Here is the Tulsa World Sunday story on the river plan. It is very well researched and great to get all these officials on the record as supporters. I especially like how the reporter ended the story with a contrary quote by Tulsa City Councilor Roscoe Turner.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070624_238_A1_spanc46170
$277 million plan gets thumbs up
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
6/24/2007
A proposed $277 million Tulsa County tax initiative to implement a little more than half of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is getting mostly positive reaction from local and area officials. Although some say they need more details on the plan, everyone seemed to agree that they liked what they have heard about the plan so far. "At first blush, I'm all in favor of it, even though I don't like a tax increase," said City Councilor Bill Christiansen.
Councilor Jack Henderson said he thinks it is a good plan. "I like the overall way they put the package together and the way the private sector is stepping up to the plate with a lot of private funding," he said. George Kaiser, a local philanthropist who is championing the public-private partnership, said that if the Tulsa County commissioners call a fall election and voters approve the tax, the private sector would add more than $100 million worth of enhancements.
The county also may consider asking voters to approve use of the 0.4 percent of the Vision 2025 tax that voters had approved in 2003 to lure Boeing. That never occurred and the tax never was collected. If approved, the tax would be for seven years.
Christiansen said that "instead of having corporate welfare for Boeing, we're just going to ask taxpayers to use that money and do what I believe the majority of citizens in Tulsa want -- a river with water that is a drive-to destination." Councilor Rick Westcott said river improvements have been talked about for at least 40 years, referring to a plan in the late 1960s to put inflatable dams in the river.
He said the current proposal mirrors the river master plan, for which all residents had the opportunity to give input. "I especially like that the plan is putting water in the river first," he said. "It doesn't matter what great things we put on the river banks, if the river is a big sand bed, nobody is going to want to go there," he said. Westcott said he still would like officials to explore alternative funding sources other than sales tax.
Owasso City Manager Rodney Ray, one of four Tulsa County cities that does not touch the river, said he fully supports the plan. "I have seen enough of the plan to know that if we can develop the river as part of the core of Tulsa's amenities, it will benefit Owasso," he said. He said he thinks this package is appropriate as a county tax. "I believe that if we're going to ask the public to come to the table with $277 million, I think we need to focus on the river . . . and should not be proposing with this project a litany of items like community centers. We need to stick to the river."
Broken Arrow and Bixby both touch the river, but have nothing in the package. Bixby Mayor Ray Bowen declined to comment on the proposal other than to say Bixby wants development along the entire 42-mile corridor. A spokesman for Broken Arrow said officials there think "it's a tremendous project." Kevin Sterling, Broken Arrow's director of communications, said the city is hopeful the remaining items in the master plan will be implemented down the road. Sterling said Broken Arrow still needs to further review the plan and assess what effects this tax would have on the city's own growth needs.
Ron Howell, a lakefront developer and critic of Vision 2025 for not including sufficient river development funds, said he likes this project.
Although Howell said he does not like raising taxes, "realistically, this is probably the best we're going to do, especially with getting this much private dollars." Howell said voters need to understand "that the public investment is going to be dwarfed by private donations and investments." He said the acquisition aspect of the package is key because it allows the city to seek development proposals, like a Branson Landing, which is a multimillion-dollar investment that would generate an abundance of sales tax. "This is a true public-private partnership," he said.
Mayor Kathy Taylor said last week that if voters approve the package, the city immediately would begin the process of assembling land and soliciting development proposals. "It's a priority for me for it to go forward and develop one of the most significant, yet underdeveloped assets in Tulsa," she said.
Councilors Bill Martinson, Dennis Troyer, Maria Barnes, John Eagleton and Cason Carson also praised the package as a tremendous opportunity to leverage private-sector funds. Martinson said he supports river development, but his focus is fixing the streets. Eagleton said he does not want to raise taxes to do the plan, but will keep an open mind. He suggests the plan be tabled until Vision 2025 projects are complete, which would allow for funding, but lower taxes. Troyer said that if the river is going to be developed, then officials "have to seriously consider a light-rail system to get people down there." Carter said he supports letting the voters decide "their own future, and river development is something that this community has been talking about and seeking for a long time."
Councilor Roscoe Turner said he knows nothing about the river plan and wants nothing to do with the county.
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I love roscoe's quote. I like when you know you can depend on people to be who they are. You can depend on bikerfox to wear spandex, Paul Tay to ride his bike on highways, and Roscoe to hate on the county.
Is it just me, or does every story involve Roscoe saying he knows nothing about what he's being interviewed on? Is it just that he wants "All the details" before he says anything?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
I would like to see Cities be able to assess a couple of cents fuel tax for roads, make it a use tax.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I love roscoe's quote. I like when you know you can depend on people to be who they are. You can depend on bikerfox to wear spandex, Paul Tay to ride his bike on highways, and Roscoe to hate on the county.
Is it just me, or does every story involve Roscoe saying he knows nothing about what he's being interviewed on? Is it just that he wants "All the details" before he says anything?
yeah, unlike some of the other councilors who simply join the circle for a big county
[cough]. roscoe is one of the few councilors that is always looking out for Tulsa.
I remember on the EMSA deal he said he would be back in May to talk about the mortgage we have paid off but are still paying. As far as I know its still on my bill....I guess the county tools have managed to shut him up on that one.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.
So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.
See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.
So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.
See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.
It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.
No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.
No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
So what did "four out of five dentists surveyed" have to say about it?
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.
So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.
See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.
It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.
No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.
No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
When and where have you ever NOT heard those remarks made in regards to even the best governments? Never. I challenge you to find $150 million or so of waste in our local government. Thats what it will take to build two dams, remodel one and get the ball rolling.
Also, I worked at a store that sold office furniture to city employees. Had everyone from Parks to the Mayors office buy chairs and furniture through me. Never sold one for more than $150 or that wasn't on sale. They know the taxpayers are watching and go cheap all the way.
Lastly, our government pretty much taxed its way to prosperity several times in its history. The depression, the post war boom of the fifties, were both high tax rate periods. The Reagan era shifted the tax burden to local communities through unfunded mandates which forced raises in property taxes, Clinton raised taxes (the economy flourished under them both)and on, and on.
But that's politics, this thread is in development.[:D]
Roscoe's heart is in the right place, but the more time goes by, the more I question his lucidity on occasion. I figure that advancing age is catching up to him.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.
I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well. Plus something to make improvements along our river. We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth. We could truly have the best of both worlds.
The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.
The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.
So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.
See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.
It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.
No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.
No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
When and where have you ever NOT heard those remarks made in regards to even the best governments? Never. I challenge you to find $150 million or so of waste in our local government. Thats what it will take to build two dams, remodel one and get the ball rolling.
Also, I worked at a store that sold office furniture to city employees. Had everyone from Parks to the Mayors office buy chairs and furniture through me. Never sold one for more than $150 or that wasn't on sale. They know the taxpayers are watching and go cheap all the way.
Lastly, our government pretty much taxed its way to prosperity several times in its history. The depression, the post war boom of the fifties, were both high tax rate periods. The Reagan era shifted the tax burden to local communities through unfunded mandates which forced raises in property taxes, Clinton raised taxes (the economy flourished under them both)and on, and on.
But that's politics, this thread is in development.[:D]
Just because we have heard the remarks before doesn't make them any less true. The government is wasteful and is too often given a pass on its waste.
I don't have a copy of Tulsa's budget but I'm sure there is a lot of waste in there.
As for the chair issue. I beg to differ. I know that the full leather executive chairs I see any time they are interviewing a city or county official cost well in excess of $150. In fact I have seen several of the model, can't remember the brand right now but OSU bought a ton of them as well, that are over $1200 per chair.
As for the tax issue. Except for the wealthy the tax rates during the Great Depression were fairly low. Started at 4% I believe and went up to somewhere around 10% for what the average Joe would be making. I wouldn't exactly call that a period of prosperity either. Kind of flies in the face of the very meaning of a depression.
As for the 50's we had high taxes to pay for our debt incurred during WWII. The prosperity during that period was brought about by the end of the war much as it was during the post WWI boom.
As for Clinton. The booming economy he had the luck to preside over was brought about by the .com boom. Something that as we have seen is not sustainable.
I'll shut up for now since this isn't politics.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.
So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.
So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?
I'm all for the plan. I just don't want to see a new tax created or taxes increased to pay for me.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.
So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?
I'm all for the plan. I just don't want to see a new tax created or taxes increased to pay for me.
I'm guessing that getting it for free is not one of the options. Either something else gets eliminated (the arena? fat chance) or we pay for it with a mix of private/public funds as proposed. You can't find 277 million of tax waste in the city or county of Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.
So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?
I'm all for the plan. I just don't want to see a new tax created or taxes increased to pay for me.
Only .4 percent tax for 7 years and in exchange we get at least $100 million of investments being matched without coming out of our pockets. This is a great plan. Did I mention it will GENERATE additional tax revenue for the city?
Some people would complain about everything, including this time, when there's a Hell of a return on our invetsment. Let's make Tulsa better and make this happen. It takes money to make money. .4 percent is a SMALL amount in exchange of the quality of life it will give the community.
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
I suppose I'm for this for the most part, but isn't there some way that we can get federal or state money for the dams? It just seems that we could find a higher entity to bilk that money from. We could say that the dams are for.... flood control? [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
Hear, hear. Without thinking and without the facts. We get "nickeled and dimed" less (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6892%22) than anyone in the country.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
I suppose I'm for this for the most part, but isn't there some way that we can get federal or state money for the dams? It just seems that we could find a higher entity to bilk that money from. We could say that the dams are for.... flood control? [:D]
The state delegation tried, funds were wiped out by Katrina
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
Hear, hear. Without thinking and without the facts. We get "nickeled and dimed" less (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6892%22) than anyone in the country.
What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
I suppose I'm for this for the most part, but isn't there some way that we can get federal or state money for the dams? It just seems that we could find a higher entity to bilk that money from. We could say that the dams are for.... flood control? [:D]
The state delegation tried, funds were wiped out by Katrina
Well at least those funds were spent wisely and with total accountability.
I know this is another cost passed on to the taxpayer but man we need this. If it doesn't pass, the river will be dead, dry, and non-productive for years longer.
The river could make so much money for all of us.
This is the most reasonable way I've seen so far. $100,000,000 private investment offered by a person I don't doubt can get it.
There will always be doubts about large publicly funded projects..."who's getting their back scratched the hardest?"
I'd still vote for this tomorrow.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
Hear, hear. Without thinking and without the facts. We get "nickeled and dimed" less (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6892%22) than anyone in the country.
What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?
You now have changed from concerns about ineffective, wasteful government to tax rates and when shown our tax rates are low, you're still not satisfied! In answer to your "damn stupid" remark, I wouldn't mind the Ct or Mass tax rate if it brought a better lifestyle, more affluence, better roads, better educated residents and such. What do you want Wavoka? No taxes? What is a reasonable rate and where do you draw your conclusions from? No answers so far, means you are just reaching for the comfort food.
Successfully mining the potential of the river will leverage our economy and make for a better lifestyle. If you want the lowest taxes consider moving to a rural area.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?
It's not stupid at all because it exposes you as a cheapskate. You get what you pay for and you choose to pay for nothing, as far as we can tell.
Connecticut and Massachusetts are "nickled and dimed to death", as you say, at a rate that is far higher than Oklahoma's. They aren't dead. They aren't revolting. In fact, their quality of life is high.
This town is in trouble and it's people like you who are trying to stamp it out of existence with your junk rhetoric and strongly held (and demonstrably wrong) beliefs.
There again CL, look what the taxpayers in Mass. have gotten with their high taxes: "The Big Dig" [B)][}:)]
Where can I read more about anticipated retail development along the river? I think it would be a good idea for our tax dollar investment in the project to have a return in sales taxes.
Details the daily has not yet covered.
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1267&Itemid=2
yikes.
http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2007/05/15/state_would_cap_big_dig_payments_set_budget/
quote:
State officials disclosed earlier this month that the final price of the Big Dig could be closer to $15 billion, $333 million more than previous estimates. They emphasized, however, that cost recovery from contractors and other expected income from insurance claims should keep the final cost below that figure.
Compare to the price of Tulsa's iconic arena... or the proposed cost of Arkansas River development... rinse, repeat.
Of course Chicago residents pay very high sales taxes... but most groceries are exempt... last I checked... Chicagoans pay 15.25% combined sales taxes...(which includes a 6.25% state sales tax) but grocery and non-prescription drugs have a sales tax of 1%.
At $15 billion the Big Dig was $333 million over RECENT estimates. The project was estimated at $2.8 billion in 1985. When construction began, the estimate was at $5.8 billion (early 90s). The chairman of the Mass Turnpike authority was fired, and his replacement committed to a cap of $8.55 billion (year 2000).
Spiraled way out of hand.
when Tulsans don't need 15" thick tires and air suspension to not feel the potholes on various city streets, THEN we can start to talk about river playgrounds.
FIX TULSA ROADS FIRST!
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by wavoka
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by Double A
Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.
So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?
I'm all for the plan. I just don't want to see a new tax created or taxes increased to pay for me.
Only .4 percent tax for 7 years and in exchange we get at least $100 million of investments being matched without coming out of our pockets. This is a great plan. Did I mention it will GENERATE additional tax revenue for the city?
Some people would complain about everything, including this time, when there's a Hell of a return on our invetsment. Let's make Tulsa better and make this happen. It takes money to make money. .4 percent is a SMALL amount in exchange of the quality of life it will give the community.
.4 for 7 years? Someone else already said it....the best permanent tax is a temporary one. think will just think up of something else in 7 years, just like they are already scheming for the next vision 2050 or whatever the ****.
want a good example? just look at the "4 to fix the county" its been
temporary" since the 80s.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
****.
want a good example? just look at the "4 to fix the county" its been
temporary" since the 80s.
No it hasn't
4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.
If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.
If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.
I has been revoted once, I want to say 4 to Fix was first voted on in 2002, hardly "since the 80s"
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.
If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.
I has been revoted once, I want to say 4 to Fix was first voted on in 2002, hardly "since the 80s"
Yeah, I voted on the original 4 to fix and I wasn't eligible to vote until 1994.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
Hear, hear. Without thinking and without the facts. We get "nickeled and dimed" less (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6892%22) than anyone in the country.
What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?
You now have changed from concerns about ineffective, wasteful government to tax rates and when shown our tax rates are low, you're still not satisfied! In answer to your "damn stupid" remark, I wouldn't mind the Ct or Mass tax rate if it brought a better lifestyle, more affluence, better roads, better educated residents and such. What do you want Wavoka? No taxes? What is a reasonable rate and where do you draw your conclusions from? No answers so far, means you are just reaching for the comfort food.
Successfully mining the potential of the river will leverage our economy and make for a better lifestyle. If you want the lowest taxes consider moving to a rural area.
No answer so far means I had something better to do than hang out on an Internet forum arguing.
Like someone else said. When our roads and bridges are no longer in need of major repair we can talk about public funding of playgrounds. I will go even further and say that once our police department is fully staffed and academies are being held yearly, when our medians aren't overgrown, when our street lights don't have to be turned off to save money, etc, etc, etc.... then we can talk about using public money to fund non essential services. Until then I will continue to be against raising taxes to build anything in or along the river.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.
We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.
Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.
And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?
Hear, hear. Without thinking and without the facts. We get "nickeled and dimed" less (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6892%22) than anyone in the country.
What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?
You now have changed from concerns about ineffective, wasteful government to tax rates and when shown our tax rates are low, you're still not satisfied! In answer to your "damn stupid" remark, I wouldn't mind the Ct or Mass tax rate if it brought a better lifestyle, more affluence, better roads, better educated residents and such. What do you want Wavoka? No taxes? What is a reasonable rate and where do you draw your conclusions from? No answers so far, means you are just reaching for the comfort food.
Successfully mining the potential of the river will leverage our economy and make for a better lifestyle. If you want the lowest taxes consider moving to a rural area.
No answer so far means I had something better to do than hang out on an Internet forum arguing.
Like someone else said. When our roads and bridges are no longer in need of major repair we can talk about public funding of playgrounds. I will go even further and say that once our police department is fully staffed and academies are being held yearly, when our medians aren't overgrown, when our street lights don't have to be turned off to save money, etc, etc, etc.... then we can talk about using public money to fund non essential services. Until then I will continue to be against raising taxes to build anything in or along the river.
Sounds like you'll have a lifetime of railing against taxes. Enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.
If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.
Whoa Whoa Whoa! SON, don't ya know, here in Tulsey, people like thar cars! Stop with all this transit gobbledygook, y'hear?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
when Tulsans don't need 15" thick tires and air suspension to not feel the potholes on various city streets, THEN we can start to talk about river playgrounds.
FIX TULSA ROADS FIRST!
I agree that Tulsa has some pretty bad road conditions, but frankly I would rather live in trendy city with potholes over a boring, nationally unknown city with immaculate street conditions.
It seems to me that many of the same people in Tulsa that complain about city streets also are against any form of downtown or river development, both of which have the potential to raise the demand for housing in the central city area, and somewhat curb suburban sprawl, which exhausts city infrastructure budgets due to rapid expansion/repair of roads, utilities, etc.
Quick, name one revenue producing project (i.e., "retail", which actually might pay Sales Tax) between 11th St and 71st St on either East or West bank of the River in this proposal?
Let me save some time. There's none.
But, in the given descriptions, do the same for any which simply suggest 'preparation' for said.
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.
If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.
I has been revoted once, I want to say 4 to Fix was first voted on in 2002, hardly "since the 80s"
Yeah, I voted on the original 4 to fix and I wasn't eligible to vote until 1994.
4 to fix is just the offspring of the original 3 to fix. the beast just keeps reincarnating as something different. THe 3rd cent sales tax has been temporary for over 25 years.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.
Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.
Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.
I've been slow to chime in here, but let me share my thoughts. I have LONG been a proponent of Tulsa doing more to beautify the river and especially to put more money into downtown and the core of the city. But what I'm also for, is better roads for our city. The current state of our surface streets and city trafficways is deplorable and embarrassing. I'm not sure these things HAVE to be mutually exclusive, but more and more it just seems that Tulsa can't have its cake and eat it too.
As another person pointed out, the geographic sprawl in the Tulsa metro area is simply outpacing the realized net effect generated by sales tax revenues within that perceived "growth" area. All the while, the geographic movement is eating up infrastructure dollars.
I'm a 30-something...I have a family, but I travel to other cities and see great things. I want Tulsa to reinvest in its core and NOT become a sum of its suburban parts, so YES I think something needs to be done to differentiate itself. I support the Master Corridor plan and what it can bring. I support the Tulsa Landing idea. And I also support whatever increase is necessary to repair our failing roads. Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority in that I don't mind paying higher taxes if it gets Tulsa moving forward towards a well supported goal.
Unfortunately, Tulsa's road situation is tragic...does that mean the river doesn't deserve attention? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's complicated, because Tulsa simply needs more income if it's going to fix all those roads and they can't generate more income if they don't keep citizens from moving to the suburbs year after year by improving Tulsa's appeal. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't always have any easy end. Just some rambling perspective I suppose.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
4 to fix is just the offspring of the original 3 to fix. the beast just keeps reincarnating as something different. THe 3rd cent sales tax has been temporary for over 25 years.
The 3rd penny is basically supposed to be permanent considering it's the city's capital budget. 4-to-fix is county, not city.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.
Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.
Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.
If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.
Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.
Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.
If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.
Blah, blah, blah.
You made the statement that Mr. Wrinkle and I were
"There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be." which I have proven in my case to be untrue. Put simply you are an elitist who thinks they know better than everyone else.
I understand your passion for the river, but your tactic of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with your view is pathetic.
I agree.
I have some of them fancy degrees and I am an idiot.
I am not the only idiot in a town our size, but I have the most witnesses.
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
I've been slow to chime in here, but let me share my thoughts. I have LONG been a proponent of Tulsa doing more to beautify the river and especially to put more money into downtown and the core of the city. But what I'm also for, is better roads for our city. The current state of our surface streets and city trafficways is deplorable and embarrassing. I'm not sure these things HAVE to be mutually exclusive, but more and more it just seems that Tulsa can't have its cake and eat it too.
As another person pointed out, the geographic sprawl in the Tulsa metro area is simply outpacing the realized net effect generated by sales tax revenues within that perceived "growth" area. All the while, the geographic movement is eating up infrastructure dollars.
I'm a 30-something...I have a family, but I travel to other cities and see great things. I want Tulsa to reinvest in its core and NOT become a sum of its suburban parts, so YES I think something needs to be done to differentiate itself. I support the Master Corridor plan and what it can bring. I support the Tulsa Landing idea. And I also support whatever increase is necessary to repair our failing roads. Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority in that I don't mind paying higher taxes if it gets Tulsa moving forward towards a well supported goal.
Unfortunately, Tulsa's road situation is tragic...does that mean the river doesn't deserve attention? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's complicated, because Tulsa simply needs more income if it's going to fix all those roads and they can't generate more income if they don't keep citizens from moving to the suburbs year after year by improving Tulsa's appeal. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't always have any easy end. Just some rambling perspective I suppose.
Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!
I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by wavoka
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.
Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.
Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.
If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.
Blah, blah, blah.
You made the statement that Mr. Wrinkle and I were "There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be." which I have proven in my case to be untrue. Put simply you are an elitist who thinks they know better than everyone else.
I understand your passion for the river, but your tactic of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with your view is pathetic.
The nice thing about a public post is that, like a newspaper one can go back and check for veracity. You should do that more often.
I never said or implied, that you were an unhappy employee. I did ask if his views were like yours. You made a jump to connect the two. That's twice in two posts that you have made this mistake.
Honestly, your view is so common that any attempt to make this a personal thing is a waste of your talents. I have heard this view since I was a child espoused mostly from middle income non governmental employees. Its on bumper stickers, and is used by candidates in almost every campaign. Its sort of like the "drunken painter" remarks my father always endured.
What in the world would make you think I am an elitist? I only have one miserable degree which has never made me a 6 figure income.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I agree.
I have some of them fancy degrees and I am an idiot.
I am not the only idiot in a town our size, but I have the most witnesses.
Ever considered trying out for "Last Comic Standing"? You could go on as Henny Youngman.[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!
I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.
Okay, I don't have multiple degrees and never played a doctor on television, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Somehow, we aren't getting what we are paying for on road maintenance. The general condition and lack of repair I see is almost to the point of arrogant defiance on the part of the city.
I don't have a problem with ideas like toll bridges and river improvement. However, Tulsa has a history of ignoring infrastructure maintenance and improvements while our leader's short attention spans lead them elsewhere.
To me it's like having a neighbor who's roof is crumbling off the house, paint is peeling, fence is collapsing, and the yard is over-grown because his lawn mower is broken. All of his necessities are in shambles, then a new ski boat shows up in his driveway.
I was brought up to take care of needs first and wants second. Streets are a need, a massive river development, in my book, is a want.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!
I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.
Okay, I don't have multiple degrees and never played a doctor on television, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Somehow, we aren't getting what we are paying for on road maintenance. The general condition and lack of repair I see is almost to the point of arrogant defiance on the part of the city.
I don't have a problem with ideas like toll bridges and river improvement. However, Tulsa has a history of ignoring infrastructure maintenance and improvements while our leader's short attention spans lead them elsewhere.
To me it's like having a neighbor who's roof is crumbling off the house, paint is peeling, fence is collapsing, and the yard is over-grown because his lawn mower is broken. All of his necessities are in shambles, then a new ski boat shows up in his driveway.
I was brought up to take care of needs first and wants second. Streets are a need, a massive river development, in my book, is a want.
Sounds like you've met my neighbors.[;)]
Fair enough. Start the ball rolling for no more added taxes for projects till the roads are in good shape and maintained correctly. Forget river development in our lifetimes though. I guess we could take 2025 money to do it. I'll support you, but not many other taxpayers will.
BTW did you support the V2025 tax? The roads were in bad shape back then too.
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of retail development along with public use facilities. Think about areas like the waterfront in Bricktown in OKC or the river in San Antonio. Those areas wouldn't be near the draw with out dining, entertainment, galleries, and unique retail. I'm not saying it has to be the central focus, but it makes it of more interest to people who don't care to bike, jog, kayak, walk, etc. Plus it offers a payback to make it more self-sustaining.
I'd gladly pay a little more tax for river development if we had a track record of our local government managing assets and projects competently. Unfortunately they don't and haven't. My mind isn't made up on a tax for the river as of yet. I believe my sentiment on new taxes is the same as others.
I believe this is the largest single reason people are against any new taxes for any new amenities. When a city doesn't manage it's assets very well, it's hard to believe they are going to do any better with them in the future.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of retail development along with public use facilities. Think about areas like the waterfront in Bricktown in OKC or the river in San Antonio. Those areas wouldn't be near the draw with out dining, entertainment, galleries, and unique retail. I'm not saying it has to be the central focus, but it makes it of more interest to people who don't care to bike, jog, kayak, walk, etc. Plus it offers a payback to make it more self-sustaining.
I'd gladly pay a little more tax for river development if we had a track record of our local government managing assets and projects competently. Unfortunately they don't and haven't. My mind isn't made up on a tax for the river as of yet. I believe my sentiment on new taxes is the same as others.
I believe this is the largest single reason people are against any new taxes for any new amenities. When a city doesn't manage it's assets very well, it's hard to believe they are going to do any better with them in the future.
I personally don't mind commercialism if it is contained to specific areas with other areas designed for nature only. My gut reaction is that Tulsans are afraid that "dining" translates to "watering holes" and they don't want that.
The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40years ago. What happened?
Our River plan is going to need to include lots of sandbags if it doesn't stop raining.
A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:
The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I personally don't mind commercialism if it is contained to specific areas with other areas designed for nature only. My gut reaction is that Tulsans are afraid that "dining" translates to "watering holes" and they don't want that.
The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40years ago. What happened?
I was born around then, coincidence? [;)]
Tulsan's are pretty conditional on what we want. What happens is places like Jenks or OKC are constantly on our "most admired" list because they just forge ahead and do it. We have to have a five to ten year circle-@#$% when it comes to doing anything innovative, in the meantime, other cities wind up doing what we wish we could do.
Riverwalk crossing is a classic example of what can be done with a private investment and citizens and leaders who don't try to hamstring the development at every turn.
The develper and many of the merchants are doing quite well. All one has to do is drive into the parking lot on a Friday or Saturday night and it's obvious there is a market for commercial establishments along the river.
To this day I still can't get the ringing out of my ears from when the Aquarium was proposed at 71st & Riverside and the animal rights crowd started piping up.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:
The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.
We started off probably several billion dollars behind in URGENTLY NEEDED street improvements. I think in recent years we have been doing enough that I would think we are somewhat closing the gap, but the gap is still huge. We are still way behind. And if we don't keep crying about it, we'll start falling further behind again.
I dream of a day where a brand new car can maintain a good suspension for more than 1,000 miles in Tulsa :D
Unfortunately we also seem to be behind on police and education.
But I do see the river plan as a good investment of tax dollars. The kind of thing that will ultimately help Tulsa prosper, and generate more tax revenue years down the line thus helping us overcome our shortfalls.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
To date, I've not expressed an opinion on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
My prior posting, and most all of my postings on TN are to provide additional information (some of which, IMO, few had thought about specifically), insight and opinion.
I know of no job, educational experiences or party affiliation requirements associated with that endeavor, so excuse me if I do not post my resume.
I will say that I have enough of both job and education, including many years' experience in several areas in which I could be considered 'expert' level at this point, which makes me at least as well qualified as Roger Staubach in everything but football. Still, we all make mistakes, sometimes big ones, like that pass in the closing seconds of the big game which was intercepted.
As you noticed, I strongly oppose the One Tech deal because it's bad. I simply tried to show why. And, yes, I think Kitty's playing with us. But, it's also now obvious that deal is being handed her to implement, and she feels some obligation to attempt to see it through, no matter how wrong it is, or what it could potentially do to our City. (note that's not "for").
As for the River, I'm pretty much willing to go along with the desires of Tulsans on it. And, that plan DID have much public input, which was very non-typical to begin with. I did wish to help make sure they (Tulsans) know what it was they think they are getting. I'd bet if they were polled, there'd be quite a few versions of the Plan represented, some of which were never even actually considered.
So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there (Note: That's not City, so whatever might happen in the Tulsa stretch would require County approval), along with initiating another major new tax, which would push the overall Sales Tax here to very close to 9%. (8.917%). The National Average Sales Tax is currently 5.93%. So, suggesting we are not paying enough, or are borderline high-side is being extremely conservative.
Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.
In the last post, the intent was to make it clear to readers that was the case again in this proposal. So long as they know that, and still vote to approve the tax, then that's fine with me. It's all the deception with which I have trouble. Nobody's putting the information out for evaluation. They simply want us to trust them, even after having lied over and over again about what they're actually up to. One Tech is probably the epitome of that, but Vision 2025 is no different in most respects.
I've come to the conclusion the entire operation is future-based upon this new 'Regional Fire District Tax', which will break the glass ceiling on another new form of tax for City. Plans had to abruptly change recently when the State Legislature saw through it and rejected it based upon previous concepts which were in place (to protect us Citizens) about how Cities should be funded.
What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
To begin with, it's a COUNTY Tax, not a City Tax. Followed closely by the fact that it's a SALES TAX and the resulting Sales Tax Revenue Bond, not a Project Revenue Bond or General Obligation Bond (which makes them do exactly what they said they would).
And, conceptually, I have trouble providing the COUNTY ANY Sales Tax, for any purpose. County operations have typically been funded through Ad Valorem Taxes or Bonds, not Sales Taxes. While Cities rely on Sales Taxes (and, by law cannot use Ad Valorem for operations). Any Sales Tax we provide the County reduces the margin available for the City (who, we say, needs more cops, street lighting, pools, etc.). As we have seen, the County type of Government (the structure) is inappropriate for handling large public projects with huge amounts of money involved. Before County is able to do this properly, it's own structure should be modified to allow both public input and the ability of Commissioners to actually speak to one another. They currently cannot unless 24-hrs prior notice is posted for the public.
Second, this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues. I think Tulsa's portion of the River should be up to Tulsans to decide.
Third, we were told both dams and the resulting required modifications/improvements to Zink Lake dam were included in Vision 2025, then, later, stated as only covering engineering and planning costs.
Whether or not that's the case, did you know they can just change their minds like this at will, anytime because the funds are not tied to actual projects when based upon Sales Tax Revenue Bonds?
The City clearly had the intent of having Federal Matching Funds to do these projects, but now don't wish to bother or wait. But, then, if they get public proceeds now for the entire project, then get Federal Funds later, it frees up a lot of discretionary money for new things they can think of which they think needs doing (not necessarily us).
Fourth, the County has failed to recognize that if Vision 2025 Sales Tax proceeds continue at the current rate, there's more than enough overage to pay the full cost of the River Plan. Yet, they seek another new tax.
So, WB, if you see these things as a personal attack by me on our Mayor Taylor, then you'll just have to live with it.
I don't particularly care for her being our Mayor. I didn't vote for her and don't believe she has the real interests of a majority of Tulsans at heart with her actions. She also lost a great deal of credibility by voting twice in the 2004 Presidential election and with some of her recent attempts at garnishing money from the populace. In particular, the initial budget was promoted as being $5M short, when in reality the prior administration ended with more than a $10M surplus. She raised water/sewer/stormwater rates to obtain that amount (9% increase). And, this year, suggested another increase (7% this time) was necessary when it was not. Last year's budget (2006-2007) was left with over $22 Million in surplus revenue just from Sales Tax revenues and the Utility Rate increase, before Use Taxes of another $18M and all the various fees, permit costs and other intrinsic costs were adjusted upward. And, starting July 1, the EMSA Tax of another $5M.
It's come to me, from an impressionists' standpoint, of a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter (One Tech).
Meanwhile, roads continue to be ignored, and planned to be ignored for the next 5 years according to her own Long Term Capital Plan. Roads are planned to be funded at 3% of the stated need through 2012.
But, back on topic, Ms. Taylor has little involvement in the River Tax Plan being promoted other than to jump on in support of the County, when, in fact and in MO, she should be doing everything she can to keep the Tulsa part of the River in Tulsa and up to Tulsans to decide.
This Plan simply attempts to get Tulsans to pay for improvements in Sand Springs and Jenks primarily. Remember, we already have a dam and "water in the river" (when not intentionally drained) as Zink Lake. So, there's nothing really preventing development along the river now, at least in a free market sense. It doesn't take the County to do that.
It should be possible now for anyone with a plan to approach our City Council and have it evaluated for its' compliance with the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and issued a permit if it so complies. The City (or County) does not need to acquire land except to control things in a heavy-handed way. Besides, land has too often been used as supplemental taxpayer contribution to projects when this is both unnecessary and an extension of benefits already being provided in the form of infrastructure improvements, tax incentives and other funding.
In the case of the West bank development, it's already a skunked up deal because The Channels, and both City/County, have 'established' the value for two of the major parcels south of 11th St and north of 21st St (with the River West Festival Park in between) at what appears to me to be top-end market values. So, right off the bat, $125M of our $277M Plan is pay those prices for that land. I say let the potential developer negotiate the land price and acquire it for their own project.
In this case, the City would have to decide whether it wants to sell the River West Festival Park to them, or perhaps donate it. But, acquiring all the land just to turn it to a [hand-chosen] developer would be wrong, IMO.
However, I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there. The current Plan is to keep the River more natural in the Tulsa section, while offloading commercial development to both ends, at Sand Springs and Jenks. It's unclear to me if this was the real intent of Tulsans when they spoke, or if it perhaps is to protect East Side development commercialization potential for other developers since current thinking suggests both may not be viable.
Remember, the One Tech deal included over $5M of Sales Tax revenues by 2012 for the current Public Works building on the south of 21st Street, while Hemilfarb himself stated only weeks ago that the building use might be "more recreational than commercial" in nature.
One last reason I just thought of, we have to also remember any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds.
As I stated, that's O.K. as long as Tulsans agree and know that's what is happening. But, between City, County persons and the Marketing Division of the Tulsa World, the information we get is "100% Rosy".
If that makes me negative, then so be it. But, I suggest, none of my postings could be considered "revenge", a "grudge against this administration" or uncivil. I believe in good government, and I do get a bit ragged when we don't get it, especially when it has long-lasting effects which alter history beyond whomever are the current administration.
At some point you will realize I have nothing but the best interests of Tulsa, the City, in mind.
UPDATE: I blundered on the last issue. Sales Tax would still apply to any property already within Tulsa City Limits, but County owned land would be removed from the Ad Valorem Tax Roll. And, City of Tulsa Zoning and Code Enforcement would also still apply to those properties inside Tulsa City Limits.
Great post, maybe you should run for mayor :D
Um... we've got the private sector willing to make $100 Million in capital improvements to PUBLIC land/facilities if the public pays $277 million...
If someone came to you and said, "For every $2.77 you spend on improvements to your home/land, I'll give you $1.00 to invest in further improvements that will be yours to keep and enjoy forever" ...what would you say? What would you say to someone who would turn down an offer like this?
What I like most about this plan is that it doesn't include turning the river into a giant strip mall. It's based on the concept of improving the park/water/greenspace and making it more appealing. What will come from this will be improvements to all private/commercial property in the vicinity of the river on both the east and west banks. It will maximize the value of what I already believe is one of our most valuable assets: this uninterrupted ribbon of green space and the water that flows down the Arkansas.
Visitors to Tulsa are always impressed by the river and Riverside Drive. I believe that this investment will result in it being a true showpiece. At least that's my hope.
I wouldn't mind a few places with a river view for cocktails and dining.
That point is now. Your remarks up to this point had been cryptic, and referring to the Mayor in a perjorative way, "Kitty", made me think you were just one more anti-growth, anti-tax hard head. I didn't vote for her, I voted against the incumbent who infuriated me.
So there are some revelations for me in your post and if true, some answers to the odd behavior I have observed in re river development. Geez, what took you so long?
Having raised so many questions and with so much to digest, I will read your post a few more times and attempt some reasonable questions. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Um... we've got the private sector willing to make $100 Million in capital improvements to PUBLIC land/facilities if the public pays $277 million...
If someone came to you and said, "For every $2.77 you spend on improvements to your home/land, I'll give you $1.00 to invest in further improvements that will be yours to keep and enjoy forever" ...what would you say? What would you say to someone who would turn down an offer like this?
What I like most about this plan is that it doesn't include turning the river into a giant strip mall. It's based on the concept of improving the park/water/greenspace and making it more appealing. What will come from this will be improvements to all private/commercial property in the vicinity of the river on both the east and west banks. It will maximize the value of what I already believe is one of our most valuable assets: this uninterrupted ribbon of green space and the water that flows down the Arkansas.
Visitors to Tulsa are always impressed by the river and Riverside Drive. I believe that this investment will result in it being a true showpiece. At least that's my hope.
You've apparently never heard of 'Matching Funds', which is really what the $100M donation is, read the fine print.
I also don't believe I mentioned strip malls either. But, as was stated by another, it would be nice to enjoy dinner and a drink at rivers' edge at sunset.
Extremes are to be avoided. And, as far as I'm concerned, the King's Landing or whatever it's called should pretty much fill the category you describe.
It also seems like people don't yet understand the shear magnitude of the space the banks of the river represent.
I just say let the voters decide. I really want to see these plans or ones like it done NOW. If I had the money I would do it myself. But seeing as I cant pay for the whole shebang it will require others like me who want it done to gather together and pay for it. Hence a vote and a tax. If that tax passes, you dont like it, and the city isn't worth living in, move.
If I had a dime for every time someone asked me, "With your talent why do you choose to live here? You could really do well any place in the world." But I have always thought Tulsa has had a lot of potential and that I should hang in there and hope it fulfills that potential, and perhaps I could even do some small things to make it a better place. Many of my friends have left. They say they are not going to wait, they are not getting any younger and want to enjoy life now. I am in my 40s now and I wonder if I made the right choice. Things are turning around, but I lost a lot of my youth waiting and working for things to get better. How much longer do I have to wait to see something wonderful along our river? (the Kings Landing and a Kum n go aint gonna cut it) Downtown, Brookside, and Cherry are showing signs of sustainable growth. And I am so glad I have lived to see the day that we actually have a public graduate university system starting here. The last of the big "dreams and wishes" for our city is to make the River Parks really become a full fleged destination, with a wide range of things to do and enjoy for all types of people. It would really set up all the pieces that we can then start to build and improve upon.
If you dont like this plan for goodness sakes come up with your own and push it. Its not as though any of them over the last 50 years or so has been perfect. Lets throw it up for a vote, if it doesnt pass, we can try another idea. Frankly I am not up to waiting another 40 some odd years. That will cost us all too much.
There is absolutely nothing which prohibits more than one question being on a ballot.
They can even be variations of the same thing, with the one getting the most votes winning. What a concept.
So, when was the last time anyone here was asked to help word the actual ballot?
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
I wouldn't mind a few places with a river view for cocktails and dining.
dont forget mosquitos.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I just say let the voters decide.
I share your frustration. But do the voters know what it is they're deciding on or have they just been worn down like you and I and are about ready to accept anything just to get it started?
Let's take this comment:
So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there
Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.I had not thought of the plan in just that way. We are about to vote away the retail portion of the development in favor of an "uninterrupted ribbon of green space and water" that will "impress visitors". But not encourage them to spend any money or do any commerce on our strip of green. Jenks, Bixby, Sand Springs and BA will reap the tax money and the small business income, while we get approving nods for our good stewardship.[;)]Not what I had in mind.
I was hoping for districts along the river separated by entertainment, restaurant, water activity, shopping and gathering spots. And control by the county is enough to run off most voters who watched the county vs. city in the center ring this spring. County control of the whole river will be similar to how the fairgrounds is operated if you like that.
On Point #1 I agree with Wrinkle. I doubt the average voter has looked at it this way.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:
The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.
700 million isn't even a quarter of the 4 billion dollar backlog of needed, unfunded maintenance identified on existing infrastructure.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.
Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.
I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?
To date, I've not expressed an opinion on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
My prior posting, and most all of my postings on TN are to provide additional information (some of which, IMO, few had thought about specifically), insight and opinion.
I know of no job, educational experiences or party affiliation requirements associated with that endeavor, so excuse me if I do not post my resume.
I will say that I have enough of both job and education, including many years' experience in several areas in which I could be considered 'expert' level at this point, which makes me at least as well qualified as Roger Staubach in everything but football. Still, we all make mistakes, sometimes big ones, like that pass in the closing seconds of the big game which was intercepted.
As you noticed, I strongly oppose the One Tech deal because it's bad. I simply tried to show why. And, yes, I think Kitty's playing with us. But, it's also now obvious that deal is being handed her to implement, and she feels some obligation to attempt to see it through, no matter how wrong it is, or what it could potentially do to our City. (note that's not "for").
As for the River, I'm pretty much willing to go along with the desires of Tulsans on it. And, that plan DID have much public input, which was very non-typical to begin with. I did wish to help make sure they (Tulsans) know what it was they think they are getting. I'd bet if they were polled, there'd be quite a few versions of the Plan represented, some of which were never even actually considered.
So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there (Note: That's not City, so whatever might happen in the Tulsa stretch would require County approval), along with initiating another major new tax, which would push the overall Sales Tax here to very close to 9%. (8.917%). The ational Average Sales Tax is currently 5.93%. So, suggesting we are not paying enough, or are borderline high-side is being extremely conservative.
Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.
In the last post, the intent was to make it clear to readers that was the case again in this proposal. So long as they know that, and still vote to approve the tax, then that's fine with me. It's all the deception with which I have trouble. Nobody's putting the information out for evaluation. They simply want us to trust them, even after having lied over and over again about what they're actually up to. One Tech is probably the epitome of that, but Vision 2025 is no different in most respects.
I've come to the conclusion the entire operation is future-based upon this new 'Regional Fire District Tax', which will break the glass ceiling on another new form of tax for City. Plans had to abruptly change recently when the State Legislature saw through it and rejected it based upon previous concepts which were in place (to protect us Citizens) about how Cities should be funded.
What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
To begin with, it's a COUNTY Tax, not a City Tax. Followed closely by the fact that it's a SALES TAX and the resulting Sales Tax Revenue Bond, not a Project Revenue Bond or General Obligation Bond (which makes them do exactly what they said they would).
And, conceptually, I have trouble providing the COUNTY ANY Sales Tax, for any purpose. County operations have typically been funded through Ad Valorem Taxes or Bonds, not Sales Taxes. While Cities rely on Sales Taxes (and, by law cannot use Ad Valorem for operations). Any Sales Tax we provide the County reduces the margin available for the City (who, we say, needs more cops, street lighting, pools, etc.). As we have seen, the County type of Government (the structure) is inappropriate for handling large public projects with huge amounts of money involved. Before County is able to do this properly, it's own structure should be modified to allow both public input and the ability of Commissioners to actually speak to one another. They currently cannot unless 24-hrs prior notice is posted for the public.
Second, this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues. I think Tulsa's portion of the River should be up to Tulsans to decide.
Third, we were told both dams and the resulting required modifications/improvements to Zink Lake dam were included in Vision 2025, then, later, stated as only covering engineering and planning costs.
Whether or not that's the case, did you know they can just change their minds like this at will, anytime because the funds are not tied to actual projects when based upon Sales Tax Revenue Bonds?
The City clearly had the intent of having Federal Matching Funds to do these projects, but now don't wish to bother or wait. But, then, if they get public proceeds now for the entire project, then get Federal Funds later, it frees up a lot of discretionary money for new things they can think of which they think needs doing (not necessarily us).
Fourth, the County has failed to recognize that if Vision 2025 Sales Tax proceeds continue at the current rate, there's more than enough overage to pay the full cost of the River Plan. Yet, they seek another new tax.
So, WB, if you see these things as a personal attack by me on our Mayor Taylor, then you'll just have to live with it.
I don't particularly care for her being our Mayor. I didn't vote for her and don't believe she has the real interests of a majority of Tulsans at heart with her actions. She also lost a great deal of credibility by voting twice in the 2004 Presidential election and with some of her recent attempts at garnishing money from the populace. In particular, the initial budget was promoted as being $5M short, when in reality the prior administration ended with more than a $10M surplus. She raised water/sewer/stormwater rates to obtain that amount (9% increase). And, this year, suggested another increase (7% this time) was necessary when it was not. Last year's budget (2006-2007) was left with over $22 Million in surplus revenue just from Sales Tax revenues and the Utility Rate increase, before Use Taxes of another $18M and all the various fees, permit costs and other intrinsic costs were adjusted upward. And, starting July 1, the EMSA Tax of another $5M.
It's come to me, from an impressionists' standpoint, of a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter (One Tech).
Meanwhile, roads continue to be ignored, and planned to be ignored for the next 5 years according to her own Long Term Capital Plan. Roads are planned to be funded at 3% of the stated need through 2012.
But, back on topic, Ms. Taylor has little involvement in the River Tax Plan being promoted other than to jump on in support of the County, when, in fact and in MO, she should be doing everything she can to keep the Tulsa part of the River in Tulsa and up to Tulsans to decide.
This Plan simply attempts to get Tulsans to pay for improvements in Sand Springs and Jenks primarily. Remember, we already have a dam and "water in the river" (when not intentionally drained) as Zink Lake. So, there's nothing really preventing development along the river now, at least in a free market sense. It doesn't take the County to do that.
It should be possible now for anyone with a plan to approach our City Council and have it evaluated for its' compliance with the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and issued a permit if it so complies. The City (or County) does not need to acquire land except to control things in a heavy-handed way. Besides, land has too often been used as supplemental taxpayer contribution to projects when this is both unnecessary and an extension of benefits already being provided in the form of infrastructure improvements, tax incentives and other funding.
In the case of the West bank development, it's already a skunked up deal because The Channels, and both City/County, have 'established' the value for two of the major parcels south of 11th St and north of 21st St (with the River West Festival Park in between) at what appears to me to be top-end market values. So, right off the bat, $125M of our $277M Plan is pay those prices for that land. I say let the potential developer negotiate the land price and acquire it for their own project.
In this case, the City would have to decide whether it wants to sell the River West Festival Park to them, or perhaps donate it. But, acquiring all the land just to turn it to a [hand-chosen] developer would be wrong, IMO.
However, I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there. The current Plan is to keep the River more natural in the Tulsa section, while offloading commercial development to both ends, at Sand Springs and Jenks. It's unclear to me if this was the real intent of Tulsans when they spoke, or if it perhaps is to protect East Side development commercialization potential for other developers since current thinking suggests both may not be viable.
Remember, the One Tech deal included over $5M of Sales Tax revenues by 2012 for the current Public Works building on the south of 21st Street, while Hemilfarb himself stated only weeks ago that the building use might be "more recreational than commercial" in nature.
One last reason I just thought of, we have to also remember any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds.
As I stated, that's O.K. as long as Tulsans agree and know that's what is happening. But, between City, County persons and the Marketing Division of the Tulsa World, the information we get is "100% Rosy".
If that makes me negative, then so be it. But, I suggest, none of my postings could be considered "revenge", a "grudge against this administration" or uncivil. I believe in good government, and I do get a bit ragged when we don't get it, especially when it has long-lasting effects which alter history beyond whomever are the current administration.
At some point you will realize I have nothing but the best interests of Tulsa, the City, in mind.
Excellent post. You've got my vote for Mayor.
Ok I had a long rant on here but I deleted it because I want to make sure I understand what you all are saying. In a nutshell...
-----If this County tax passes, the property that we are hoping to develop across from downtown will now be owned by the County.
" any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds." " this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues."
-----And that the intent of this plan is to actually have no development within the Tulsa section of the river.
"IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan.... is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, "
"I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there."
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok I had a long rant on here but I deleted it because I want to make sure I understand what you all are saying. In a nutshell...
-----If this County tax passes, the property that we are hoping to develop across from downtown will now be owned by the County.
" any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds." " this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues."
-----And that the intent of this plan is to actually have no development within the Tulsa section of the river.
"IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan.... is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, "
"I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there."
In my haste on that last item, I blundered.
County purchase of land does NOT automatically make it less subject to City Sales Taxes if it is currently within the Tulsa City Limits.
It would, however, remove it from the Ad Valorem Tax rolls, as I understand things. And, so long as it's within the City Limit, it would also be subject to zoning and code provision of the City.
But, the County Authority could suggest it be de-annexed, although the Tulsa City Council would have to authorize such a transfer.
So, that was an error on my part.
It does make me wonder how much current Ad Valorem Tax is being paid by WestPort (what, 400 units or so?) and the Concrete Plant properties.
As for your second item, I don't think the Plan, or concept, is for no development. Just not retail and/or commercial so much. And, this Plan provides for none at this point.
Look for terms like "public gathering points" rather than "mult-storied residential", "mixed use" or "drunken dancing".
Thought I'd mention something else.
How much sense does it make to buy and destroy an existing 400 unit housing project (WestPort) to potentially develop new housing, along with some other more retail type stuff at the same site?.
There's plenty of river edge there without having to do that. And, we don't loose housing and tax revenue. Let the market decide when it's time for the site to be cleared. The City or County really has no reason to be buying and shutting it down prior to the need.
Why do I have this funny feeling this also has something to do with OSU Med School?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Thought I'd mention something else.
How much sense does it make to buy and destroy an existing 400 unit housing project (WestPort) to potentially develop new housing, along with some other more retail type stuff at the same sight?.
There's plenty of river edge there without having to do that. And, we don't loose housing and tax revenue. Let the market decide when it's time for the site to be cleared. The City or County really has no reason to be buying and shutting it down prior to the need.
Why do I have this funny feeling this also has something to do with OSU Med School?
That is one of the odd behaviors I referred to. It made sense in the Channels proposal to clear off the area. But not in the other plans. I run past Westport every day and know people who live there. They are in good condition and frankly haven't been able to capitalize on their river bank status because of shortsighted policies of the park authorities. The owners are pretty aggressive and would sell at the above market offering price in a hearbeat though.
Knowing the political power of the east side of the river between 11th and 31st, it isn't surprising to see no real efforts at retail, mixed use and drunken dancing in that area.
I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.
1.What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.
This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?
Well in that case here is my rant lol.
Every meeting about river development I have been to or every article about this plan in the TW online and others has been followed by angry comments of people saying we are destroying the river with development. There are many people who want NO development along the river, even seeing parks as horrible. Have any of you read the many comments in the TW online after the article about this plan? There were many people, not ones just complaining about a tax, they were primarily complaining that this was ruining the river with development. A lot of people don't want their trees, birds, raccoons, view or anything else messed with along the river. If this went up for a vote it would likely fail not because there was not enough development and development going to the suburbs as you may see it, but because many think it already has too much development in it and this plan would completely destroy it.
They have some image of the whole river being turned into a strip mall or something. To hear you all talking about it as not being enough development is shocking in this context.
I think this plan strikes a decent balance for both sides. It improves the park space, and allows for development on the West Bank across from downtown. Everything I have been "getting from the ether" is that the city and mayor WANT a large mixed use development in that area. As for shedding retail to the suburbs. I get your point but I also see that if something like the Tulsa Landing goes in that alone will be far larger than all the suburban developments combined. No need to spread stuff all along the river in Tulsa fighting with the no development crowd. Its easier to get this going by pushing for more dense urban development in one area. (plus there are quite a few hints here and there that long term after this stuff is done that there will be other areas open for development.) This pretty much goes with the old INCOG plan which has developed park spaces concentrated in certain areas and also shows where there are areas that should be set aside for future commercial and residential growth. ( like the area across the river between 41st and 31st)
This plan seems to me to be a good start and reasonable approach, not perfect for the no development crowd but able to convince enough of them that its not going to destroy the whole river with development to get something done... not perfect for you who want more development, but I think has some very promising development potential if we do get a Tulsa Landing type project. Its not perfect, but show me a better plan, its small, not too expensive, and politically passable if we work at it.
I dont think you have to worry about it not being enough commercial development when so many people are arguing that its too much. We are going to get nothing once again if argue it this way. My feeling is that your going to have a heck of a time convincing enough people that this is not going to commercialize the river to get even this much potential development passed.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Well in that case here is my rant lol.
Every meeting about river development I have been to or every article about this plan in the TW online and others has been followed by angry comments of people saying we are destroying the river with development. There are many people who want NO development along the river, even seeing parks as horrible. Have any of you read the many comments in the TW online after the article about this plan? There were many people, not ones just complaining about a tax, they were primarily complaining that this was ruining the river with development. A lot of people don't want their trees, birds, raccoons, view or anything else messed with along the river. If this went up for a vote it would likely fail not because there was not enough development and development going to the suburbs as you may see it, but because many think it already has too much development in it and this plan would completely destroy it.
They have some image of the whole river being turned into a strip mall or something. To hear you all talking about it as not being enough development is shocking in this context.
I think this plan strikes a decent balance for both sides. It improves the park space, and allows for development on the West Bank across from downtown. Everything I have been "getting from the ether" is that the city and mayor WANT a large mixed use development in that area. As for shedding retail to the suburbs. I get your point but I also see that if something like the Tulsa Landing goes in that alone will be far larger than all the suburban developments combined. No need to spread stuff all along the river in Tulsa fighting with the no development crowd. Its easier to get this going by pushing for more dense urban development in one area. (plus there are quite a few hints here and there that long term after this stuff is done that there will be other areas open for development.) This pretty much goes with the old INCOG plan which has developed park spaces concentrated in certain areas and also shows where there are areas that should be set aside for future commercial and residential growth. ( like the area across the river between 41st and 31st)
This plan seems to me to be a good start and reasonable approach, not perfect for the no development crowd but able to convince enough of them that its not going to destroy the whole river with development to get something done... not perfect for you who want more development, but I think has some very promising development potential if we do get a Tulsa Landing type project. Its not perfect, but show me a better plan, its small, not too expensive, and politically passable if we work at it.
I dont think you have to worry about it not being enough commercial development when so many people are arguing that its too much. We are going to get nothing once again if argue it this way. My feeling is that your going to have a heck of a time convincing enough people that this is not going to commercialize the river to get even this much potential development passed.
I pretty much agree with your comments. I just didn't have a feel for how large and vocal the no development contingent was in reality. As I stated, that's fine as long as that's what they want, from my point of view. I'd still want to be able to relax, enjoy a good meal with a drink and watch the sun set inside the City of Tulsa. There's really quite a LOT of space for a number of things to occur without affecting each other.
My real problem, as I also stated, is the funding mechanism along with the establishment of a County Authority to rule. I'd favor the County stepping aside on this deal since virtually the entire river in Tulsa County is contained within one or another City Limits.
We now see a Bixby developer planning a $50M development in Bixby. I'm all for Bixby residents deciding if it's appropriate for them rather than the developer having to go to the County Authority and seek approval. It could become a situation where Broken Arrow, with somewhat more politcal clout than Bixby, could get the project killed if they felt it affected their plans.
Somewhere along the line, INCOG's Arkansas Corridor Master Plan becomes a real 'plan' as opposed to a guide, which it really is.
Still, there's something odd about that west bank parcel. IAC, I don't feel the land needs to be purchased by citizens, especially at premium rates and what appear to be unfavorable terms (compared to the 7% bond rate and added commision costs on the One Tech deal).
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.
1.What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.
This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?
The County is counting on voter ignorance.
They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.
I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.
No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.
If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term. Say, rounding the current Sales Tax Rate to 8.6%, giving the City 0.083% for whatever term is needed to generate the required amount of funding. (Note: If County's current 1.017% is producing over $1.25B in 13 years, small percentages add up to big numbers over time, the 0.083% for the same term is about 8.16% of that amount, or $102M)
Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.
I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.
This scheme also gives the individual communities much more control over river development by being able to petition their local Councils on each and every project as opposed to having to take some good/bad with a big package of stuff as a compromise.
If some developer wants to build a "Bowling Ally with a View", it could be their view is fine, but our view of it is not so good. Local interests could become involved in the Council approval process and inject their opinion as it's being considered. Like we do on many things now.
The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.
1.What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.
This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?
The County is counting on voter ignorance.
They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.
I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.
No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.
If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term.
Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.
I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.
The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.
I agree and I like the idea of bond issues that require what is planned to be executed. That leads to why both of these mayors (LaFortune and Taylor) have not insisted on preserving our interests? Is the county stronger, more devious, than the city or colluding?
Secondly, noting the possible adversarial positions that cities along the river will be in regarding their own plans, isn't there some need for a regional authority to referee the parties? I could see SS deciding not to release water for downstream activities if it hampered their own development.
Lastly, yes free market development would be preferable using Incog as guidance but that doesn't seem feasible given the myriad amount of regulatory bodies. If not, it already would have happened within the Tulsa boundaries of the river. When Jenks acted as facilitator and not controller of their portion of the river we got Riverwalk. Control is something Tulsa will not give up.
Oh, and Artist, there is not a solid consensus that the river needs to be preserved as green belt. A noisy, insistent minority of nearby landowners, environmentalists and well meaning elitists wants little or no change on the Tulsa portion, but put to a vote with specific descriptions of commercial/retail development ala RiverWalk, the city at large would approve. This small group will never let that happen.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.
1.What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.
From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.
This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?
The County is counting on voter ignorance.
They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.
I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.
No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.
If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term.
Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.
I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.
The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.
I agree and I like the idea of bond issues that require what is planned to be executed. That leads to why both of these mayors (LaFortune and Taylor) have not insisted on preserving our interests? Is the county stronger, more devious, than the city or colluding?
Secondly, noting the possible adversarial positions that cities along the river will be in regarding their own plans, isn't there some need for a regional authority to referee the parties? I could see SS deciding not to release water for downstream activities if it hampered their own development.
Lastly, yes free market development would be preferable using Incog as guidance but that doesn't seem feasible given the myriad amount of regulatory bodies. If not, it already would have happened within the Tulsa boundaries of the river. When Jenks acted as facilitator and not controller of their portion of the river we got Riverwalk. Control is something Tulsa will not give up.
Oh, and Artist, there is not a solid consensus that the river needs to be preserved as green belt. A noisy, insistent minority of nearby landowners, environmentalists and well meaning elitists wants little or no change on the Tulsa portion, but put to a vote with specific descriptions of commercial/retail development ala RiverWalk, the city at large would approve. This small group will never let that happen.
River flow control is never a local issue. That's the realm of the Corps.
I should've added whatever channelization is required for the dams to work properly as part of the County's involvement, along with the Corps.
After that, it all becomes the process by which RiverWalk was developed, or the new Bixby plan.
------
Wanted to add that Tulsa's City Council relies a great deal on INCOG for the approval process. Plans are submitted to them for their 'blessing' prior to coming to the City Council. While the Council DOES NOT have to follow that advice (INCOG's is a 'recommendation'), they usually do.
So, INCOG would generally be the overriding authority (Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?) as to whether a particular proposed development complies with their own Master Plan. Isn't INCOG and MAPC essentially the same thing? I'm not sure.
Each of the affected Cities along the river could choose to do this method, or not. It's up to them.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40 years ago. What happened?
Maybe you just
thought they were doing a good job. At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday. Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.
If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers. That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point. I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase. I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.
We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago. Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the
exact same mistakes we did decades ago. I don't think they deserve praise,
they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all. In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too. But I guess that's someone else's problem.
There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever. "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable. It's shameful.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
...Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago. I don't think they deserve praise, the[ir] sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all. In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too...
Thank you! I'm in the process of trying to prevent the same thing from happening in Skiatook. With all the development going in at the lake, development is starting to pick up and the
last thing I want to happen is to turn into an Owasso. That's another subject, though.
I look forward to the day that Tulsa's development
is sustainable and hotels like aloft are forced to move downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40 years ago. What happened?
Maybe you just thought they were doing a good job. At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday. Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.
If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers. That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point. I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase. I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.
We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago. Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago. I don't think they deserve praise, they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all. In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too. But I guess that's someone else's problem.
There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever. "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable. It's shameful.
I'm sure you're right. I was just 16 at the time. I judged that on a new BA expressway, fairly new civic center complex, good roads, lots of downtown building and a new girlfriend.
The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm and probably wouldn't care anyway. It was a time for big money to be made in building the burbs.
I beleive the way you described the dilemma is worthy of printing out and keeping somewhere to recite whenever people tell me how bad the roads are here.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm
Absolutely. But it's forty years later and most people, including our politicians, haven't changed. The thing that bothers me most is that sustainability
is good business, and our business community still turns away.
It's not just $3.00/gal gasoline that I'm talking about. I'm talking about the security of investing in a piece of ground that you
know will still have value in 10 years. I'm talking about allowing bigger buildings and more flexibility in the way that you use them. I'm talking about mass transit that
works. I'm talking about less waste and inefficiency.
In the end, I'm talking about
more people making better and more efficient use of the infrastructure that we've already built. We could end up with
lower taxes, not to mention a City that is more walkable and interesting to visit.
The folks who
really upset me are the dead-enders who want to continue having low taxes, but refuse to consider investments in efficiency, or change of any kind for that matter. Unlike our parents generation, we cannot have it both ways.
If you want to continue to have your low taxes, then you had better start supporting efforts to beef up efficiency...and that means mass transit, land use changes, redevelopment, etc. It'll be a different town in the end, but at least it'll be sustainable.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm
Absolutely. But it's forty years later and most people, including our politicians, haven't changed. The thing that bothers me most is that sustainability is good business, and our business community still turns away.
It's not just $3.00/gal gasoline that I'm talking about. I'm talking about the security of investing in a piece of ground that you know will still have value in 10 years. I'm talking about allowing bigger buildings and more flexibility in the way that you use them. I'm talking about mass transit that works. I'm talking about less waste and inefficiency.
In the end, I'm talking about more people making better and more efficient use of the infrastructure that we've already built. We could end up with lower taxes, not to mention a City that is more walkable and interesting to visit.
The folks who really upset me are the dead-enders who want to continue having low taxes, but refuse to consider investments in efficiency, or change of any kind for that matter. Unlike our parents generation, we cannot have it both ways.
If you want to continue to have your low taxes, then you had better start supporting efforts to beef up efficiency...and that means mass transit, land use changes, redevelopment, etc. It'll be a different town in the end, but at least it'll be sustainable.
]
Chicken Little for mayor!
I'd vote for that.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
Chicken Little for mayor!
He would have to change his name. Nobody would vote for a guy named Chicken (or a chicken named Guy, for that matter).
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40 years ago. What happened?
Maybe you just thought they were doing a good job. At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday. Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.
If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers. That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point. I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase. I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.
We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago. Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago. I don't think they deserve praise, they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all. In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too. But I guess that's someone else's problem.
There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever. "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable. It's shameful.
Wow. Nothing quite like high-handed utopian second-guessing and 20/20 rose-colored hindsight...
You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse.
Oooh... let's build lotsa brownstones and politically correct urban dwelling places so Tulsa's families will move to Rogers County that much faster... brilliant.
"explosion of low density sprawl"???
Interesting. I now live in an area of east Tulsa that was built by developers in the late 60s through the 70s... and when my car broke down, I was able to walk to the grocery store, barber, fast food, restaurant, bar, etc, etc, etc...
As a kid, I remember the 70s in Tulsa. Developers were responding to peoples' wants and needs. Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s didn't care about the folks who had their houses flooded around Mingo and Joe Creeks... Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s wanted a monorail. Ride the bus these days and tell me how a monorail built back in the 70s would have been "sustainable."
And those evil developers in the 70s actually built a lot of condos and duplexes within the city limits. After all, this was during the energy crisis and we all knew at the time that
"in another 20 years" none of this suburban-style growth would be sustainable... so hearing a poster with the screen name
Chicken Little trumpeting Tulsa's development as "cheap and unsustainable" is... well... highly ironic...
"rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point"???
Working families had dreams in the 50s/60s/70s of owning their own homes... they still do...
But hey, I know... let's start our egalitarian new urbanist paradise by first destroying all those sprawling old unsustainable mansions and homes in the Cascia Hall area and force them to live in
new urbanist communes....
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to live in an urban condo in a walkable area of Tulsa. But I understand I represent a small minority of Tulsans. And I don't have a wife and four kids to support who might be much better served by living in one of those "unsustainable" suburbs...
So no... I won't be casting a vote anytime soon for subsidized urban social engineering by electing CL as mayor of Tulsa. [:D]
Guess we were talking about river development... yeah I think lots of Tulsans can support a true public/private partnership. I just think it bothers a lot of people when local pols talk about
"the Boeing money" with a sense of entitlement... I guess after
The Channels debate, opponents won't have to make new signs to replace the old ones that read "No River Tax."
Call me crazy, but with all the lakes that feed into the river swelled past flood stage and the corps having to do a coordinated balancing act of shifting releases between dams to keep the river from overflowing it banks, low water dams have lost their appeal.
OK, you're crazy. [:P]
Seriously, though, they are LOW-water dams. I see no reason why they suddenly become outmoded when the river gets high every few years or so.
Yep, completely bonkers. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken LittleIf we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers. That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point...
Wow. Nothing quite like high-handed utopian second-guessing and 20/20 rose-colored hindsight...
You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse
Oooh... let's build lotsa brownstones and politically correct urban dwelling places so Tulsa's families will move to Rogers County that much faster... brilliant.
"explosion of low density sprawl"???
Interesting. I now live in an area of east Tulsa that was built by developers in the late 60s through the 70s... and when my car broke down, I was able to walk to the grocery store, barber, fast food, restaurant, bar, etc, etc, etc...
As a kid, I remember the 70s in Tulsa. Developers were responding to peoples' wants and needs. Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s didn't care about the folks who had their houses flooded around Mingo and Joe Creeks... Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s wanted a monorail. Ride the bus these days and tell me how a monorail built back in the 70s would have been "sustainable."
And those evil developers in the 70s actually built a lot of condos and duplexes within the city limits. After all, this was during the energy crisis and we all knew at the time that "in another 20 years" none of this suburban-style growth would be sustainable... so hearing a poster with the screen name Chicken Little trumpeting Tulsa's development as "cheap and unsustainable" is... well... highly ironic...
"rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point"???
Working families had dreams in the 50s/60s/70s of owning their own homes... they still do...
But hey, I know... let's start our egalitarian new urbanist paradise by first destroying all those sprawling old unsustainable mansions and homes in the Cascia Hall area and force them to live in new urbanist communes....
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to live in an urban condo in a walkable area of Tulsa. But I understand I represent a small minority of Tulsans. And I don't have a wife and four kids to support who might be much better served by living in one of those "unsustainable" suburbs...
So no... I won't be casting a vote anytime soon for subsidized urban social engineering by electing CL as mayor of Tulsa. [:D]
Guess we were talking about river development... yeah I think lots of Tulsans can support a true public/private partnership. I just think it bothers a lot of people when local pols talk about "the Boeing money" with a sense of entitlement... I guess after The Channels debate, opponents won't have to make new signs to replace the old ones that read "No River Tax."
Let's be clear. I was talking about efficiency and you seem to want to talk about personal preferences.
quote:
You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse
You realize that that is pure speculation and you have no idea what this city would be like had we made smarter, more efficient, choices. You might not want to sell your unsupported, bias laden theories as fact.
I don't know what this town would be like either, but at least I have an analogous example. It's not perfect, but it's better than talking out of my *ss. Portland was about our size and style 30 and 40 years ago. They opted for a denser, transit oriented community. Portland didn't fail. In fact, they've outpaced us in several ways.
Tulsa's 1970 pop was 331,658. Portland was 382,619. Today, we're still at 391,000, having grown about 18% in over three decades. Portland has a population of 562,000; they have grown by 47%. So, they didn't "dwindle down to half the population".
Portland has a density of 4,014 persons per square mile. Tulsa has a density of about 2,114; that's
twice the population density. In fact, they have hundreds of thousands more citizens living on a smaller piece of ground (140 sq. mi. vs. 183 for Tulsa).
I think it's reasonable to assume that we, even today, maintain similar amounts of infrastructure; they may have bigger pipes and a few trains, but we have to cover a larger area. So, think about it. We may be maintaining the same amount of infrastructure with 60% of their population. Is this difference significant to you? What if Tulsa can't afford what we've already built?
This has little to do with "new urbanism" and utopian idealism; it has lots to do with city-building techniques proved over thousands of years of human history. We've only been building car-suburbs like this for 50 years. So, in the grander scheme, who's the utopian idealist? Me, the guy that believes in tried and true walkable cities...or you, the guy that has a "hunch" that we've found a better way to live?
I would hope that your hunch would shrink a little as you see 30 year old streets and sewers wear out, as we go back and add expensive flood protection (like in Mingo Creek), sidewalks, fire stations, etc. in places that were built too cheaply in the first place. Tulsa is learning just how expensive these "perfect little suburbs" are.
So, who won this little contest? Portland's denser and has grown tremendously in relation to Tulsa. But it's probably an overcrowded cesspool, right? Actually, no. Several quality of life measures have Portland near the top. For example: top 50 cities in the world (//%22http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1128060%22), top 25 favorite US(Travel + Leisure) (//%22http://www.travelandleisure.com/afc/2007/%22), etc. Oh, and they have pro soccer.
I'm not saying that Tulsa is a bad place or that we made fatal mistakes that can't be undone. I'm not even saying that I'd rather live in Portland. What I am saying is that Portland made different choices than we did beginning back in the 70s, and, it appears that they made some good calls.
I'm also saying that you, Roughneck, better get ready to pay through the nose for the lifestyle we have if you want to keep it. Moreover, you had better think about who you choose to call and idealogue and a social engineer. Cities have evolved incrementally over about 6,000 years. In that light, this car-oriented, suburban lifestyle, represents a huge social experiement and tremendous leap of faith.
The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?
Are you saying that because you feel that the lowater dams will cause increased hindrance to water flow and thus flooding? Or that people will forget that they were walking on sand in the middle of the river just 3 months ago?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?
Why is that?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Let's be clear. I was talking about efficiency and you seem to want to talk about personal preferences.
----------------------------------------------
You realize that that is pure speculation and you have no idea what this city would be like had we made smarter, more efficient, choices. You might not want to sell your unsupported, bias laden theories as fact.
No. Let's be perfectly clear. You were the one who sold (and is still selling) YOUR unsupported bias laden theories as fact.
And quel supris, you've trotted out that old anti-sprawl poster child of Portland, OR and decided you can conveniently lay blame on Tulsa's city planners and developers in the 70s for not being more like Portland.......
http://www.sprawlcity.org/portland.html
OKC has a population density of 833.8 people per square mile while Tulsa has a population density of 2,152 people per square mile...
... and you conveniently leave out the fact that Tulsa's economy as the "Oil Capital of the World" took a huge tumble in the oil bust of the 80s and that the 90s weren't much better... JOBS are why Portland grew faster than Tulsa.
I have nothing but disdain for the work of naive futuristic urban planners and academics who treat citizens like little children who need to be scolded and told what to do and where to live...
But amuse me, and keep re-writing history by telling me that if Tulsa had simply achieved Portland's urban density in the 70s (and built a monorail?) with more "efficient" urban planning, it would have thrived in the 80s and 90s despite all the economic problems brought on by the oil bust....
***Out of Tulsa's just under 900,000 metro area inhabitants, nearly 400,00 live in Tulsa.
***Out of Portland's 2.1 million metro area inhabitants, only about 530,000 live in Portland.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
[brNo. Let's be perfectly clear. You were the one who sold (and is still selling) YOUR unsupported bias laden theories as fact.
Feh. That's what you've got? What are you, Pee Wee Herman? "I know you are but what am I?"[;)]
quote:
And quel supris, you've trotted out that old anti-sprawl poster child of Portland, OR and decided you can conveniently lay blame on Tulsa's city planners and developers in the 70s for not being more like Portland.......
I thought I was "trotting out" a city that is arguably pretty great and pointing out that it was once analogous to Tulsa. Analogous means, similar in some respects but otherwise dissimilar. Most cities are that way. I "trotted it out" because I find this interesting and worthy of discussion. I could, and have in other threads, mentioned that I think Tulsa is denser, and therefore in much better shape, than OKC. They were very similar about 40 years ago. But they dug their own hole...I'm talking about ours. Our streets are in the top 10 worst in the nation. Their's are worse than ours...every ask yourself why? Do you every get past the "lazy gov't jerks" "explanation"?
quote:
http://www.sprawlcity.org/portland.html
The title of this page is "Outcome of 'Portland Experiment' Still Uncertain". And my point was that if you take a long look at the history of cities, you might ask yourself if the "Outcome of 'Suburban living' is certain." Suburbs are just a successful marketing construct, one that's barely 55 years old.
quote:
OKC has a population density of 833.8 people per square mile while Tulsa has a population density of 2,152 people per square mile...
I think we're in way better shape than OKC. If you read my posts in this thread you'd understand that I'm not hatin' on Tulsa, I'm simply saying that we made some choices which, I believe, are about to get very expensive. I said that there is a relationship between density and infrastructure efficiency. And I'm suggesting that we worked out some of the details over the course of the last 6,000 years. That's not "new urbanism" dogma, but it's not an endorsement of sprawling, car-dependent suburbs either.
quote:
... and you conveniently leave out the fact that Tulsa's economy as the "Oil Capital of the World" took a huge tumble in the oil bust of the 80s and that the 90s weren't much better... JOBS are why Portland grew faster than Tulsa.
I would say that our oil-dependent economy was an analogous example and a lesson that we could use with our one-size fits all development offerings. You can keep telling yourself that we don't need other kinds of development in this town, that suburbs are fine and dandy, and that we shouldn't try to offer choices. Think that might be a risky strategy in the long run?
quote:
I have nothing but disdain for the work of naive futuristic urban planners and academics who treat citizens like little children who need to be scolded and told what to do and where to live...
Me, too. You want to live in the suburbs, then by all means do so. Are you willing to pay a premium for that privilege? I've asked you several times...
quote:
But amuse me, and keep re-writing history by telling me that if Tulsa had simply achieved Portland's urban density in the 70s (and built a monorail?) with more "efficient" urban planning, it would have thrived in the 80s and 90s despite all the economic problems brought on by the oil bust....
It's a discussion board, man. That's the whole point. I'm glad you are amused. I am, too!
quote:
***Out of Tulsa's just under 900,000 metro area inhabitants, nearly 400,00 live in Tulsa.
***Out of Portland's 2.1 million metro area inhabitants, only about 530,000 live in Portland.
Good info, and an excellent point. Trouble is, I could give a sh*t about "could be anywhere" suburban communities. My point was that the City of Portland is in pretty good shape...more density, less infrastructure per person, more manageable.
I'm glad you were able to walk to the things you needed in East Tulsa. Imagine yourself doing that as a young child or elderly person. Would East Tulsa be user-friendly if you had to get around like this
every, single, day? Kids, old folks, and handicapped persons are over half the population. But you still don't think other kinds of development are worthy?
I hate to step across the streams of urine spraying through the air, but thought I would share something.
In the fifties-sixties and early 70's there were lots of elderly people living downtown. My grandparents lived in some of the multi story apartments that have since been torn down. They loved the lifestyle, which included being around others in the same generation, walking to Woolworths, Crown, Brown-Dunkin. Safeway and Warehouse Market were also within walking distance. Movie theaters, bus lines, city hall, and police and fire depts were all nearby. Eating was good with lots of small cafes, diners and hotel restaurants. Oklahoma Osteopathic and Hillcrest were also close by. As children we loved visiting them and messing around in the lobbies.
The point is that there were few "retirement homes" around town. There was little need as everything necessary to grow old comfortably and respectably was a few steps away. These comfy old apartment buildings were replaced with parking lots for office buildings for the next generation and replaced with burbs and nursing homes. It is a sad replacement. Burbs were around then too, my home is in one of the original burbs, but they existed for expanding families or the wealthy. It isn't new age thinking, its a return to the wisdom of my grandparents generation. It is simply cheaper, more efficient and less troublesome to live that way.
after re-reading the title of this thread... I thought my response to CL would be more appropriate here...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6982
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I hate to step across the streams of urine spraying through the air, but thought I would share something.
In the fifties-sixties and early 70's there were lots of elderly people living downtown. My grandparents lived in some of the multi story apartments that have since been torn down. They loved the lifestyle, which included being around others in the same generation, walking to Woolworths, Crown, Brown-Dunkin. Safeway and Warehouse Market were also within walking distance. Movie theaters, bus lines, city hall, and police and fire depts were all nearby. Eating was good with lots of small cafes, diners and hotel restaurants. Oklahoma Osteopathic and Hillcrest were also close by. As children we loved visiting them and messing around in the lobbies.
The point is that there were few "retirement homes" around town. There was little need as everything necessary to grow old comfortably and respectably was a few steps away. These comfy old apartment buildings were replaced with parking lots for office buildings for the next generation and replaced with burbs and nursing homes. It is a sad replacement. Burbs were around then too, my home is in one of the original burbs, but they existed for expanding families or the wealthy. It isn't new age thinking, its a return to the wisdom of my grandparents generation. It is simply cheaper, more efficient and less troublesome to live that way.
That's an excellent observation Waterboy. It really drives home what I was getting at far better than I have been able to do. It demonstrates that Tulsa itself has changed and evolved through the decades. Not necessarily for the better.
Frankly, I'm scared to death of "retirement communities". They're a dumping ground for old people who don't fit into this car-oriented world we've fabricated. It's like Logan's Run. If your not young and licensed, you're going to have to report to the sleepshop. If we still did things the old fashioned way, old people could remain independent and enjoy a decent, healthy lifestyle for years and years after their driver's license disappeared.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
That's an excellent observation Waterboy. It really drives home what I was getting at far better than I have been able to do. It demonstrates that Tulsa itself has changed and evolved through the decades. Not necessarily for the better.
Frankly, I'm scared to death of "retirement communities". They're a dumping ground for old people who don't fit into this car-oriented world we've fabricated. It's like Logan's Run. If your not young and licensed, you're going to have to report to the sleepshop. If we still did things the old fashioned way, old people could remain independent and enjoy a decent, healthy lifestyle for years and years after their driver's license disappeared.
But you're describing something that is a national issue as if it's just a Tulsa problem.
Once again, referring to Portland as a successful model compared to Tulsa's "cheap" housing misses the point...
Trying to legislate urbanist morality far too often makes things worse...
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate52.html
***And the city of Portland may have at one time decades ago been slightly more populated than Tulsa, but the Portland metro area has always been much larger than Tulsa's... roughly double.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
QuoteBut you're describing something that is a national issue as if it's just a Tulsa problem.
Once again, referring to Portland as a successful model compared to Tulsa's "cheap" housing misses the point...
Trying to legislate urbanist morality far too often makes things worse...
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate52.html
***And the city of Portland may have at one time decades ago been slightly more populated than Tulsa, but the Portland metro area has always been much larger than Tulsa's... roughly double.
I know it's a national issue, but land use decisions are always local. And so, the problem is ours to address. What's your concern with having laws that shape development? Our current land use laws do exactly that. It just so happens that they are skewed to produce low density, suburban, sprawling development, so much so that they outlaw higher density, mixed-use development.
You keep banging on about this as "urbanist morality". First, I don't think that density, efficiency, and accessibility are moral issues. They're design issues. 90% of what has been built over the last 30+ years has been low density suburbs. I think the decisions that led us to throw all our eggs in one basket were more based on marketing and short-term sales. I don't think any thought was given to the long-term viability of this kind of development. Tulsa is billions behind in this infrastructure refurbishment: streets, sewers, etc. Why? Now that the infrastructure from earlier booms is wearing out, I think it's a perfect time to ask ourselves if this kind of development is sustainable. I fully expect that most people in Tulsa will want to find a way to sustain it somehow. So, the question is, are Tulsan's ready to pay a premium to retain these low-density suburbs? If they are, then who am I to complain?
The other side of this question is whether or not Tulsa should try to embrace or encourage more sustainable development models. It's especially important today because we have an aging population. In 20 years, many of the boomers won't (or at least, shouldn't) be driving. What is to become of them? Do we herd them into retirement camps at the edge of town? Given the option of "transitioning" from a suburban home into a retirement community or retiring into a small, urban apartment in a walkable neighborhood, which would you choose? Personally, I'd want to retain the independence that Waterboy was describing.
And that seems to speak to your last point, which is that this "urbanism" is some kind of new, scary, dogmatic thing that we should all fear and fight. It's really not. Pay attention to pre-car neighborhoods here in Tulsa and elsewhere. The details vary, but they are very consistent in many ways...compact, multi-story, with everything you need to live within a short walking distance. It's a development pattern that has evolved over millennia. And it's therefore a proven model of efficiency.
So, please tell me why we shouldn't work towards some of this denser style of development if it is more efficient, works better for populations who can't drive, and it's already "tried and true".
Personally, I don't think we should eliminate suburbs, but I do think that they should pay their own freight. As I said, Tulsa is billions behind...somebody's got to pay it. If you want to pay more for the isolation and exclusivity, then knock yourself out.
I don't want to put my parents in a nursing home...I am thinking more of a group home.
Remember that TV show, "The Golden Girls", with Betty White and Bea Arthur? They seemed to be having fun.
My parents could turn that place into a party palace. Ten or twelve people living together under one roof would be kind of like a 1960s hippy commune.