm>
Sheesh.
It's not a racial issue with me personnally.
It's a REALITY issue:
If one ethnic group eventually takes over a public park, the other ethnic groups avoid it:
Like the Plague.
It's called: Tribalism.
It happened at Mohawk Park many times before. African American teen-agers would congregate in a certain area, give smouldering stares to any other non-blacks who happened to blunder by, and simply take over.
The same is slowly happening at the River Parks.
When people start feeling uncomfortable, they go elsewhere and don't come back.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH IN TAXES IS SPENT TO LURE THEM BACK.
That unfortunately, is REALITY.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And dam and waterway construction is very specialized work, do Manhattan and Flintco even do that kind of work?
Bear, you keep tossing around these names as conspirators and benefactors. First, I'm not really sure how the Lortons are supposed to profit at all on the river and I don't think this is the kind of construction that Manhattan and Flintco even would bid on. So quit talking out your donkey.
Easy answer on the Lorton's:
The Lorton's are reportedly principal shareholders of F&M Bank & Trust Co.
An F&M Bank subsidiary received one-half of the Vision 2025 GARVEE Bond underwriting, under a sweet-heart NO-BID award from the County.
You can guess who received the other 1/2.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer, that just coincidentally happened to be run by Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "DEAR" friend - JOHN PIERCEY.
Currently, the embarrassingly prosperous former city Economic Development Director is the County Bond Underwriting Advisor...........
If it's a county tax, I expect the two financial institutions will divide the spoils and get a total reprise of their non-competitive underwriting award for the Kaiser River Tax.
The one thing you can be sure of if that if you do NOT competitively bid for the bond underwriting, the public cannot be assured that the LEAST COST financing method was obtained.
Least Cost financing protects the public purse. Our money. Seems prudent, don't you think??
Get Goldman Sachs, A.G. Edwards, and other involved in the bidding, and there may be tremendous cost savings.
Part of the local connected crony network also involves local bond attorneys and selected accountants who simply re-copy old bond underwriting prospectuses, collect a large fee, and then re-cycle a portion of their fees back to fund other Public Tax Grabs.
It's part of the connected crony network that re-cycles our tax dollars to their bank accounts and then fronts a portion of it for the next Sales Tax or Bond Issue.
The U.S. Attorney's Office refer to it as "Pay-to-Play". Mr. Sparks put us into the picture of his $25K Pay-to-Play contribution on the Vision 2025 Sales Tas increase. When he wasn't selected, he went public. Remember?
Even with competitive bidding as required by State Law, there are many ways for the local authorities and their connected construction company cronies and associated sub-contractors to rig the bidding. How?
For instance, what we saw at TAIT over a period of years and years were draconian bidding requirements that were virtually impossible for an HONEST bidder to comply with.
So, under the General's leadership, we saw honest businessmen, contractors, and tradesmen avoid bidding. As a result, they frequently had only ONE bidder on an airport project. Guess who?
Why, because their connected-crony bidders could easily bid to the very stringent bid requirements and penalties for one, very simple reason:
They KNEW they would never be held accountable to the contract terms. The FIX was in.
And, with a multitude of CHANGE ORDERS (Boy they really LOVE change orders at TAIT and at the County), they made back every red cent then some for the seed money they fronted to promote higher sales and bond taxes, again and again and again and again.
Happens every day in:
The Banana Republic of Tulsa.....
[;)]
quote:
Easy answer on the Lorton's:
The Lorton's are reportedly principal shareholders of F&M Bank & Trust Co.
An F&M Bank subsidiary received one-half of the Vision 2025 GARVEE Bond underwriting, under a sweet-heart NO-BID award from the County.
The Lorton's do not own F&M, the Davis family does.
quote:
You can guess who received the other 1/2.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer, that just coincidentally happened to be run by Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's "DEAR" friend - JOHN PIERCEY.
Currently, the embarrassingly prosperous former city Economic Development Director is the County Bond Underwriting Advisor...........
If it's a county tax, I expect the two financial institutions will divide the spoils and get a total reprise of their non-competitive underwriting award for the Kaiser River Tax.
The one thing you can be sure of if that if you do NOT competitively bid for the bond underwriting, the public cannot be assured that the LEAST COST financing method was obtained.
Least Cost financing protects the public purse. Our money. Seems prudent, don't you think??
Get Goldman Sachs, A.G. Edwards, and other involved in the bidding, and there may be tremendous cost savings.
Part of the local connected crony network also involves local bond attorneys and selected accountants who simply re-copy old bond underwriting prospectuses, collect a large fee, and then re-cycle a portion of their fees back to fund other Public Tax Grabs.
Hey, if George Kaiser and friends wanted to make a buck on this, not donating $111 million dollars would have been a great start, don't you think?
Oh, and Oppenheimer is a massive mutual fund
Other way around, Swake:
Lorton's are reportedly the principal shareholders at F&M, now.
On Oppenheimer: Different Oppenheimer; not the mutual fund.
It's is/was a bond underwriting firm; it was a BOK division or subsidiary during the Vision 2025 bond underwriting, and John Piercey was running it.
Piercey now reportedly runs something called Capital West.
Even the Lorton's World had an article about the Vision 2025 Bond Underwriting, back 10/10/2003:
//www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=031010_Ne_a1_firms (//%22http://%22)
And, surprise, surprise F&M Bank got the other half of the financing NO-BID sweetheart deal:
"The authority also voted to hire a subsidiary of F & M Bank to assist with the financing.
Wells, Nelson & Associates will also be an investment banker for the bond issuance."
The
Lorton's World article goes on to quote:
"Former Edmond Mayor Randel Shadid, now a private attorney, said his city saved "
a bunch of money" when officials decided in the early 1990s to test the market prior to issuing bonds.
Like Tulsa County, the Oklahoma City suburb for years used the same bond counsel and bond adviser. Shadid said "there are plenty of people out there that can provide those services that have the expertise.
I guarantee you when you get them into a bidding war, it's a feeding frenzy." Surprised that you missed!
It is so hard to keep track of all the Unindicated Co-Conspirators, but we TRY.
Reportedly? Reported by who? KFAQ and DelWacko? His willful lack of accuracy on the radio has him in pretty deep trouble so I would not cite him as any kind of source.
And, two unrelated companies with the exact same name both in the financial services field? Sure, that happens all the time.
I guess all would be good then if I wanted to open a Hot Chocolate shop called Starrbucs?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Two unrelated companies with the exact same name both in the financial services field? Sure, that happens all the time.
You might want to just read the Lorton's World article before your Forum credibility is further corroded by serial inaccuracies and unwarranted personal attacks contrary to the Rules of Deportment of this Forum.....
//http:////www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=031010_Ne_a1_firms
"John Piercey, with Oppenheim, a division of Bank of Oklahoma, said his group will be the banker for the transaction."
[:o)]
Here is your quote:
.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer
You said Oppenheimer, not Oppenheim.
And again, if Kaiser was trying to make money off of the whole deal, donating over a hundred million dollars is bad way to go about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
unwarranted personal attacks contrary to the Rules of Deportment of this Forum.....
Personal attacks?
Because I don't just swallow what you are selling? That's a personal attack?
Keep it coming...
The BOk subsidiary is actually Leo Oppenheim and as Swake correctly points out has absolutely nothing to do with Oppenheimer....
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is your quote:
.....A BOK subsidiary called Oppenheimer
You said Oppenheimer, not Oppenheim.
And again, if Kaiser was trying to make money off of the whole deal, donating over a hundred million dollars is bad way to go about it.
So Sorrrrryyy for the very slight mis-spelling.
Oppenheim.
Not Oppenheimer. Nonetheless, the entity was part of the bank, right-o?
Okay, Weisenheimer, in your spurious smoke-screen about a slightly mispelled word, the fact appears to be lost that the two banks heavily promoting the Vision 2025 Tax, that both contributed $10,000's to promote it, then in turn made $1,000,000's from the sole-sourced non-competitive bid SWEETHEART deal.
That is a essential fact.
Maybe a slight over-reaction on your part.
Please calmly come down off your broom for a safe landing.
On the Kaiser Family Foundation:
As I understand it, the Foundation has to give away about $100 million per annum, or it will lose all or a portion of the tax-exempt nature of this entity. Ask the IRS.
I'm happy George wants to give back something to Tulsa. After all, it was his hometown.
VERY Generous with the $12 million FREELY given for River Parks trail improvement, announced just days ahead of the Kaiser River Tax in order to prime the pump.
Just great. The heavily used bike/jogging trails will probably be better for it.
However, I am NOT happy when
CONDITIONAL philanthropy wants to TAKE money from the pockets of Tulsa's poorest, that are struggling from paycheck to paycheck, and this new tax will literally TAKE food from their table, take warmth from their cold homes in winter, and take clothes from their children's backs.
In net, much MORE will be
TAKEN than GIVEN.Much, much, more.
And that is the way all Banana Republics operate.
Such an act outside of the core City Government function of police, fire protection, water, sewer and streets is IMMORAL, and should be judged accordingly.
If our local prominent church & religious leaders really believed in one iota of what they spew from their pulpits each week, they too should speak out on the immoral aspect of this UNNECESSARY tax taking.
But having lost their Moral Authority, their feet are simply made of clay.
Feckless to their phoney and hypocritical core.
Made impotent by their fear of the local power Oligarchy.
[V]
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
Wow, expecting the precision of a rocket engineer on a public discussion forum.
It will B-OK. Just drop the "er", and instead of Oppenheimer you have voila: Oppenheim.
Either way, it was part of the bank. Bond Underwriter, right??????? Split the bond underwriting with F&M, right?????
But, no "er", correct. Oppenheim. Not Oppenheimer or Weisenheimer. Very Important fact. No "er" on the part of the bank known as Leo Oppenheim that actually was the Vision 2025 bond sole-sourced co-underwriter.
Here's a swell little fact you'll just love.
It was reliably reported to me by someone who would definitely know what they are talking about.
Here goes:
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a
Vote YES sign be
INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA
Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the
strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....FACT??Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
Here's a swell little fact that was reported to me by someone who would know what they are talking about.
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....
FACT??
Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
Which Bank? Let's check this out.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
Here's a swell little fact that was reported to me by someone who would know what they are talking about.
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....
FACT??
Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
Which Bank? Let's check this out.
Swake:
The addressee if my little missive will know the truth of what I say.
Hold fast for a few minutes to give them a chance to state the obvious that I already know.
Perhaps that person is actually working a few minutes this afternoon.
I want to hear from that person, of if they too have feet of clay, and are fearful of retaliation, I will eventually end your suspense with an unsurprising revelation.
Such brazen employee intimidation by bank management, which previously SUCCESSFULLY implied with the "Opt-out" proviso, is fully expected to be used and even expanded upon again by the self-same employer.
I'm sure that employee will shortly let us know......
[V]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
Here's a swell little fact that was reported to me by someone who would know what they are talking about.
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....
FACT??
Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
Which Bank? Let's check this out.
Swake:
The addressee if my little missive will know the truth of what I say.
Hold fast for a few minutes to give them a chance to state the obvious that I already know.
Perhaps that person is actually working a few minutes this afternoon.
I want to hear from that person, of if they too have feet of clay, and are fearful of retaliation, I will eventually end your suspense with an unsurprising revelation.
Such brazen employee intimidation by bank management, which previously SUCCESSFULLY implied with the "Opt-out" proviso, is fully expected to be used and even expanded upon again by the self-same employer.
I'm sure that employee will shortly let us know......
[V]
Both banks employ hundreds of people, BOK thousands. It would be impossible to trace back second hand knowledge like yours of a threat like this to every employee.
I repeat, what Bank.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Friendly Bear... sometimes a little misspelling can make a world of difference. Factually correct arguments will carry a bit more credibility and can be viewed as less emotional in nature.
I am not saying that the city and county, heck public governments is total, should not be good stewards and fiduciaries of public money but, if there is money to be made on public projects then I would rather see that money made locally than shipped out to New York. Besides, there is not near the money to be made as a bond trustee, bond attorney, or bond underwriter as there was a decade ago.
Here's a swell little fact that was reported to me by someone who would know what they are talking about.
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....
FACT??
Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
Which Bank? Let's check this out.
Swake:
The addressee if my little missive will know the truth of what I say.
Hold fast for a few minutes to give them a chance to state the obvious that I already know.
Perhaps that person is actually working a few minutes this afternoon.
I want to hear from that person, of if they too have feet of clay, and are fearful of retaliation, I will eventually end your suspense with an unsurprising revelation.
Such brazen employee intimidation by bank management, which previously SUCCESSFULLY implied with the "Opt-out" proviso, is fully expected to be used and even expanded upon again by the self-same employer.
I'm sure that employee will shortly let us know......
[V]
Both banks employ hundreds of people, BOK thousands. It would be impossible to trace back second hand knowledge like yours of a threat like this to every employee.
I repeat, what Bank.
Patience, Swake. Wait for it..............
The ADDRESSEE of my comment, as I indicated earlier, knows the truth of my statement.
If that ADDRESSEE chooses not to respond, eventually, then I will break the suspense and tell which of the TWO banks involved used implied coercion in a patented Banana-Republic-of-Tulsa ploy to force their employees to display Vision 2025 Vote YES yard signs.
Of course, they could have called their Human Resources Department to "Opt-Out" of having a sign. And their job, too?
Obviously, bank management was trying to artificially simulate a GRASS-ROOTS ground-swell of support for Vision 2025.
THOUSANDS of Vote Yes yard signs in residential yards!
They were EVERYWHERE?
Gee, their neighbors thought "people just like me" must really be getting behind the Vision.......Think I will too!
All correctly placed at least 12 feet from the curb??
Would that matter to the Sign Nazi's who uprooted Vote NO signs minutes after they were planted?
The bigger questions unasked and unanswered:
Which other major Tulsa employers did the exact same thing to their employees as that bank did?????
What a bunch of big-hearted Sweeties!
Oh, they do sooooo love things just the way they are.................
Hmmmmmmh?
[;)]
It wasn't BOk... or more succinctly, I have NEVER felt any coersion by my employer to support any cause that I did not support personally. Does that mean that every employee can say the same thing? Maybe not but there is absolutely no corporate policy that mandates that we do , say, or support anything. Can you say "wrongful termination"?
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
It wasn't BOk... or more succinctly, I have NEVER felt any coersion by my employer to support any cause that I did not support personally. Does that mean that every employee can say the same thing? Maybe not but there is absolutely no corporate policy that mandates that we do , say, or support anything. Can you say "wrongful termination"?
Your clever parsing of your answer is nonetheless revealing.
What I stated about your bank management actions was factual.
ALL employees residing in Tulsa County had a Vote YES yard sign involuntarily and without the employees explicit permission placed in their residential yard.
They could allegedly "Opt-Out" by calling the HR department.
Now, if that an implied threat, or isnt' it??
Whether the employee, like you, agreed with it.
Or, didn't agree with it.
The sign went up.Isn't that so?The answer is a simple: Yes.
"Clever parsing"???? What, you think I am attorney? I don't know how to say it any other way than to tell you that neither I nor any of my co-workers were put in a position to have to answer to management of the bank as to where we stood on the issue or what we would or would not do to support the initiative. Besides, do you really think that we would have soe sort of "sign police" drive around and check such a thing? You are in the wrong woods to dropping this sort of s**t friendly Bear....
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
It wasn't BOk... or more succinctly, I have NEVER felt any coersion by my employer to support any cause that I did not support personally. Does that mean that every employee can say the same thing? Maybe not but there is absolutely no corporate policy that mandates that we do , say, or support anything. Can you say "wrongful termination"?
Wrongful termination?
Not in the Banana Republic of Oklahoma.
There is no such thing.
Maybe you would be invited into your bosses office shortly after your Opt-Out defiance.
"Our new organizational structure for your unit no longer shows a position for you".
"Good-Bye".
[:X]
Well, I wasn't and have seen my career advance nicely in the interim.... in short, on this issue FB you are dead wrong. No second hand heresay... you are wrong. Thanks for playing.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
"Clever parsing"???? What, you think I am attorney? I don't know how to say it any other way than to tell you that neither I nor any of my co-workers were put in a position to have to answer to management of the bank as to where we stood on the issue or what we would or would not do to support the initiative. Besides, do you really think that we would have soe sort of "sign police" drive around and check such a thing? You are in the wrong woods to dropping this sort of s**t friendly Bear....
I repeat: A Vote YES sign was placed in every employees yard that resided in Tulsa County.
Not GIVEN to the employee.
Employees could "opt-out" by contacting the HR department.
That is a true statement.
I didn't ask or even care how you personally felt about Vision 2025 or anything else.
A sign was put in bank employees yards that resided within Tulsa County.
Correct?
FB, do you really think it plausible that someone from BOk is going to drive to the residence of every employee that resides in Tulsa county to place a sign in their front yard???? And then somehow police whether or not the sign was left up or just put in the garage, or trash, without a call to our HR department. Or do you eblieve that we have an internal gestapo that secretly informs HR of those that do not follow the directives of the "ruling party"?
Again, this action did NOT happen to me or any of my coworkers or direct reports. And as a member of management I was NEVER asked to make any statement as to the stance of the organization with an implied or real threat as to what said non-support could mean to their future with the organization.
Was it clear from public articles that the bank felt the initiative was good for Tulsa? Yes. (and we certainly were not alone). Was there any attempt to force that opinion on any individual. NO!!!
I cannot "parse" it any other way.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
unwarranted personal attacks contrary to the Rules of Deportment of this Forum.....
Personal attacks?
Because I don't just swallow what you are selling? That's a personal attack?
Keep it coming...
Swake:
You are a serially violater of the Forum Moderator Rules of Deportment, who remains unchastised or unrepetent, and curiously uncensored by the Forum Moderators.
It's obvious that you are a coarse, uncouth individual, referring to my comment, and these are YOUR EXACT WORDS above, to "quit talking out your donkey", referring to alleged oral communications emanating from MY posterior.
That is your essential coarseness, and may be merely a clever ploy to elicit an intemperate response, and thus allow the pretext of a forum thread being edited or blocked by the Forum Moderators.
It is an essential forum detractor tactic to block the discussion of public policy of those with whom they disagree.
If you can't recognize it, try and move into the Lightness of Being more often.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
FACT??
Apparently not.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
FB, do you really think it plausible that someone from BOk is going to drive to the residence of every employee that resides in Tulsa county to place a sign in their front yard???? And then somehow police whether or not the sign was left up or just put in the garage, or trash, without a call to our HR department. Or do you eblieve that we have an internal gestapo that secretly informs HR of those that do not follow the directives of the "ruling party"?
Again, this action did NOT happen to me or any of my coworkers or direct reports. And as a member of management I was NEVER asked to make any statement as to the stance of the organization with an implied or real threat as to what said non-support could mean to their future with the organization.
Was it clear from public articles that the bank felt the initiative was good for Tulsa? Yes. (and we certainly were not alone). Was there any attempt to force that opinion on any individual. NO!!!
I cannot "parse" it any other way.
You are cleverly slanting, twisting, and adding non-atributed comments to my simple statement:
Fact: The Vote Yes for Vision 2025 signs WERE placed in all bank employee residential yards in Tulsa County.
I did not say the BANK placed them there. I also did NOT say that the bank used any Sign GESTAPO to monitor whether the sign remained in the yard, nor did I say that the bank monitored the employee's beliefs or behaviors outside of work in ANY way.
I simply stated what I stated:
The Vote Yes for Vision 2025 signs WERE placed in all bank employee residential yards in Tulsa County.
Employees could "opt-out" by contacting the HR department. Intimidation to the EMPLOYEE was implicit.
The signs were nonetheless placed in every yard as I indicated at least five times in this forum.
And, you have NOT refuted this simple fact.
Nor, am I surprised that you have serially dissembled my simple statement of FACT.
You are a loyal bank employee, trying desparately to defend the indefensible because of the possible negative impact on the bank's image were it confirmed otherwise.
I hereby swear and affirm:
I know what I know.
I have stated the matter factually.
It happened the way I recited.
All I can say is that if my tax money is going to both make great river facilities and BOK and others lots of money.... I am going to buy their stock. [8D] I will have great river facilities and be rich. Thanks for the sure deal stock tips Friendly Bear. [;)]
I know for a FACT that signs were not placed in every employees yard in Tulsa county... and you insinuated that it was the bank that did it. If not, then why the heck would we have to "opt-out" by calling HR? You are giving me way too much credit as to being able to "cleverly" word my response FB.... The BANK in no way used any type of coersion, implied or real, to force participation in the support of the Vision 2025 vote. Clear enough?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I did not say the BANK placed them there.
Yes, you did.
quote:
...the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
I know for a FACT that signs were not placed in every employees yard in Tulsa county... and you insinuated that it was the bank that did it. If not, then why the heck would we have to "opt-out" by calling HR? You are giving me way too much credit as to being able to "cleverly" word my response FB.... The BANK in no way used any type of coersion, implied or real, to force participation in the support of the Vision 2025 vote. Clear enough?
Your half-truths are more than revealing. Be more careful.
Employees who "opted-out" did not have signs placed in their yards.
The HR department was the clearing house for the sign placement, because they possessed every employee address.
Outside parties engaged by the Vote Yes Cabal provided the signs, and provided the sign placement.
Bank employee addresses residing in Tulsa County were supplied.
And, due to the confidentiality of bank personnel records, they apparently did NOT provide the employee names to the outside parties who planted the signs. Just an address.
Employees were permitted to contact HR to "opt-out".
The implicit intimidation is obvious to anyone who works for a living.
Sorry, I have to leave for awhile to attend Commissioner Perry's Kaiser River Tax Forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
unwarranted personal attacks contrary to the Rules of Deportment of this Forum.....
Personal attacks?
Because I don't just swallow what you are selling? That's a personal attack?
Keep it coming...
Swake:
You are a serially violater of the Forum Moderator Rules of Deportment, who remains unchastised or unrepetent, and curiously uncensored by the Forum Moderators.
It's obvious that you are a coarse, uncouth individual, referring to my comment, and these are YOUR EXACT WORDS above, to "quit talking out your donkey", referring to alleged oral communications emanating from MY posterior.
That is your essential coarseness, and may be merely a clever ploy to elicit an intemperate response, and thus allow the pretext of a forum thread being edited or blocked by the Forum Moderators.
It is an essential forum detractor tactic to block the discussion of public policy of those with whom they disagree.
If you can't recognize it, try and move into the Lightness of Being more often.
If the most recent posts in this very thread do anything, they prove you most certainly are "talking out your donkey".
It's not an insult, just a difficult reality for you. I'm not asking you to be quiet, I'm asking you to deal in facts and not false accusations. Take that as an attack if you want to, that's up to you, in the real world it's just acting like an adult.
BOK,
He didn't "insinuate"...he said it. And then, on the same page, he argued that he didn't say it. And then, on the same page, he accused you of parsing and telling half-truths. That's ironic, but perhaps no moreso than his calling this badgering a "public policy discussion".
FB, let's just agree that we have a very different outlook on this issue. If there were employees of BOk that you know that felt intimidated then so be it. I did not, nor did anybody I work with. There are issues and organizations that BOk supports and asks for participation from its' employees (like the United Way) but there is never in any way a message of forced compliance. As a publically traded corporation, owned by one of the richest, and smartest I might add, men in America, it defies belief that you could feel that BOk would pursue a policy that flies in the face of the law. BOk is not a privately held organinization but one that answers to a multiple of regulatory authorities and any policy, real or implied, of the sort you are espousing would be grounds for a very expensive lawsuit.
I believe I have made myself abundantly clear and in no way tried to use evasive language or half-truths to refute you statement of "fact" and inuendo. If anyone has been "parsing" words and cleverly wording their posts, it is you. You clearly stated that the bank was responsible for the placing of the signs, not an organization that got the addresses of the employees residing in Tulsa county from the bank.
In any event, I think I have been an unwitting party to making a mountain out of a molehill. You "know" what you know, I know what I know.
*yawn*
Well, well, well, so a small kernel of truth finally emerges from the ardent Concealer.
Bank management saw to it that all employees residing in Tulsa County had a 'Vote Yes sign place in their residential yard. They PROVIDED the addresses to the Vision 2025 leg men.
The Vote Yes for Vision 2025 signs WERE placed in all bank employee residential yards in Tulsa County as a result.
Employees could theoretically "opt-out" by contacting the HR department. Intimidation to the EMPLOYEE was implicit.
When it later decided which employees are "Team Players", Opt-Out employees certainly would not seem to quality as Team Players.
So, a publically held corporation provides the addresses of all bank employees residing in Tulsa County to a Third Party for the purposes of promoting a new Sales Tax that the publically held corporation expects to financially significantly gain from the self-same bond underwriting.
Addresses are provided to the
Tax Vampires (Except for those brave, foolish, or reckless employees who OPT-OUT of their involuntary use of their yard for a Vote YES Yardsign by the Vision 2025 Tax Vampires).
Their names are duly noted by the HR department, and the addresses are deleted from the list provided to the external organization.
Breaking any laws, there? Anything slightly ethically amiss there at your wonderful bank?
I said nothing about bank policy. I said nothing about laws broken.
Of course not. There is no governing legal authority in the Banana Republic of Tulsa!
Our District Attorney, U.S. Attorney, District and Federal Judges are carefully groomed, financed, promoted and selected by the ruling Oligarchy.
Yes, I remember fondly how dear District Judge Jane Wiseman took all of 5 minutes to issue her UNWRITTEN ruling that the Log-rolled Vision 2025 Ballot was in fact NOT a log-rolled ballot.
After 8 years earlier ruling that the same type of log-rolling had been foisted on the Jail-Tax Ballot.
And her Reward for remarkable service to the Ruling Oligarchy: Promptly Appointed to the State Court of Appeals.
I am also heartened when I read that recently appointed Federal Judge Frizzell is a "dear" friend of Senator Jim Inhofe. Gives me an especially warm feeling knowing they are buds.
Keep careful to guard your employer's reputatation.
When its finally gone, it will be hard to recover.
Give it a rest, Bob. Nobody believes you, nor should they.
RWARN:
My original segue into the topic of involuntary employee participation in a Tax Grab to benefit their employers was:
Here's a swell little fact you'll just love.
It was reliably reported to me by someone who would definitely know what they are talking about.
Here goes:
Back during the Vision 2025 Sales Tax Campaign, the top management of the bank directed that a Vote YES sign be INVOLUNTARILY placed in the residential yard of every bank employee residing in Tulsa County.
And, if the employee objected to the bank's usupation of their free speech rights, and did not want the sign placed in their yard, then they could do an EMSA Opt-Out by simply phoning the bank's Human Resources department to have their name taken down.
Obviously with the strongly implied threat of retaliation or outright dismissal.....
FACT??
Ain't Democracy Great, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa?
B-OK Werker has admitted that it happened.
What's not to believe?
B-OK Werker admitted as much.
Good lord. I guess there's no avoiding the crazies on a public forum. Moving on . . .
Could someone explain how a "low water dam" works and what it looks like? Does it impound water or slow its flow? Are there convenient examples we can look at nearby?
Well, well, well. The other day FB nailed me because I was slightly off topic....hmmmmm. LOL..OT again. You guys crack me up. What does employee 'requirements' have to do with infrastructure...apparently I'm as dumb as I thought...lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Good lord. I guess there's no avoiding the crazies on a public forum. Moving on . . .
Could someone explain how a "low water dam" works and what it looks like? Does it impound water or slow its flow? Are there convenient examples we can look at nearby?
41st is a low water dam.
I'm not a hydrologist, hydraulic engineer, or hydra but I believe low-water dams are designed to slow and partially block flow only.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
I know for a FACT that signs were not placed in every employees yard in Tulsa county... and you insinuated that it was the bank that did it. If not, then why the heck would we have to "opt-out" by calling HR? You are giving me way too much credit as to being able to "cleverly" word my response FB.... The BANK in no way used any type of coersion, implied or real, to force participation in the support of the Vision 2025 vote. Clear enough?
Your half-truths are more than revealing. Be more careful.
Employees who "opted-out" did not have signs placed in their yards.
The HR department was the clearing house for the sign placement, because they possessed every employee address.
Outside parties engaged by the Vote Yes Cabal provided the signs, and provided the sign placement.
Bank employee addresses residing in Tulsa County were supplied.
And, due to the confidentiality of bank personnel records, they apparently did NOT provide the employee names to the outside parties who planted the signs. Just an address.
Employees were permitted to contact HR to "opt-out".
The implicit intimidation is obvious to anyone who works for a living.
Sorry, I have to leave for awhile to attend Commissioner Perry's Kaiser River Tax Forum.
and i thought
I needed a tinfoil hat.... holy crap...
Your responses have been MORE than revealing BOkworker! You have said, repeatedly, that you and no one that works for you was involved in the sign conspiracy. And so, the OBVIOUS conclusion is that the rest of your workforce...THOUSANDS of employees...live on a giant space ship that hovers invisibly over the tower.
Tallest building in Oklahoma? Now we know why. These tax-loving SPACE VAMPIRES also receive free parking on the taxpayers dime.
I have, from a reliable source, heard that your alien friends are working arm-in-arm with Tulsa's secret overlord, MICKEY ROONEY, on a ballot stuffing project!
TRUTH???[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Your responses have been MORE than revealing BOkworker! You have said, repeatedly, that you and no one that works for you was involved in the sign conspiracy. And so, the OBVIOUS conclusion is that the rest of your workforce...THOUSANDS of employees...live on a giant space ship that hovers invisibly over the tower.
Tallest building in Oklahoma? Now we know why. These tax-loving SPACE VAMPIRES also receive free parking on the taxpayers dime.
I have, from a reliable source, heard that your alien friends are working arm-in-arm with Tulsa's secret overlord, MICKEY ROONEY, on a ballot stuffing project!
TRUTH???[;)]
Bank executive management directed that the residence of every employee who resided in Tulsa County would have a Vision 2025 Vote Yes sign implanted in the yard.
The employees were not asked.
The employees could theoretically "Opt-Out" of the sign placement, IF they called the HR department to have their name so noted.
The flagrant employee intimidation was not subtle.
The employee addresses were then provided to the Vision 2025 Tax Cabal, who then planted the signs in all employee yards in Tulsa County, save those unintimidated (and UNEMPLOYED?) employees who presumably elected to "Opt-Out".
Management's purpose was to falsely communicate the semblance of a "grass-roots" groundswell of support for Vision 2025, by planting signs at personal residences.
The employees private property, their personal privacy, and their free speech rights were suborned to the unethical actions of the executive management of the organization.
And, I fully expect the same management to foist the same unethical practices upon their defenseless employees during the Kaiser River Tax Blitzkrieg.
Why? Because they got away with it cleanly during Vision 2025.
Well,
almost..........[;)]
We will all now drink the Tax Kool-Aid.[:O]
FB, absent your ability to provide factual eveidence that ONE single employee had their future with this bank negatively impacted by "opting-out" then all you have is a perception... and a perception of intimidation is not a fact... it is an opinion.
Give it a rest bud... besides, CL is the one that is onto something..lol.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
FB, absent your ability to provide factual eveidence that ONE single employee had their future with this bank negatively impacted by "opting-out" then all you have is a perception... and a perception of intimidation is not a fact... it is an opinion.
That's an odd remark. It implies that it was done, but that not one single employee was negatively impacted. Is that what you meant? As an aside, that rumor was rampant at the time. Though it may have been FB that was spreading it!
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
FB, absent your ability to provide factual eveidence that ONE single employee had their future with this bank negatively impacted by "opting-out" then all you have is a perception... and a perception of intimidation is not a fact... it is an opinion.
Give it a rest bud... besides, CL is the one that is onto something..lol.
Aren't you supposed to be working?
On the intimidated bank employees, like I'm supposed to tell YOU?
So they can be fired?
I know what was done; why it was done; and by whom it was directed.
Your dissembling is not changing the facts.
The conduct of bank executive management was:
UNETHICAL.Executive management violated the privacy, the free speech rights, and the private property of its employees.
They should take care to guard the bank's good image...............
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
FB, absent your ability to provide factual eveidence that ONE single employee had their future with this bank negatively impacted by "opting-out" then all you have is a perception... and a perception of intimidation is not a fact... it is an opinion.
That's an odd remark. It implies that it was done, but that not one single employee was negatively impacted. Is that what you meant? As an aside, that rumor was rampant at the time. Though it may have been FB that was spreading it!
Waterboy:
It was done.
Just like I said previously.
Bank executive management directed that the residence of every employee who resided in Tulsa County would have a Vision 2025 Vote Yes sign implanted in the yard.
The employees were not asked.
The employees could theoretically "Opt-Out" of the sign placement, IF they called the HR department to have their name so noted.
The flagrant employee intimidation was not subtle.
The employee addresses were then provided to the Vision 2025 Tax Cabal, who then planted the signs in all employee yards in Tulsa County, save those unintimidated (and UNEMPLOYED?) invididuals who presumably elected to "Opt-Out".
Management's purpose was to falsely communicate the semblance of a "grass-roots" groundswell of support for Vision 2025, by planting signs at personal residences.
The employees private property, their personal privacy, and their free speech rights were suborned to the unethical actions of the executive management of the organization.
The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
Nay, I say.
The Horse must still live.
There is still plenty of evidence of it coming from RWarn, ChickenLittle, Swake, Floyd, et. al., dropped, flopped, and plopped in neat little piles.
BokWorker, I can sympathize with, and he/she is an effective dissembler. Unfortunately, Worker is also just trying to defend the ethically indefensible actions of his executive management.
The only evidence you've got from me is that I don't give a flying rat's donkey about your conspiracies. Go back into hibernation please, post haste.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
The only evidence you've got from me is that I don't give a flying rat's donkey about your conspiracies. Go back into hibernation please, post haste.
Conspiracy? Nay.
COORDINATION, yeah, by many slimey, tax-grubbing tentacles of the Founder Families, their associated Trust Fund babies, and their ruthless legion of connected cronies willing to do their bidding.
That's how their 3rd fortunes are
built. This IS an INFRASTRUCTURE thread, afterall!
Man, I just don't know that I have the energy for this today. I was up pretty late at the party and some of you, you know who you are, were just crazy last night.
If you missed it, too bad, it was HUGE and you should have been there. The Oligarchy had a big blowout for all the collaborators at the Tax Vampire Lodge. A little work did get done though, we gave awards out to all the best Cronies for 2006. A no-bid contract was given to all the award winners. Too sweet.
Be sure not to miss the big fall bash, the theme is going to be "taxpayers", everyone is supposed to dress up like a poor working class slob.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Man, I just don't know that I have the energy for this today. I was up pretty late at the party and some of you, you know who you are, were just crazy last night.
If you missed it, too bad, it was HUGE and you should have been there. The Oligarchy had a big blowout for all the collaborators at the Tax Vampire Lodge. A little work did get done though, we gave awards out to all the best Cronies for 2006. A no-bid contract was given to all the award winners. Too sweet.
Be sure not to miss the big fall bash, the theme is going to be "taxpayers", everyone is supposed to dress up like a poor working class slob.
Their next party is actually 7 p.m. Oct. 9.
The Kaiser River Tax Watch Party, at the Crowne Plaza or DoubleTree Downtown; alternate location Doubletree at Warren Place. Reservations pending.
You'll LOVE being there.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
BOK,
He didn't "insinuate"...he said it. And then, on the same page, he argued that he didn't say it. And then, on the same page, he accused you of parsing and telling half-truths. That's ironic, but perhaps no moreso than his calling this badgering a "public policy discussion".
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
BOK,
After all this, I can't help but notice that you have never actually addressed the core question. Did BOK arrange for the placement of signs in all of its Tulsa County employees' yards (with an opt-out option available through BOK HR)? It's really a simple yes/no question. (And while I appreciate your attempts to assure us that absolutely nobody has ever felt coerced, I rather suspect that mind-reading thousands of employees is not among your talents (or anyone else's for that matter).)
Oil Capital, as I recall the "incident" in question, there was an article posted on the banks' internal intranet informing employess about the Vision 2025 initiative and that the bank, as an entity, supported the initiative. The article stated that those employees that also supported the intitiative could ( note, it said COULD not WOULD) have a sign placed in their front yard to indicate their support. Those that did not want a sign or were not in support of the issue could "opt-out" by clicking the attached link and it was done. There was no effort in opting out besides a finger click. I will agree that I am not good at reading the minds of thousands of BOk employees any more than FB is. I can relate however that the so called "implicite coersion" was not felt by me or any of my co-workers. Is it possible that one or more employees felt uncomfortable in opting out? I suppose, but I did not.
Could the bank have worded the intranet article in a manner that you had to "opt-in" to get a sign put in your yard? I suppose but since I didn't feel like the bank was doing something that put my future with the organization at risk by "opting-out" I didn't give it a second thought. My angst with FB was that the banks actions were some sort of a conspiracy on the part of management to force the actions of its' employees to follow the company line. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Also for FB's benefit, please note that I waited to post until my lucnh hour... whatever that is supposed to mean.
See you at the next party...
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Oil Capital, as I recall the "incident" in question, there was an article posted on the banks' internal intranet informing employess about the Vision 2025 initiative and that the bank, as an entity, supported the initiative. The article stated that those employees that also supported the intitiative could ( note, it said COULD not WOULD) have a sign placed in their front yard to indicate their support. Those that did not want a sign or were not in support of the issue could "opt-out" by clicking the attached link and it was done. There was no effort in opting out besides a finger click. I will agree that I am not good at reading the minds of thousands of BOk employees any more than FB is. I can relate however that the so called "implicite coersion" was not felt by me or any of my co-workers. Is it possible that one or more employees felt uncomfortable in opting out? I suppose, but I did not.
Could the bank have worded the intranet article in a manner that you had to "opt-in" to get a sign put in your yard? I suppose but since I didn't feel like the bank was doing something that put my future with the organization at risk by "opting-out" I didn't give it a second thought. My angst with FB was that the banks actions were some sort of a conspiracy on the part of management to force the actions of its' employees to follow the company line. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And, the
Truth Shall Set You Free.......Feeling better?
And, if those employees just THINKING about hitting that Opt-Out Button, were they thinking,
one little click and I'll be free to look for employment elsewhere?
Whatever FB... congrats.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
BOK,
He didn't "insinuate"...he said it. And then, on the same page, he argued that he didn't say it. And then, on the same page, he accused you of parsing and telling half-truths. That's ironic, but perhaps no moreso than his calling this badgering a "public policy discussion".
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
BOK,
After all this, I can't help but notice that you have never actually addressed the core question. Did BOK arrange for the placement of signs in all of its Tulsa County employees' yards (with an opt-out option available through BOK HR)? It's really a simple yes/no question. (And while I appreciate your attempts to assure us that absolutely nobody has ever felt coerced, I rather suspect that mind-reading thousands of employees is not among your talents (or anyone else's for that matter).)
Oil Capitol:
Thanks for flying flak suppression for me!
But, I think you've just nominated yourself as the TulsaNow.org Forum's Metro Tulsa Echo-Chamber
Public Enemy #1. [B)]
Now I can retire from that distinction.
Back to Hibernation Mode?
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Whatever FB... congrats.
Sung to the tune of "Signs", by the Five Man Electrical Band:
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.
Fail to click that button, you be GETTING the sign.
Vote Yes, Vision 2025 SIGH-UN![:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
OC,
Think more clearly. What does "...the top management of the bank directed..." mean? What exactly do you think
bank means if not the management of the bank? You see, the "bank itself" is a building, an inanimate object, and does not speak.
OML. (On my lunch break). BOK, whether you felt any pressure or not the wording was unfortunate. I would have thought twice had I received the memo and quite likely have surmised the smart thing to do would be not to check the box and pull the sign on my own time if I disagreed.
Can we get back to more substantive discussion of infrastructure and financing?
Why I think FB is quite wacko, I do agree that this was a bush league action by BOK. I really think they should have not taken any action at all. Although if they really felt like they needed to for whatever reason, then they should have made it an opt in program. Not an opt out. Another reason for me to avoid BOK.
quote:
Originally posted by tjay88
Why I think FB is quite wacko, I do agree that this was a bush league action by BOK. I really think they should have not taken any action at all. Although if they really felt like they needed to for whatever reason, then they should have made it an opt in program. Not an opt out. Another reason for me to avoid BOK.
Thanks for your kind words of support.
The Friendly Bear Fan Club continues to grow, and seeth.
And, the
Truth Shall Set You Free, too.If you could administer Truth Serum to the Vision 2025 political consultants, they would admit to advising the Tax Vampires that signs in
REAL PEOPLE's residential yards meant a lot in a campaign.
They add AUTHENTICITY of support for a candidate or for a ballot issue like a new Tax.
Much more authentic than Vote Yes signs in front of Metro Chamber of Commerce affiliated businesses, or the usual cast of crony contractor and sub-contractor financial contributers who hope to financially gain from the new Tax.
SIGNS IN YARDS appear to indicate "Grassroots" Support.
Well, in the case of the Banana Republic of Tulsa, the Grassroots support was actually as phony as Astro-Turf.
I'll be looking for the
Opt-Out Ballot Button of the Kaiser River Tax, come October 9.
[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
OC,
Think more clearly. What does "...the top management of the bank directed..." mean? What exactly do you think bank means if not the management of the bank? You see, the "bank itself" is a building, an inanimate object, and does not speak.
Think more clearly indeed. It really could not be much simpler, and it most clearly does not mean they directed the "bank" or the bank employees to run around town putting out yard signs. It means they directed bank employees to give the employee addresses to the Vision 2025 team so that they could have THEIR people (volunteers, whatever, put out the yard signs). Only those desperate to change the subject (and pile on a non-Koolaid drinker) could have read anything else into that sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
OC,
Think more clearly. What does "...the top management of the bank directed..." mean? What exactly do you think bank means if not the management of the bank? You see, the "bank itself" is a building, an inanimate object, and does not speak.
Think more clearly indeed. It really could not be much simpler, and it most clearly does not mean they directed the "bank" or the bank employees to run around town putting out yard signs. It means they directed bank employees to give the employee addresses to the Vision 2025 team so that they could have THEIR people (volunteers, whatever, put out the yard signs). Only those desperate to change the subject (and pile on a non-Koolaid drinker) could have read anything else into that sentence.
Boy, I'm glad we're having such a productive discussion of river infrastructure, instead of letting a conspiracy troll bait this thread into some sort of flame-fest. [;)]
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/River_Tax_Kool-Aid.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
CL,
Read more carefully. He neither "insinuated" nor said that the bank itself put out the yard signs.
OC,
Think more clearly. What does "...the top management of the bank directed..." mean? What exactly do you think bank means if not the management of the bank? You see, the "bank itself" is a building, an inanimate object, and does not speak.
Think more clearly indeed. It really could not be much simpler, and it most clearly does not mean they directed the "bank" or the bank employees to run around town putting out yard signs. It means they directed bank employees to give the employee addresses to the Vision 2025 team so that they could have THEIR people (volunteers, whatever, put out the yard signs). Only those desperate to change the subject (and pile on a non-Koolaid drinker) could have read anything else into that sentence.
All ordnance delivered right on target, Oil Capital!
Your LASER Range Finder brought those Cluster Bombs right smack in the middle of the flock:
Feathers, and Chicken parts are flying everywhere!
Please follow-up with low-level Napalm, and we'll enjoy some crispy FRIED CHICKEN for Supper.
I like my Chicken finger-lickin' GOOD!
I think I'll head out to KFC.
Just got that old Fried Chicken feeling coming over me now.
Apparently, more than one of us quit drinking the
Banana Republic of Tulsa Kool-Aid.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Think more clearly indeed. It really could not be much simpler, and it most clearly does not mean they directed the "bank" or the bank employees to run around town putting out yard signs. It means they directed bank employees to give the employee addresses to the Vision 2025 team so that they could have THEIR people (volunteers, whatever, put out the yard signs). Only those desperate to change the subject (and pile on a non-Koolaid drinker) could have read anything else into that sentence.
Oh, that's just goofy. In your little scenario, who delivers said threatening message?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Think more clearly indeed. It really could not be much simpler, and it most clearly does not mean they directed the "bank" or the bank employees to run around town putting out yard signs. It means they directed bank employees to give the employee addresses to the Vision 2025 team so that they could have THEIR people (volunteers, whatever, put out the yard signs). Only those desperate to change the subject (and pile on a non-Koolaid drinker) could have read anything else into that sentence.
Oh, that's just goofy. In your little scenario, who delivers said threatening message?
CL, you must have never worked for a living. Especially employees with a spouse, kids, a big mortgage, orthodontic bills, etc., they're just too vulnerable to dismissal, and they just DO NOT want to rock the boat.
So, they go along to get along.
The way Oklahoma is an "at-will" state, you can be dismissed by your employer without cause in the blink of an eye.
Something like:
We've re-organized your department, and there's no position for you in the new organization. Good-Bye.The
THREAT began when the bank posted that the bank SUPPORTED Vision 2025,
and communicated that signs
would be placed in the employee's residential yards.
Oh, employees were also told they could "opt-out" of the sign placement, but after first being clearly told in the internal communication that the bank
SUPPORTED Vision 2025, and the new Tax. The THREAT was implicit.
And, as a loyal bank employee, you're
REALLY going to punch that opt-out button?
Haven't you ever heard the phrase,
Team Player?????Sure, you have. You and certain other Forum notables kind of work like a
TEAM??Hmmmhh??
[:X]
Anyone see Today's World. Talks about bush vetoing the federal funding.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Anyone see Today's World. Talks about bush vetoing the federal funding.
Dammit
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Anyone see Today's World. Talks about bush vetoing the federal funding.
Dammit
Maybe timed with the bridge collapse, he'll reconsider.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Anyone see Today's World. Talks about bush vetoing the federal funding.
Dammit
Maybe timed with the bridge collapse, he'll reconsider.
Gee, finally found some backbone after only 6.5 years in office.
Oh, the wonders of Medicine!
Truly amazing.
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
The main thing I do not like about these river development proposals is that they don't connect with downtown. Most successful river projects I have seen have some physical connection to the downtown. All of these are proposed from 11th street to the south.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
It's legal. Probably backfire on you, but it's legal.
quote:
Originally posted by mac
The main thing I do not like about these river development proposals is that they don't connect with downtown. Most successful river projects I have seen have some physical connection to the downtown. All of these are proposed from 11th street to the south.
I believe this plan does have some ideas and money to do some "connecing" elements to downtown. They want it to be easy and pleasant to get from the arena, ballpark, concert, etc. to whatever development happens on the west bank near downtown for instance.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
It's legal. Probably backfire on you, but it's legal.
I guess the calculation would be that losing their votes because they secretly hate me would be made up for by the signs convincing more people to vote yes. Actually, they would never secretly hate me, they are quite adept at expressing things like that right out in the open. Jeez and ya know I can tell they are already itching to try and ask for... Whats that holiday? Oh yea Christmas, off once again this year. Poor reason to pick a mans pocket every 25th of December.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
It's legal. Probably backfire on you, but it's legal.
I guess the calculation would be that losing their votes because they secretly hate me would be made up for by the signs convincing more people to vote yes. Actually, they would never secretly hate me, they are quite adept at expressing things like that right out in the open. Jeez and ya know I can tell they are already itching to try and ask for... Whats that holiday? Oh yea Christmas, off once again this year. Poor reason to pick a mans pocket every 25th of December.
The basic dishonesty of this behavior is that the sign expresses bank management's viewpoint.
Not the viewpoint of the employee.
The use of the residential yard of the employee is being coerced under an implied intimidation to provide the appearance of a widespread Grass-roots support for Vision 2025.
That act was a deception.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
It's legal. Probably backfire on you, but it's legal.
I guess the calculation would be that losing their votes because they secretly hate me would be made up for by the signs convincing more people to vote yes. Actually, they would never secretly hate me, they are quite adept at expressing things like that right out in the open. Jeez and ya know I can tell they are already itching to try and ask for... Whats that holiday? Oh yea Christmas, off once again this year. Poor reason to pick a mans pocket every 25th of December.
The basic dishonesty of this behavior is that the sign expresses bank management's viewpoint.
Not the viewpoint of the employee.
The use of the residential yard of the employee is being coerced under an implied intimidation to provide the appearance of a widespread Grass-roots support for Vision 2025.
That act was a deception.
Image is the art of deception. It has no credibility or substance. Illusionary(Visionary?) governments of business clearly cannot handle the realities of the business of government. All the previous attempts at turning over our government to the private sector have been disastrous failures. Excuse me if I don't march lockstep in the private partnership parade and goose step down that primrose path behind river fuhrer- John Selph.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So is it legal or not legal to tell your employees to put up the signs. If it is I will tell mine to put up some Vote Yes signs. If they dont like it they can start their own company or go work some place else.
It's legal. Probably backfire on you, but it's legal.
I guess the calculation would be that losing their votes because they secretly hate me would be made up for by the signs convincing more people to vote yes. Actually, they would never secretly hate me, they are quite adept at expressing things like that right out in the open. Jeez and ya know I can tell they are already itching to try and ask for... Whats that holiday? Oh yea Christmas, off once again this year. Poor reason to pick a mans pocket every 25th of December.
The basic dishonesty of this behavior is that the sign expresses bank management's viewpoint.
Not the viewpoint of the employee.
The use of the residential yard of the employee is being coerced under an implied intimidation to provide the appearance of a widespread Grass-roots support for Vision 2025.
That act was a deception.
Image is the art of deception. It has no credibility or substance. Illusionary(Visionary?) governments of business clearly cannot handle the realities of the business of government. All the previous attempts at turning over our government to the private sector have been disastrous failures. Excuse me if I don't march lockstep in the private partnership parade and goose step down that primrose path behind river fuhrer- John Selph.
Michael Bates' at www.Batesline.com
has an Blog entry today styled:
If you wish, you may opt out... of your jobHis blog entry picks on the lengthy discussion thread on this Forum about certain UNETHICAL big business tactics used to compel their employees to visibly support Vision 2025.
One of Michael's most-telling paragraphs about the strong-arm tactics of a major Tulsa employer recites:
What BOk did, if this employee's story is accurate, is far worse. If you disagreed with your company's position on the tax, you had to conspicuously identify yourself as an opponent. Making the signs opt-in would have allowed opponents of the tax to blend in with those who just didn't get around to requesting a sign.Read the entire weblog, including the nauseating Defense of the Indefensible by TulsaNow Forum's biased bloviater RecycleMichael.
Hope you can keep down your breakfast.
Read on at this link:
http://www.batesline.com/archives/003303.html (//%22http://%22)
Gee un-friendly Bear...
I guess all those years you spent in the circus wearing a dress and riding a bicycle have made you bitter.
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Gee un-friendly Bear...
I guess all those years you spent in the circus wearing a dress and riding a bicycle have made you bitter.
Giggle-giggle, that's a funny one. Trained circus Bear riding a Bicycle. Picture that.
Well, picture this: The local "Octopus" controlling our public policy and OUR LIVES has many tentacles.
Those tentacles have many suckers.
Smile, Sucker.
[:D]
P.S. Keep drinking the
Banana Republic of Tulsa Tax Kool-Aid.It helps salve those few remaining fragments of a guilty conscience.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
It has been a useful discussion of how local Infrastructure decisions, expanded Sales tax-based funding, and Public Policy are formulated in the
Banana Republic of Tulsa.
5478 Read-sessions, and 229 Replies may not be a record for a Forum Topic, but it does indicate a high interest in this Topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
It has been a useful discussion of how local Infrastructure decisions, expanded Sales tax-based funding, and Public Policy are formulated in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
5478 Read-sessions, and 229 Replies may not be a record for a Forum Topic, but it does indicate a high interest in this Topic.
I keep looking on this post hoping there is something interesting being said, only to find I have forgotten that this is the one with the useless drivel, and the people arguing about the useless drivel.
And whats up with the childish "Banana Republic of Tulsa" comments over and over and over and over and over. Even if you had something worth saying those kinds of straw men comments immediately turn people off and make any reader less likely to take the comment seriously. As soon as I read something like that I immediately forget everything else the person has written and dont take them seriously. Who would want to agree with or think like a nutcase? Its shows you do not want to convince people of your argument, you just want to argue. If you want to convice people and sway them to your point of view every one knows thats not the way to do it. So the average person automatically assumes you just want to argue for arguings sake and they turn off. I honestly dont remember a thing you have said other than Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa.....= Friendly Bear = freakshow. Or was that the real message you were trying to get across?
Out of 10 pages, 4 of them are devoted to this discussion of sign abuse 4years ago. The "Banana Republic of Tulsa" appeared for the first time on page 6. Marginally related to discussion of how the infrastructure relates to the river plan and dominated by FB, Swake, BOKworker. Bore-ing.
Let me see if I can bring in a few observations to get this meandering thread back on "infrastructure".
I walked through the "new river" section of Los Olas in Ft. Lauderdale last weekend and what I see is similar OKC and San Antonio. I picked up a copy of one of their local magazines similar to TulsaPeople. It was an issue which was devoted to development, old FLL vs. new FLL, etc. One article devoted to the river development just west of the main Los Olas district mentioned San Antonio as being a successful example of river development.
One thing that these three river areas share in common, is a much narrower channel than the Arkansas with public gathering areas mixed with restaurants, galleries, and boutiques.
Looking at the major rivers of Europe like the Thames, Seine, and Tiber, they are wider channels but also sport sea walls or rip rap for stabilized stream banks which make them more attractive.
River development like FLL, OKC, and San Antonio are all inviting and have a cozy feel to them. I don't see that it's really possible to create a narrow channel for development along the Arkansas in Tulsa, but I do believe stabilizing the banks with rock or stone is more attractive than the weedy look we have now.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
It has been a useful discussion of how local Infrastructure decisions, expanded Sales tax-based funding, and Public Policy are formulated in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
5478 Read-sessions, and 229 Replies may not be a record for a Forum Topic, but it does indicate a high interest in this Topic.
I keep looking on this post hoping there is something interesting being said, only to find I have forgotten that this is the one with the useless drivel, and the people arguing about the useless drivel.
And whats up with the childish "Banana Republic of Tulsa" comments over and over and over and over and over. Even if you had something worth saying those kinds of straw men comments immediately turn people off and make any reader less likely to take the comment seriously. As soon as I read something like that I immediately forget everything else the person has written and dont take them seriously. Who would want to agree with or think like a nutcase? Its shows you do not want to convince people of your argument, you just want to argue. If you want to convice people and sway them to your point of view every one knows thats not the way to do it. So the average person automatically assumes you just want to argue for arguings sake and they turn off. I honestly dont remember a thing you have said other than Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa.....= Friendly Bear = freakshow. Or was that the real message you were trying to get across?
People can believe what they want.
As this is a public policy Forum, I'll post my belief, opinions, and for that matter, FACTS, too.
And, I will do so as long as the Forum Moderators deem that my comments do not contravene their ever-elastic
Rules of Deportment.As to the
Banana Republic of Tulsa, I simply want Forum Lurkers and Posters to start to understand the local political paradigm in its essential, stark, and actually quite scary reality.
Tulsa unfortunately has many, many of the attributes of a back-ward Central American Banana Republic.
These small countries have been ruled for Generations by a small, powerful, unenlightened, and greedy Oligarchy, that control all the reins of power, the judiciary, the Police, the Mass Communications media, and the major means of economic production.
I actually can't think of a more fitting name than what Tulsa really and truly is:
A Banana Republic.Unless of course, everyone keeps Drinking the Kool-Aid.
We will all now drink the River Tax-Hike Kool-Aide.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
It has been a useful discussion of how local Infrastructure decisions, expanded Sales tax-based funding, and Public Policy are formulated in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
5478 Read-sessions, and 229 Replies may not be a record for a Forum Topic, but it does indicate a high interest in this Topic.
I keep looking on this post hoping there is something interesting being said, only to find I have forgotten that this is the one with the useless drivel, and the people arguing about the useless drivel.
And whats up with the childish "Banana Republic of Tulsa" comments over and over and over and over and over. Even if you had something worth saying those kinds of straw men comments immediately turn people off and make any reader less likely to take the comment seriously. As soon as I read something like that I immediately forget everything else the person has written and dont take them seriously. Who would want to agree with or think like a nutcase? Its shows you do not want to convince people of your argument, you just want to argue. If you want to convice people and sway them to your point of view every one knows thats not the way to do it. So the average person automatically assumes you just want to argue for arguings sake and they turn off. I honestly dont remember a thing you have said other than Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa.....= Friendly Bear = freakshow. Or was that the real message you were trying to get across?
People can believe what they want.
As this is a public policy Forum, I'll post my belief, opinions, and for that matter, FACTS, too.
And, I will do so as long as the Forum Moderators deem that my comments do not contravene their ever-elastic Rules of Deportment.
As to the Banana Republic of Tulsa, I simply want Forum Lurkers and Posters to start to understand the local political paradigm in its essential, stark, and actually quite scary reality.
Tulsa unfortunately has many, many of the attributes of a back-ward Central American Banana Republic.
These small countries have been ruled for Generations by a small, powerful, unenlightened, and greedy Oligarchy, that control all the reins of power, the judiciary, the Police, the Mass Communications media, and the major means of economic production.
I actually can't think of a more fitting name than what Tulsa really and truly is:
A Banana Republic.
Unless of course, everyone keeps Drinking the Kool-Aid.
We will all now drink the River Tax-Hike Kool-Aide.
[;)]
way to go threadcrapper... thanks for destroying the thread... instead of a discussion about infrastructure and plans it turned into one man's anti-tax soapbox and paranoid conspiracy theories... well done...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Why hasn't this sub-topic to the main thread been moved to its own topic? It has little to do with infrastructure.
It has been a useful discussion of how local Infrastructure decisions, expanded Sales tax-based funding, and Public Policy are formulated in the Banana Republic of Tulsa.
5478 Read-sessions, and 229 Replies may not be a record for a Forum Topic, but it does indicate a high interest in this Topic.
I keep looking on this post hoping there is something interesting being said, only to find I have forgotten that this is the one with the useless drivel, and the people arguing about the useless drivel.
And whats up with the childish "Banana Republic of Tulsa" comments over and over and over and over and over. Even if you had something worth saying those kinds of straw men comments immediately turn people off and make any reader less likely to take the comment seriously. As soon as I read something like that I immediately forget everything else the person has written and dont take them seriously. Who would want to agree with or think like a nutcase? Its shows you do not want to convince people of your argument, you just want to argue. If you want to convice people and sway them to your point of view every one knows thats not the way to do it. So the average person automatically assumes you just want to argue for arguings sake and they turn off. I honestly dont remember a thing you have said other than Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa, Banana Republic of Tulsa.....= Friendly Bear = freakshow. Or was that the real message you were trying to get across?
People can believe what they want.
As this is a public policy Forum, I'll post my belief, opinions, and for that matter, FACTS, too.
And, I will do so as long as the Forum Moderators deem that my comments do not contravene their ever-elastic Rules of Deportment.
As to the Banana Republic of Tulsa, I simply want Forum Lurkers and Posters to start to understand the local political paradigm in its essential, stark, and actually quite scary reality.
Tulsa unfortunately has many, many of the attributes of a back-ward Central American Banana Republic.
These small countries have been ruled for Generations by a small, powerful, unenlightened, and greedy Oligarchy, that control all the reins of power, the judiciary, the Police, the Mass Communications media, and the major means of economic production.
I actually can't think of a more fitting name than what Tulsa really and truly is:
A Banana Republic.
Unless of course, everyone keeps Drinking the Kool-Aid.
We will all now drink the River Tax-Hike Kool-Aide.
[;)]
way to go threadcrapper... thanks for destroying the thread... instead of a discussion about infrastructure and plans it turned into one man's anti-tax soapbox and paranoid conspiracy theories... well done...
Thank you.
I sincerely believe that any discussion under a Development Topic should be framed within the reality of the local political paradigm.
Tulsa is a
Banana Republic.
Therefore, this is an entirely proper
framework to view discussion about local infrastructure, the appropriate level of taxation to pay for the infrastructure, infrastructure PRIORITIES, and finally, the control over historical, current and future Public Policy by the ruling power Oligarchy.
And, the
Tax-me-More Kool-Aid, too.
[:X]
Remember, folks, there is the "ignore" button that you can use for certain individuals who post long-winded, redundant opinions. It doesn't have to be limited to Paul Tay. [:D]
Good point.
You have to be logged on to ignore someone. So no more idling in the off position, I'm on now.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Good point.
You have to be logged on to ignore someone. So no more idling in the off position, I'm on now.
Denial is an easy and effective way to numb yourself to the dysfunction. Tune out, turn off, drop in. Tulsa needs an intervention.(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/thtulsa_book_cover_200w.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Let me see if I can bring in a few observations to get this meandering thread back on "infrastructure".
I walked through the "new river" section of Los Olas in Ft. Lauderdale last weekend and what I see is similar OKC and San Antonio. I picked up a copy of one of their local magazines similar to TulsaPeople. It was an issue which was devoted to development, old FLL vs. new FLL, etc. One article devoted to the river development just west of the main Los Olas district mentioned San Antonio as being a successful example of river development.
One thing that these three river areas share in common, is a much narrower channel than the Arkansas with public gathering areas mixed with restaurants, galleries, and boutiques.
Looking at the major rivers of Europe like the Thames, Seine, and Tiber, they are wider channels but also sport sea walls or rip rap for stabilized stream banks which make them more attractive.
River development like FLL, OKC, and San Antonio are all inviting and have a cozy feel to them. I don't see that it's really possible to create a narrow channel for development along the Arkansas in Tulsa, but I do believe stabilizing the banks with rock or stone is more attractive than the weedy look we have now.
When you say river development in OKC, I assume you mean the Bricktown Canal? The Oklahoma River looks like a big irrigation ditch -- full of water, but no trees on its banks.
It's useful to compare river widths. These are some rough measurements I gleaned from Google Earth, from biggest to smallest:
East River at Brooklyn Bridge: 1800'
Arkansas River bed at 71st St: 1800'
Arkansas River bed at 61st St: 1600'
Arkansas River bed at 96th St: 1400'
Arkansas River bed at 41st St: 1300'
Arkansas River at Little Rock: 1100'
Zink Lake: 1000-1200'
Vltava at Charles Bridge, Prague: 900'
Thames at Tower Bridge: 800'
Town Lake, Austin: 350-700'
Oklahoma River (dammed part): 400'
Seine at Pont Neuf: 400'
Kerr-McClellan Waterway near Catoosa: 360'
Seine, north channel at Pont Notre Dame: 300'
Arkansas River at Wichita: 250-275'
Mingo Creek (from crest to crest of concrete channel): 250'
Chicago River: 180-250'
Cuyahoga River (Cleveland Flats): 150-250'
Ft. Lauderdale New River at the Las Olas Riverfront: 130'
Oklahoma River, undammed: 100-200'
Bird Creek near Mohawk Park: 100'
Caney River near Bartlesville: 100'
San Antonio River: 30-40'
Bricktown Canal: 25-40'
Mill Creek, McClure Park: 20'
It was interesting to learn that in the early 20th century, San Antonio officials considered covering over the river as a storm sewer. That's what was done in Tulsa to Elm Creek upstream from Central Park and between Central Park and the river. If we want cozy and inviting along a narrow channel, the Pearl District proposal to run Elm Creek in the open as a canal in the middle of 6th Street may be the best way to make that happen. Someone has had the idea of doing the same thing along the lower stretch of Elm Creek, which would connect 18th and Boston to the River at 21st.
Bricktown Canal...totally artificial.
Comparing the Bricktown Canal in OKC to the Arkansas River in Tulsa is like comparing pine scented air freshener to a forest of pine trees.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
It was interesting to learn that in the early 20th century, San Antonio officials considered covering over the river as a storm sewer. That's what was done in Tulsa to Elm Creek upstream from Central Park and between Central Park and the river. If we want cozy and inviting along a narrow channel, the Pearl District proposal to run Elm Creek in the open as a canal in the middle of 6th Street may be the best way to make that happen. Someone has had the idea of doing the same thing along the lower stretch of Elm Creek, which would connect 18th and Boston to the River at 21st.
I really like the idea of using Elm Creek to connect downtown and SoBo to the river. That way we could have the dense entertainment type development downtown where it should be and a more parklike feel on the river banks. Does anyone know if they've done any calculations for how much it would cost?
quote:
Originally posted by Chris
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
It was interesting to learn that in the early 20th century, San Antonio officials considered covering over the river as a storm sewer. That's what was done in Tulsa to Elm Creek upstream from Central Park and between Central Park and the river. If we want cozy and inviting along a narrow channel, the Pearl District proposal to run Elm Creek in the open as a canal in the middle of 6th Street may be the best way to make that happen. Someone has had the idea of doing the same thing along the lower stretch of Elm Creek, which would connect 18th and Boston to the River at 21st.
I really like the idea of using Elm Creek to connect downtown and SoBo to the river. That way we could have the dense entertainment type development downtown where it should be and a more parklike feel on the river banks. Does anyone know if they've done any calculations for how much it would cost?
I think you would have the same response as when LaFortune wanted to connect Brookside to the river via Crow Creek. Howls from the surrounding neighborhoods, and costs out the wazoo. Both good ideas though.
No I dont think our river is going to have that cosy San Antonio riverwalk, feel. Even the Thames and Seine rivers are too wide for that. But people are still drawn to the water and the things near it. The movement of the water, the reflection of the buildings and lights in it, even the expanse of space looking out over it is nice. We can have attractive waterfront development. Its just naturally going to be different than other places, and that is good imo.
In Paris there is a set of stairs on a high hillside where the Sacre Coeur Basilica is. Its a wide set of stairs just off a square that has shops on either side and the Basilica in back. People love sitting on those steps and looking out over the city. There are places to eat and shop, lots of artists gather there to sell their wares. There is a place like that in Rome as well. People like that combination of a view, people watching and things to do.
It would be great to have that some where in Tulsa. Whatever is built on the west side of the river near downtown can have all of that.
As for hardening the shoreline. Some areas can be where there is urban development right on the river for example. But if you were to go down to the river and walk along it you would find that there is a lot of natural beauty to be seen there. Its different than along other rivers but that imo is what makes it all the more special. We almost need to acknowledge what is there and appreciate the particular natural and unique beauty we have along our river and build on it.
I am reminded of how different places like Santa Fe or Tucson are. They dont try to change the reality of what they have, they embrace it. The buildings are different, even the art is different, everything reflects their heritage and the environment around them. Even the retaining walls are different. I saw some that looked like layers of rock with different colors of strata and rocks poking out of them, or they would have designs and patterns embedded in them.
We could form something culturally unique that reflects our heritage and environment as well. The way we harden the shoreline can reflect that. Rather than any old wall or pile of rocks, make it look like its part of the landscape or something that reflects one of the various prominent threads of our unique heritage.
We can still use the basic form... a view with things to do, people watching, etc. that works the world over, but do it in our own unique way.
Michael B- You are correct on your assumption about my reference to the the canal in OKC.
Furthering that though, yes the "Oklahoma River" looks sterile right now, but it's far better than it looked 20 years ago. They have put in nice wide paths, have a spectacular boat house which is the envy of rowers all over the country, and in another 20 years will likely have some nice mature trees.
I appreciate the natural beaty of a river, but when you drive by in an urban area and it has tall grass & weeds, to me it shows a lack of pride in the asset. That's just me, but that's why I like streambank stabilization and careful landscaping with native plants and trees along the banks. It has a more cared for, rather than neglected look.
The reason most cited since the large PR blitz for The Channels was attracting and retaining young people in the city of Tulsa. Cozy public gathering places with commercial mix is what appears to attract the young professionals to water and gives the city a "hip" factor, not low water dams creating multiple lakes which in reality still won't be any more navigable than they are now.
I'd never heard (or paid close attention when it's been mentioned) of the idea about Elm Creek until I saw it here. Now there is a good tie in with proposed development on the east side of downtown.
Artist, I much appreciate your citations of other cities and the things that make them the special places they are. Tulsa is a very, very young city given the heritage and history of Santa Fe, Paris, Rome, London. Tulsa's identity through the early 1980's was as an oil town. As of now, it appears we are still trying to figure out what our identity is.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Cozy public gathering places with commercial mix is what appears to attract the young professionals to water and gives the city a "hip" factor, not low water dams creating multiple lakes which in reality still won't be any more navigable than they are now.
I'd never heard (or paid close attention when it's been mentioned) of the idea about Elm Creek until I saw it here. Now there is a good tie in with proposed development on the east side of downtown.
Unlike the Crow Creek concept that was mentioned earlier, the Elm Creek canal east of Central Park plan has the enthusiastic support of the neighborhood around 6th & Peoria. It's part of the 6th Street Infill Plan (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/documents/8Implementation.pdf%22).
John Neas came up with the idea of the Elm Creek connection between 18th & Boston and the river back in 1991. He sent me a sketch of it, which I posted here (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/002833.html%22). He cautioned me to ignore the buildings and closed streets in his concept, all of which could be adjusted to taste. It's the location of the creek and its relationship to the existing street grid and Veterans' Park that's of interest.
Archer Street downtown would be another possible site for reopening a buried creek. Cat Creek runs underground beneath the street.
Michael, sorry I missed that in your blog in the midst of the Channels rumble. I have to admit your column and the crosswords are the two main reasons I pick up UTW most every week. Yeah, okay there's a few other features I read, but I usually don't get to them till after I see what you are onto that week. I don't check in on your blog that often though.
I hadn't really given so much thought to why the canal in OKC was attractive to me, nor San Antonio until I walked around New River and it hit me what they all had in common.
There's already a hip factor in SoBo and The Pearl and interest from investors. Of course uncovering a creek through the city presents many challenges.
Perhaps to keep from clouding the River thread we should start a new one on Elm Creek.
MB, why was the Crow Creek idea discarded? Surely not just the surrounding neighborhood. It seemed that at one point the idea of creeks linking to developement was being considered.
From what I recall, it was the neighborhood. Homeowners were saying they didnt want people walking essentially through their backyards day and night. There were threats of lawsuits, wrangling over property rights, where some of the properties actually started and ended, etc. Was this just going to be a trail? Zoned to have shops and restaurants along it thus destroying that part of the neighborhood? etc.
That's too bad. One small group controlled the destiny of the rest of the city. Bing Thom had that part right. We needed to connect the river to existing trade areas. I would expect any other tributary developments will not even be attempted.
Another infrastructure question. The Channels was unique in its approach to development in that they were the first plan that addressed obvious river issues. One was the installation of cleaning filters on the major storm drains that enter the river and bring with them the debris of neighborhoods and gathering areas. Foam cups, plastic bags, lawn clippings etc.
Has INCOG added this feature to their development plan?
WB,
I'd like to see what they had in mind for filtration. It doesn't sound overly practical when we have years like this one.
Having a background in water, the filtration system would be complicated at best. With the monsoon season we had this summer, it's possible that we could have wound up with severe street flooding due to the volume of water draining to the river and the amount of debris it was carrying. In order to catch grass clippings, you would be talking about a pretty fine screen or media size. Even with progressive "filters" that creates the issue of manually needing to clean and maintain a lot of screens at some point. With the city having to cut back on other services and maintenance over the years, I'm not optimistic about such a system being well maintained.
I don't disagree that it would be a nice addition to help keep the river clean, I'm just concerned about maintenance issues.
Yes if you have been to the new pond at Central Park you will see a lot of garbage that gets washed in there after any rain. I was just amazed. I have never thrown anything out of my car and cant imagine why anyone would. And whenever I walk I try to pick up a piece of trash or two. I dont know how so much garbage seems to "get away" from people.
However, when I was doing the mural at the Central Center I saw many people come in and volunteer to get the garbage out of the lake area. It was nice to see how many people do care and are willing to take care of the nice things in their area.
I would also like to think that we could grow a foundation or fund that would help maintain our river. The Kaiser plan puts aside some money to continually take care of the part that is being given. Perhaps we could add onto that and create a "Friends of The River Parks Maintenance Fund". That way we are not relying on fickle tax dollars.
It might be nice to have something like the art fund where any time the city builds a public building with tax dollars it has to set aside a percentage for art. In this case anything the city or county does to the river a percentage would be set aside in a fund to provide for continued maintenance.
Whats most likely to happen is that river development, parks and private, will go ahead. Then once more people really start getting closer to the river and around it more, businesses start having an interest in it being clear of garbage... THEN they will notice the garbage and will push for something to be done.
Though it covers more than just maintenance, the River already has a "friends of the river:"
https://www.riverparks.org/RiverparksFriends/
It may just be me, but I am not real crazy about the dog mascot.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Though it covers more than just maintenance, the River already has a "friends of the river:"
https://www.riverparks.org/RiverparksFriends/
It may just be me, but I am not real crazy about the dog mascot.
I don't get the point of RPF at all. And the dog just kinda scares me.
Looking at the RPF web site, brought to mind:
When is the last time anyone used the RP amphitheater? Maybe I don't listen to the right radio stations to hear of events there, but it's been awhile since I've seen any sort of activity there.
They used to have great concerts. In the late '80's or early '90's I saw Bruce Hornsby, Moody Blues, and Robert Palmer.
They were using it for the Starlight concerts till the area flooded this spring. Occasional concert.
As far as the filters, I was not able to analyze them and they wouldn't let the tech books out of the room. I seem to remember they were a skimmer and catch basin sort of thing. The interesting thing to me was that they correctly determined that it was worth addressing. Even RPA spends scant attention to all the junk people toss in near the gathering areas.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Looking at the RPF web site, brought to mind:
When is the last time anyone used the RP amphitheater? Maybe I don't listen to the right radio stations to hear of events there, but it's been awhile since I've seen any sort of activity there.
They used to have great concerts. In the late '80's or early '90's I saw Bruce Hornsby, Moody Blues, and Robert Palmer.
I never liked that RP amphitheater. Just never felt like an attractive, fun or welcoming place or design. The area its in seems; barren, treeless, isolated and uninteresting. Great view of downtown though lol. But thats not enough to carry the rest of the negatives. Cattails in the water in front of it, some really large landscaping rocks, a fountain or sculpture or two, some nice garden landscaping on either side, trees along the back, some other park features. Its a good "infrastructure" start but could be made much more inviting. As per my quote below, they got the bread, but forgot the lilly.
They also had a nasty insect problem there. I don't recall if it was moths or what stormed the stage at the Robert Palmer concert, but it was bad and they were aggressive.
During the song "Addicted To Love" he altered the words in the chorus to: "Gonna have to face it you're infested with bugs."
No schnitz, really happened. A shining moment in Tulsa music history.