Please post comments related to the taxes and private donations for the river plan here.
I saw on the news last night, some reticence by BA residents and business people to get behind the plan.
Considering that many BA residents make the money they spend in Broken Arrow sales tax dollars in Tulsa and that Tulsans spend money at BA locations, How about a little reciprocity?
I suppose I can quit shopping at Bass Pro and eating at BA restaurants if they aren't willing to help shoulder the load.
I just loved Randi Miller's quote on Channel 6 today: 'The citizens of Tulsa need to be able to tell us if they want this river development.'
HELLLOOOOOOOO!
The citizens of Tulsa have been telling you (government) for years, actually decades, to develop the river. But, no. We get the arena jambed down our throats vote after vote after vote.
You finally get your arena, now you want more money.
Want money for infrastructure? Then put some infrastructure in the package!
One thing I don't like is her assertion this is our "only chance to do this".
What is it with the bed-wetting comments from our public officials in the last week? Some of the Mayor's comments on City Hall were way over-wrought with emotion.
Do we know for certain this is being proposed as an obligation bond so that they have to invest all the tax $$ into the river plan instead of giving Spirit or American more $$ or using it to fund road work in an unincorporated part of the county?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
One thing I don't like is her assertion this is our "only chance to do this".
What is it with the bed-wetting comments from our public officials in the last week? Some of the Mayor's comments on City Hall were way over-wrought with emotion.
Do we know for certain this is being proposed as an obligation bond so that they have to invest all the tax $$ into the river plan instead of giving Spirit or American more $$ or using it to fund road work in an unincorporated part of the county?
The Bear is stirring from his annual hibernation cycle, having dozed the past 11 months, away from both friends and Forum Detractors.
The Bear is stirring because the insatiable Tax Vampires from the local controlling Oligarchy are about to again sink their hungry fangs into the necks of the beleagured citizens of Tulsa, arising for their nocturnal feasting beginning at the next full moon.
Will Bear have much more to say about the Rooney, Flint, Lorton et al financial exploitation of our fellow Tulsans for the past century, using endless Tax-and-Spend schemes to perpetually line their pockets, and vacumn the pockets of our helpless and hapless oppressed middle and lower classes?
The River Tax will give them a perpetual Tax-and-Spend Machine:
Moving
SAND around a periodically raging Prairie River.
Anyone can see that the current RAGING torrent of our usually placid Prairie River makes the Kaiser River Tax plan a totally UNSOUND engineering concept. The river is BARELY remaining within its banks. Just barely.
And, the river is DIRTY. Crystal Clear Snow-melt the Arkansas River is
NOT.
Taxpayers, get prepared for
PHASE I of the River Tax Plan.
And, be prepared to watch helplessly for another 7 years as the majority of our public pools stay empty each year, our destroyed roads rival a Third-World Country, and illegal immigrant crime wave causes Tulsans to flee to the incorporated suburbs in a CERTIFIED Tulsa proper residential Real Estate
BUST-OUT.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
One thing I don't like is her assertion this is our "only chance to do this".
What is it with the bed-wetting comments from our public officials in the last week? Some of the Mayor's comments on City Hall were way over-wrought with emotion.
Do we know for certain this is being proposed as an obligation bond so that they have to invest all the tax $$ into the river plan instead of giving Spirit or American more $$ or using it to fund road work in an unincorporated part of the county?
The Bear is stirring from his annual hibernation cycle, having dozed the past 11 months, away from both friends and Forum Detractors.
The Bear is stirring because the insatiable Tax Vampires from the local controlling Oligarchy are about to again sink their hungry fangs into the necks of the beleagured citizens of Tulsa, arising for their nocturnal feasting beginning at the next full moon.
Will Bear have much more to say about the Rooney, Flint, Lorton et al financial exploitation of our fellow Tulsans for the past century, using endless Tax-and-Spend schemes to perpetually line their pockets, and vacumn the pockets of our helpless and hapless oppressed middle and lower classes?
The River Tax will give them a perpetual Tax-and-Spend Machine:
Moving SAND around a periodically raging Prairie River.
Anyone can see that the current RAGING torrent of our usually placid Prairie River makes the Kaiser River Tax plan a totally UNSOUND engineering concept. The river is BARELY remaining within its banks. Just barely.
And, the river is DIRTY. Crystal Clear Snow-melt the Arkansas River is NOT.
Taxpayers, get prepared for PHASE I of the River Tax Plan.
And, be prepared to watch helplessly for another 7 years as the majority of our public pools stay empty each year, our destroyed roads rival a Third-World Country, and illegal immigrant crime wave causes Tulsans to flee to the incorporated suburbs in a CERTIFIED Tulsa proper residential Real Estate BUST-OUT.
Glad to see you are alive and well Bear...
Although I agreed with the City Hall move....
This large of a Tax,(the river tax), just seems to be saying.... "V2025 was the beginning..... and there is no end in site"
So much to consider... but.... things seem to be going well without a renewal of a tax the size of V2025.
For someone to say that this is the only "road to progress" is downright stupid....
So I just sit here thinking.... Is there more money to be made in becoming a professional tax dollar spender..?
Or...
Being the "team" qualified to do this work that the tax will pay for.?
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/babakanoush.jpg)
Apparently I am not anyone, because I can not see how this plan is a "totally UNSOUND engineering concept". You do know that this plan is based on the INCOG Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan? These dams didn't just spring willy nilly out of the either, they have been in planning for years. The final phase of the river corridor study is underway and will be completed soon.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm
I think a lot of people have gotten confused or angry because this plan has been called the Kaiser Plan. If you want to chip in more than 100 million we can call the INCOG plan whatever you want it to be. I mean you had to have known that the River Corridor Master Plan was going to be paid for somehow someday? Unless you were thinking that they were paying all this money, spending all these years, getting citizens input, input from the cities and local governments, etc. just to have the plan sit on a shelf undone? Or perhaps the river fairy was going to magically pay for it and not the taxpayers?
Perhaps their mistake was in how they presented the plan. Perhaps they should have started something like this.
The Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan has finally reached the point where we can actually begin construction. Mr Kaiser and others have stepped up to help the taxpayers of Tulsa county start turning the River Corridor Master Plan into reality. They are willing to donate over 100 million dollars to help the citizens of Tulsa county pay for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I saw on the news last night, some reticence by BA residents and business people to get behind the plan.
Considering that many BA residents make the money they spend in Broken Arrow sales tax dollars in Tulsa and that Tulsans spend money at BA locations, How about a little reciprocity?
I suppose I can quit shopping at Bass Pro and eating at BA restaurants if they aren't willing to help shoulder the load.
Thats interesting. The citizens of BA were behind the plan before when the plan was being developed. All the county governments also gave their input to the plan and have been working with INCOG to develop the plan for years now. They even voted yes with 2025 to get the dams started and pay for the necessary studies for the dams. But now that there is talk of actually implementing the plan nobody wants to pay for it! How did they think it was going to get done? And shouldn't we consider ourselves lucky that there are people willing to chip in 100 million dollars to help get it done?
How was the River Corridor Master Plan supposed to get done without us paying for it?
"Or perhaps the river fairy was going to magically pay for it and not the taxpayers?" Originally posted by the Artist
I do not recall that you are also a qualified City Planner... Perhaps I missed that...?
You are a truly gifted Artist... But very New to the world of Politics.
Yes... This is all about the Arkansas River Master Plan as put together by INCOG....
Yes.... Mister Kaiser is a very fine man for offering the donation to get the plan done...
Do I think that the fine people of Tulsa should be hit with yet another large tax before the V2025 has run it's course..?
NO...
Do you always feel the same sense of urgency when someone mentions the River or what...?
The "Channels" was a fine plan!!! in your book... For quite a few rants.
You must be quite a "high maintenance" individual if it takes everything that is going on and then more... more... more. to make your world go round.
I think anyone that has seen the vast number of plans the City of Tulsa has put together over the years know far to well.... Many very good plans have never been laid at the publics feet and had an ultimatum, of the sort, that seems to be brewing with this.... just happen to come along for the ride...
Oh and bye the way.... If the River Fairy wants to pay for this .....Who am I to stand in his way.
I have wrestled with this plan since I became aware of INCOG river planning 7 years ago. Like Rico says, I also have been naive about the politics and the players. Though my future may in fact depend on how this river is developed and when, I am becoming skeptical of it regardless of who pays, and the public will pay.
AA says that my suggestions for the plan are merely lipstick on a pig. I suggested a higher tax for a shorter period to focus on results. Also a independent watchdog committee of private citizens to report to the public of progress. And finally, interconnecting the impounds so you could float from Sands Springs all the way to Broken Arrow without interruption. For the area to truly be a commercial generator long term this would be important.
This pig needs lipstick. After all the discussions about a 41st bridge being important on this forum, I become a believer....only to find out it won't be included? Where have I seen this before? Oh, yeah I remember, V2025 was about river development, not the arena. What it tells me is "what else has been promised, pictured or implied that isn't going to happen?" I have wanted to believe in this project but I am losing faith.
Its ironic that the river shares one thing with our local government, engineering and planning cabal. Inertia. The river tends to move where it wants to at its own speed unless acted upon by outside forces. The folks involved with this plan have barely changed it in the last 7 years. It has its own inertia.
It still makes little allowance for activities on the water other than inclusion of rapids for the half dozen extreme kayakers who rarely even use the existing wave. Anyone go to their grand opening? Anyone seen a kayaker on the Wave even before the recent floods?
It shows canoes and sailboats just like the plans all the way back to the fifties. Even if they actually allow individuals to use the river the public won't. Like Conan pointed out, the current makes it difficult to sail upstream. Kayaking upstream at 50,000cfs is not possible. Look for rules that will involve pay to play or worse yet, rules that discourage public use of the waterway itself.
It makes no attempt to link by water using locks and dams or open connections. It basically looks like a string of public parks that will look good but get little usage. If you think the end result will resemble the plans, then you voted for Bush the second time. (Okay, just a poke in the ribs don't get defensive!)
Other than making the river "pretty", right now I am unconvinced that this is little different than the Channels in motivation and inspiration, only these folks want you to believe that its all about public input. My assertion is that public input was a sham and the lack of a 41st bridge and interconnected lakes is proof positive. Someone convince me otherwise, please.
Ok rather than arguing for or against other peoples different assertions or wants, I am going to put out my own.
Its obvious that I want to see something done along the river and the sooner the better. So if I, using the current situation, could choose what would be done it would be this...
First off I am going to say at this point Tulsa should just do Tulsa and that a county tax at this time may be too much to ask for. Why? from what I have been hearing, we are going to have to raise some money to pay for roads. The paper says that it will take 600million dollars over 5 years to bring our roads up to a C average from the now D average. Thats 120million per year for 5 years. (not that I think they are that bad but the combination of hearing so many on here and other places griping about them and now seeing some statistics has swayed me to think otherwise)
So my preference would be to have the largest sum raised to be for the roads, then added on to that a smaller amount for the river. In other words we would have a Roads and River vote.
The Kaiser plan is not the entire INCOG river plan. Much of it would have to wait until later. By the same token I think even this Kaiser plan should be parred down to just things in Tulsa. This may eliminate the dock at 71st since there will not be a Jenks dam but I would still like to see some facilities at the 71st Volleyball courts then the dock could get added later.
Perhaps as one poster suggested we should wait until the Vision 2025 plan is over to do the river. I personally do not want to wait until 2017 to do something. We can get a start in Tulsa now and then when other priorities are taken care of, roads, 2025 then we can do the rest of the INCOG river plan that has not been done. This will also have the effect of being a more "fair" and balanced county vote when it does happen for there will not be so much of a bias towards Tulsa projects since some of them will have already been done.
As for boating on the Zink lake... I never really thought there would be any other than the crew teams or whitewater areas, and it was never the pics of the little boats on the lakes that made me want the plan anyway. I am not a boater and would personally never do that even if it were available. Waterboy, I do note that its something that is important to you and on your mind. But most of the people I talk with, boating on the river doesn't even occur to them. But they still want the riverfront in many areas improved, cleaned up, better and more amenities and definitely some development along it. We all have our interests, mine being Volleyball, others a rock climbing wall, etc. the difference with these things to me versus locks or something on the dams so that boaters can move up and down the river, is the cost difference. It will cost a lot more for a few people to have locks than it will be for a few people to play vball or rock climb. And if you say its not even feasible because of the high flow rate to sail, why ask for those locks? We all know danged well that there are not going to be any motorboats, seadoos or sparkling clear blue water in Zink lake.
Smaller Kaiser type plan focusing on Tulsa for now paired with a road repair plan. County vote on most of the INCOG river plan at a later date.
Two of the most important things that I would like to see in any river plan would be a new Zink dam designed to be safer, larger, allow for better fish migration and silt flows. Plus I want to see some large urban development on the west side near downtown. Anything else is icing on the cake and if Mr Kaiser is willing to pay for those things I will be thrilled and thankful.
This is why I am so perturbed with planning thus far:
Artist-"As for boating on the Zink lake... I never really thought there would be any other than the crew teams or whitewater areas, and it was never the pics of the little boats on the lakes that made me want the plan anyway. I am not a boater and would personally never do that even if it were available. Waterboy, I do note that its something that is important to you and on your mind. But most of the people I talk with, boating on the river doesn't even occur to them. But they still want the riverfront in many areas improved, cleaned up, better and more amenities and definitely some development along it. We all have our interests, mine being Volleyball, others a rock climbing wall, etc. the difference with these things to me versus locks or something on the dams so that boaters can move up and down the river, is the cost difference. It will cost a lot more for a few people to have locks than it will be for a few people to play vball or rock climb. We all know danged well that there are not going to be any motorboats, seadoos or sparkling clear blue water in Zink lake."
I never talk to anyone who wants volleyball facilities either. I never talk to anyone who has expressed interest in rockclimbing on the river or otherwise. That means nothing.
You are a master of posting beautiful pics of other waterfront plans and projects. Why don't you notice that they all have boats on them? If I could I would link to the projects in Phoenix, Rio Lago I think, that show real people maneuvering electric powered runabouts, pontoons and party boats along their impoundment. Do you think it was because the mass population in the middle of the desert suggested them? They didn't know it was even possible. Especially non polluting electric. Same thing here.
If you think the people of Tulsa will pay 1/2 a billion dollars for a prettier river with volleyball courts, rock climbing, crewing and extreme kayaking that will serve perhaps...dozens, well, put it to the test. I don't think they will and thats why the burbs are bugging out. Its park development from what I see.
Foundations are always looking for community involvement efforts that look good with their name on them. They don't need to make a profit from them. If you run an amusement park and want to buy the latest huge ride that will bring in customers from an entire region and serve as the focal point for your park you go to a banker and he can understand your proposal. He's buying into something spectacular and can assess the risk. Government has no risk here! They shy away from risk and thats what's wrong with this plan.
I ask you these questions. Where is the focus? If you were an investor and this project was put on your desk asking for capital involvement...would you front them the money??
for ease of reading.
Artist-"And if you say its not even feasible because of the high flow rate to sail, why ask for those locks?"
I've never considered sailing appropriate on this river. However, dinner cruises, sight seeing & historical excursions, canoeing, river taxis that could take shoppers from RiverWalk to entertainment venues up to the Zink Lake, and rental boats could all make this river alive.
How do you know they're too expensive? The cost figures are not available because they refuse to consider them. OKC has them though so they are available. You should be asking bluntly, "Why are we spending so much to put water in the river, if we aren't going to put boat operations on it?" Just to look pretty?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
for ease of reading.
Artist-"And if you say its not even feasible because of the high flow rate to sail, why ask for those locks?"
I've never considered sailing appropriate on this river. However, dinner cruises, sight seeing & historical excursions, canoeing, river taxis that could take shoppers from RiverWalk to entertainment venues up to the Zink Lake, and rental boats could all make this river alive.
How do you know they're too expensive? The cost figures are not available because they refuse to consider them. OKC has them though so they are available. You should be asking bluntly, "Why are we spending so much to put water in the river, if we aren't going to put boat operations on it?" Just to look pretty?
when a formal anti river tax lobby is organized please post it here, I'd like to get involved. let tulsa do tulsa's river development, jenks do their, bixby, etc. But THIS proposal is not a county issue, it is tulsa and MAYBE jenks issue. the county needs to pass a tax to fix our ROADS.
Remind me to photoshop out the little boats next time. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
for ease of reading.
Artist-"And if you say its not even feasible because of the high flow rate to sail, why ask for those locks?"
I've never considered sailing appropriate on this river. However, dinner cruises, sight seeing & historical excursions, canoeing, river taxis that could take shoppers from RiverWalk to entertainment venues up to the Zink Lake, and rental boats could all make this river alive.
How do you know they're too expensive? The cost figures are not available because they refuse to consider them. OKC has them though so they are available. You should be asking bluntly, "Why are we spending so much to put water in the river, if we aren't going to put boat operations on it?" Just to look pretty?
when a formal anti river tax lobby is organized please post it here, I'd like to get involved. let tulsa do tulsa's river development, jenks do their, bixby, etc. But THIS proposal is not a county issue, it is tulsa and MAYBE jenks issue. the county needs to pass a tax to fix our ROADS.
Unfortunately, the roads inside the city limits are the responsibility of the city, as far as I know. I think the county handles streets that share city borders, and streets outside of city limits and within the county. Harvard Ave. between 181st St. South and 191st St. South really needs repaving, but I really doubt more than 10 people really care about that road.
People complain about how inefficient suburban infrastructure is, but if you go beyond the suburbs, rural infrastructure is even worse. Only bottom feeders who live way out in the boonies, working in the city and hiding out in some hut along a county road, would really need to support a county road tax hike. The exact same thing you said about Tulsa needing to take care of Tulsa's part, Jenks needing to take care of Jenks' part, is true about road maintainance. But I highly agree with those who have stated that cities in Oklahoma have a huge problem raising capital funds under current law. It is basically raise sales tax or else, but we have already maxed out our sales tax potential, while the counties and the state have more options. We need to keep raising this issue until something is actually done about it, instead of saying "oh well."
For the record, I'd be willing to pay for roads/infrastructure, even in a high sales tax, if that was its sole purpose. I'd pay an extravagant sales tax for a short period just to play "catch up" on our infrastructure woes. I do have reservations though, such as, while I am a young man, I can imagine the people talked into the first 3rd penny sales tax actually thinking of THAT as the same thing I'm thinking of - some hypothetical infrastructure 'catch up' tax. MatureTulsans: When the 3rd penny was first being pitched, did it seem like the end-all-be-all "Fix Tulsa's infrastructure woes" tax that we wish we had now? If that is the case, maybe I shouldn't be so gung-ho about a "catch-up" tax, or else my grandkids would be voting on the 15th penny.
Maybe this item has already been completed....?It is worth asking.
Several months back the Mayor asked the TMAPC to put in place "zoning" for the Arkansas River corridor.......
Was this completed..?
If not... all this hoopla regarding attracting development to the Arkansas could lead to the type of development undesirable for the area...
Randi Miller seems to jump on board any and all River Development with both of those big long feet of hers....
Thank Goodness this Lady did not make the cut for Mayor.
In any event... If there are not zoning guidelines for the Development this sort of an investment would attract....... You could have Kum and Go, Mickey D's, and Chuck E Cheeze every 100 yards or so...
Nice........!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Helmet_Cat.jpg)
It's also worth noting what one of the "just vote no" characters relayed to me on yet another river thread. That is, as a sales tax, this .4cent revenues can be spent any way the governnment wishes to spend it. Non necessarily on river development or on this plan of river development. Its only an obligation bond that requires that they specify what the money will be spent on and then have to spend it there.
Is that correct? We could end up spending this money on propping up laggard arena revenues.
As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river. Some sort of Form Based Codes would be helpful. But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed. Some areas are definitely off limits because they are designated natrual wildlife habitats, others are public park space. However I would like to see some type of Zoning in the areas where commercial development is possible.
Which leads to this question. Is the reason the city is wanting to purchase the concrete plant property so that it can have some influence on what goes in there? If the Tulsa Landing guy wanted to build there couldnt he just buy it himself? But if the city uses its option to buy it can then have some influence on who develops there and what they build?
I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary. I would really like to at least see some sort of statement about what is the desired outcome for that area. Even what the INCOG plan has there as an "idea" is terrible. The mere thought that someone could think that would be desirable there is beyond me.
Back to the boats thing....
I can only now imagine that you, Waterboy, see those renderings and think boats and water activities. I have never even given that type of thing a passing thought. I just went back and looked at the pics I have posted and there aren't any boats other than the occasional Kayaks. Unless your talking about the Bridges, and I sure as heck wouldn't want large steam boats and yatchs on our little lakes. To me having a beautiful river with water in it to walk along, bike, rollerblade, have docks that go out into it, have some beautiful plaza and community areas, hardening of some shorelines, activity areas,great commercial and residential development areas, fountains, new pedestrian bridge or two, etc. is enough of a reason to do this.
BTW is this what you were talking about in Arizona? http://www.tempe.gov/lake/LakeHistory/historyandfinance.htm
But it does sound nice to be able to have some smaller boating activities if it was not too difficult and expensive and if the areas were made safe for it. Question or two about the locks though. Don't they have to be manned? How many of them would we need? What kind of maintenance is required on the mechanical systems? Would they work on a river like ours that is prone to such water flow variations?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river. Some sort of Form Based Codes would be helpful. But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed. Some areas are definitely off limits because they are designated natrual wildlife habitats, others are public park space. However I would like to see some type of Zoning in the areas where commercial development is possible.
Which leads to this question. Is the reason the city is wanting to purchase the concrete plant property so that it can have some influence on what goes in there? If the Tulsa Landing guy wanted to build there couldnt he just buy it himself? But if the city uses its option to buy it can then have some influence on who develops there and what they build?
I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary. I would really like to at least see some sort of statement about what is the desired outcome for that area. Even what the INCOG plan has there as an "idea" is terrible. The mere thought that someone could think that would be desirable there is beyond me.
Back to the boats thing....
I can only now imagine that you, Waterboy, see those renderings and think boats and water activities. I have never even given that type of thing a passing thought. I just went back and looked at the pics I have posted and there aren't any boats other than the occasional Kayaks. Unless your talking about the Bridges, and I sure as heck wouldn't want large steam boats and yatchs on our little lakes. To me having a beautiful river with water in it to walk along, bike, rollerblade, have docks that go out into it, have some beautiful plaza and community areas, hardening of some shorelines, activity areas,great commercial and residential development areas, fountains, new pedestrian bridge or two, etc. is enough of a reason to do this.
BTW is this what you were talking about in Arizona? http://www.tempe.gov/lake/LakeHistory/historyandfinance.htm
But it does sound nice to be able to have some smaller boating activities if it was not too difficult and expensive and if the areas were made safe for it. Question or two about the locks though. Don't they have to be manned? How many of them would we need? What kind of maintenance is required on the mechanical systems? Would they work on a river like ours that is prone to such water flow variations?
I have to go to work now so can't answer at length. Two things though, If this project is only as you've described, I would actively work against it. We don't get any bang for our buck by creating more park land that we won't be able to take any better care of than existing parks. Walking around fishing piers is just not that rewarding. And two, locks and dams is a convenient way to describe interconnectability. There are other methods, besides portage, to connect the lakes. Since none of the planners considers it a navigable river, no one has considered other ways.
And riolagocruise.com. BTW, I sure remember seeing barge cruise boats on some of the European fantasy designs you posted. Since threads are routinely shredded they may no longer exist. They wouldn't think of not using a waterway in Europe for boats. Only in land locked Tulsa would we think it odd.
H2Oboy said the one thing some time ago about the Arkansas that sticks with me every time I am down there: 'It is a river, not a lake' (DAMN YOU WATERBOY, GET OUT OF MY HEAD - AHHHHHH!!!) Is the River navigable right now, BTW?
The drar-rings do not impress me at all. From the Route 66 bridge to Bartlett Circle to the A-rheam-a, whatever is penciled in has not represented the final product. There are too many people in this town who have played Sim City and have access to drar-ring tools.
In terms of the payment options, the rest of the County can suck eggs and pony up. The City is stuck footing the bill for the A-ream-a even though it is touted as benefitting the Region.
Tulsans should have choices of packages and costs to choose from. $277M at one whack is too much to trust this group with.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
It's also worth noting what one of the "just vote no" characters relayed to me on yet another river thread. That is, as a sales tax, this .4cent revenues can be spent any way the governnment wishes to spend it. Non necessarily on river development or on this plan of river development. Its only an obligation bond that requires that they specify what the money will be spent on and then have to spend it there.
Is that correct? We could end up spending this money on propping up laggard arena revenues.
As to another Sales Tax Blitzkrieg about to be launched on the hapless Tulsa County citizenry circa August 2, my Question is:
WHAT'S THE RUSH?Tulsa has been a city only a little more than 100 years.
The river has been under flood "control" a little more than 40 years.
The river has been there for millions of years, and will be there millions more. That's simple due to the
NATURAL geography of the area.
Is the real reason for the
TAX RUSH to keep the positive cash flow FLOWING to the Rooney and Flint construction companies, who are going to actually finish the major Arena work in the Fall of 2008?
And, the NEED to FEED their GREED being what it is, they need some tasty new tax morsels from the beleagured citizenry (and our friends the MesoAmerican Guest Workers who also pay local Sales Taxes on all their necessary purchases, too - I say Thanks, Amigos!)?
The local Oligarch Families simply need a replacement Goobermint revenue source to replace the $200 million BOK Arena honey pot.
You'll notice in the recent company newspaper profile on the Flint Co's that the large majority of their construction work is
Government-related:
City, county and State construction projects, school construction (Union P.S.'s UMAC Center - ANOTHER Arena!), college construction projects, etc., etc., etc.
In Tulsa, the
Cranes-in-the-Air promised by former Mayor Bill MisFortunate are heavily predominate on local
government-funded construction projects.
Which means, this city's major private construction activities to expand office space and industry are curiously dormant.....Hmmmmh?
Meaning, Unnecessary??? Hmmmh........
What does the
SMART-MONEY know about the Tulsa economy and specifically the Tulsa Commercial Real Estate market that the Taxpayers don't know?
I know we did manage to rope a multi-millionaire out-of-state rube who had more money than sense to buy 25% of the downtown Tulsa Office space a while back, sold a dream of an emerging Tulsa downtown
Je ne sais quois:
RENAISSANCE.
I was astounded to catalog just how much downtown Tulsa Real Estate was actually
FOR SALE?
I thought the Arena was the latest key to the penultimate downtown revival?
Oh, they now say: It's the River!
When you actually see a critical mass of middle-class residents LIVING downtown, followed by a self-supporting grocery store, you might be witnessing a genesis of downtown Tulsa re-development.
Just how long has the Safeway Store on Denver Avenue downtown been closed?
Hmmmh?
I would also be curious if any KNOWS whether the Kaiser River Tax media-buys with TV Channels 2,6, and 8, and KRMG have already been entered, and if so,
who paid for them?
Do the promoters already have the TV ads packaged by Littlefield, and the air time slots reserved with a Deposit?
Again, who paid?And would $100,000's in TV ads possibly influence the news-room coverage by Channels 2,6 or 8? Just Maybe?
If anyone cares to tell, please provide.....
[;)]
What's the rush?
The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
What's the rush?
The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.
I think that's what they said when they started the "Big Dig" in Boston 20+ years ago too. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
What's the rush?
The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.
The Tulsa RiverParks "Authority" was formed in 1974, and progress was
gradual. The park trail was an early addition. Then, the Railroad Bridge was a subseqeunt donation by the Railroad.
Later, a land swap with Lincoln Properties for land south of 71st in exchange for the valuable city land that became Westport Apartments was another "improvement", that made possible the subsequent funding of the 31st Street Low Water dam in 1983.
While Mr. Kaiser's philanthropy, if genuine, could be put to good use, overall I am wholly unimpressed when Philanthropy is
CONDITIONAL, i.e. used as
BAIT to gull the voters into contributing an enormous premium above the purported private gift. The Kaiser River Tax is only
PHASE I of the River Tax. Check back in with us in 2050 when we're still paying for Phase V.
Ultimately, it could end up costing Tulsa County Taxpayers even more than the $660 million that the Warren Financial Interests were going to vacumn from the County residents pockets.
Of course "$100 million" in private donations Warren promised (non-specific, of course just in case a donation really turns out to be an INVESTMENT) was the potential BAIT again used to gull the voters into Voting for yet another Sales Tax.
Like the Schusterman's offer a few years ago of a downtown parcel of real estate, they claimed as worth $2 million that they could not ever sell for $2 million, their philanthropic offer was
BAIT to get another $58 million in tax money to build a new Grand Central Library DOWNTOWN.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaiser's $12 million offer to simply expand and improve the walking and bicyle trails along the river was closer to an ideal of No-Strings Attached philanthropy.
The timing of the $12 Kaiser Foundation million River Parks gift appears to have been closely coordinated to coincide with the launch of the $282 million Kaiser River Tax, in order to "Prime-the-Pump" and break down public resistance to higher taxes, and get the tax dollars flowing from the public well into the coffers of the local Oligarch Families, where they think it belongs:
Into their pockets.Stepping back for a moment at this new giant tax increase proposal, you'd think that the Tax Vampires are somewhat in danger of overloading us with their Tax-and-Spend-More plans:
Since Mayor Taylor came into office last year, we've seen the following new taxes:
1. Renewal of the Third-Penny Sales tax in May 2006, but with a key difference. There is NO specific expiration date of the tax. It's just $463 million for however long it takes. 5, 6, 7 or more years, depending on the level of prices, tempo of collections, and inflation.
2. Renewal of the 4-to-Fix-the-County Tax, when we thought that the county was already fixed. Guess they need a new Golf Cart Barn at LaFortune County Golf Course for Bob Dick's buddy.
3. Imposition of the EMSA $50 annually per water customer charge, for Ambulance Service that was formerly free.
4. TMUA audaciously Retaining $6.00 of the $7.00 dollar charge from the EXPIRED monthly debt service for the Walter B. Hall Trash-to-Energy Plant. They have the arrogance to give us a $1.00 per month reduction in our Trash Charge, which pocketing the other $6.00 which we've been paying for the past 20 years to pay-off the TARE White Elephant that we don't even own!
What a bunch of TMUA Sweethearts!
5. $76 million in additional spending to move City Hall to the OTC Chrystal Palace. It's all about
IMAGE, after all.
Anyone notice the
IMAGE of our streets lately viewed out the front windshield of their car? Looks like roads in a poorly run Third-World country.
But we are, my dears, we're located in the BANANA Republic of Tulsa.
6. Supporting a $0.004 additional sales tax to move SAND around in the River. Again, if it passes, I suspect it will have the patented Vision 2025 feature of
NO CAP on the amount to be raised. Or, like the latest 3rd Penny Tax Renewal, it may lack an
EXPIRATION Date.
Methinks Mayor Taylor's legacy will be remembered as a the biggest Tax-em-More and Spend-more Tax-A-holic in Tulsa history. That is, before she re-locates to Washington, D.C., as Congressman, Senator, or working for President Hillary Clinton.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Maybe this item has already been completed....?It is worth asking.
Several months back the Mayor asked the TMAPC to put in place "zoning" for the Arkansas River corridor.......
Was this completed..?
If not... all this hoopla regarding attracting development to the Arkansas could lead to the type of development undesirable for the area...
Randi Miller seems to jump on board any and all River Development with both of those big long feet of hers....
Thank Goodness this Lady did not make the cut for Mayor.
In any event... If there are not zoning guidelines for the Development this sort of an investment would attract....... You could have Kum and Go, Mickey D's, and Chuck E Cheeze every 100 yards or so...
Nice........!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Helmet_Cat.jpg)
RICO: Great Digital Photo-Pics; you can sure pick 'em.
Coming through the Tulsa City Council, Tulsa County Commissioner Randi Miller is very experienced with working closely with City Employees to meet City-County goals.
In fact, so closely is her coordination that a certain Assistant Public Works Director worked as her personal residential Pool Boy, servicing her swimming pool needs.
Maybe subbing to liberally apply Suntan Lotion as well:
"
Mike, come back here again, you missed a spot, honey".
Wonder if her personal Pool Boy drove over to her residence in a city-owned Public Werkes SUV?
Calling Counselor Christiansen???
[}:)]
I see that Friendly Bear still hasn't learned subtlety and conciseness during his hiatus. [}:)]
I learned:
Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper....
...........From Master Po
and,
Snatch the taxes from your hand...
.........from Bob Poe.
[:D]
Originally posted by the Artist.
"As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river."
This is exactly what the Mayor had asked the TMAPC to come up with...
Originally posted by the Arstist.
But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed
You are an awfully trusting soul Sir.........
INCOG planned it.... True...
INCOG can not enforce what is built on property that is not yet zoned..
Without the "zoning" in place Charles Norman, and others, could make these up as the interest in the private development became an issue.
There would be no "appropriate use" designated because we would be dealing with property that was not zoned....
In other words..... We would have no "guarantee".... What we would wind up with....
If this vote were to be put off until the TMAPC finished the zoning on the corridor..... I think it would be more palatable.
I, for one, am not handing money to developers.... and you may say it is the City, County etc., with no promised results....
Then .... 5 years or so from the start of this tax... "well construction costs have doubled" "we will have to spend more to get the desired results....?"
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Tax_.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by the Artist.
"As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river."
This is exactly what the Mayor had asked the TMAPC to come up with...
Originally posted by the Arstist.
But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed
You are an awfully trusting soul Sir.........
INCOG planned it.... True...
INCOG can not enforce what is built on property that is not yet zoned..
Without the "zoning" in place Charles Norman, and others, could make these up as the interest in the private development became an issue.
There would be no "appropriate use" designated because we would be dealing with property that was not zoned....
In other words..... We would have no "guarantee".... What we would wind up with....
If this vote were to be put off until the TMAPC finished the zoning on the corridor..... I think it would be more palatable.
I, for one, am not handing money to developers.... and you may say it is the City, County etc., with no promised results....
Then .... 5 years or so from the start of this tax... "well construction costs have doubled" "we will have to spend more to get the desired results....?"
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Tax_.jpg)
The oft-repeated Mantra of RIVER DEVELOPMENT means very different things to different people.
Some River Parks patrons envision the continuation of the beautiful River Parks concept, which has been relatively low-cost from its 30-year inception, and provides very valid recreational and meditative venues for many, many patrons for OVER 30 YEARS.
Adding some additional "hubs" for dining, sports & recreation, or entertainment may satisfy some additional River Parks patrons who would like to see more zest and liveliness in gathering spots along the River.
Adding a Kum-and-Go Convenience store facing AWAY from the River is also River DEVELOPMENT, albeit a blight on our view of the River. The Store is FACT. It is there, as is Mrs. King's nice but backward facing retail development at 96th and Riverside, facing as it does largely AWAY from the River.
Someone should finally say:
The proposed $282 million Kaiser Tax Blitzkrieg is totally unnecessary, obvious to anyone with a calculator and a basic knowledge about municipal finance.The overages that
ARE right now being collected from the $.006 Vision 2025 Tax will ultimately be in the $100,000,000's, probably in excess of
$200,000,000.
Possibly even more, but PROBABLY not less.
This is a virtual fact.
Why?Because Former County Commissioner "Dirty Bob" Dick and Tulsa Mayor Bill-me MisFortunate very
DISHONESTLY projected a totally
FLAT growth in tax revenue over the next 13 years. Dirty Bob was quoted in the Lorton's World that he wanted to be "Conservative" in his projections. However, critically, the City of Tulsa Finance Dept. then and now routinely projects a 2-3% Annual Growth in city sales taxes; a little more in good economic times; less when a recession hits.
Dirty Bob, a totally dishonest politician, now un-happily for the County Taxpayers retired on the public purse for life. I'll bet Stephen Alter from Matrix, Cinnabar's Bill Bacon, Terry Young, and Bob Parmele, and his "DEAR FRIEND" John Piercey really, really miss those many, many years of Dirty Bob's lucrative, sole-sourced patronage.
And, while the Vision 2025 Dumb-and-Dumber Twins were challenged on their DISHONEST assumption by the Vote No leadership, the underfunded all-volunteer Vote No organization simply could not communicate this important fact because of the very well-financed (financed by the same entities that are receiving the Vision 2025 spending!) Vote Yes Propaganda bombardment screaming 24x7 on Channels 2,6,and 8, and the Lorton's World Echo Chamber:
It's All About Jobs!REPEAT: There is absolutely
NO NEED for another tax. There is also absolutely no urgency. The river will be there after August 2.
There could eventually be a need for the County voters to approve using the projected Overage for River projects beyond what the voters specifically approved in Sept. 2003, when Vision 2025 was certified by the Tulsa County Election Board as having passed.
I can virtually guarantee, absent a major long-lived deep recession of years-long duration, that the OVERAGES from Vision 2025 will very adequately pay for major components of the Kaiser River Tax plan.
I can virtually
GUARANTEE it. The River's not going away; Nature guarantees it!
However, would the completion of the proposed River projects, using only the Vision 2025 sales tax
overages over the remaining
NINE more years of the tax, coincide with the
NEED TO FEED THE GREED of the Lortons, Rooney, Flint et al financial interests: 180' yachts wear out; private jet planes need the carpet & upholstery updated and new jet engines for weekend trips to Paris, and a Private Island in the Caribbean Sea may need a complete make-over?
[:O]
One of our city councilors is an old friend of the family I work for.
He stopped by yesterday for a social visit with my boss and I can't resist the temptation to back him into a corner on city and county politics when I see him.
He doesn't think the river plan has a chance with voters and said there hasn't been enough due dilligence on the financing and pretty much said we don't need so much public funding for this project. Thanks for your take on this FB.
Apparently the council doesn't take much of a shine to Ms. Miller nor her river plan.
Pretty much as I suspect, if anything is hurried past voters, there's a lot of devils in the details.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
One of our city councilors is an old friend of the family I work for.
He stopped by yesterday for a social visit with my boss and I can't resist the temptation to back him into a corner on city and county politics when I see him.
He doesn't think the river plan has a chance with voters and said there hasn't been enough due dilligence on the financing and pretty much said we don't need so much public funding for this project. Thanks for your take on this FB.
Apparently the council doesn't take much of a shine to Ms. Miller nor her river plan.
Pretty much as I suspect, if anything is hurried past voters, there's a lot of devils in the details.
When the city government and taxpayers are getting a rush deal, in all likelihood it is a
BAD DEAL.
The poster-boy of hurry-up Bad Deals was the Trash-to-Energy plant.
That White Elephant soaked at least $180 million in extra costs from city water & trash customers.
It was promoted by Ogden Martin and the
LORTON's WORLD with banner headlines:
Tulsa is running out of "Certifiable" landfill.
It was a totally fallacious then.
Tulsa water & trash rate payers have been
robbed for over 20 years, thanks to former Mayor and now Senior Senator Inhofe and his bone-headed advisors. Let's send him the bill!
And, now with the Burn Plant closed, TMUA insists on keeping $6 of the $7 dollars that we spent for the last 20 years paying the debt on an asset the City of Tulsa doesn't even OWN!
Has the
TMUA Board no
SHAME at this continued blantant robbery of the Tulsa water & trash ratepayers?
NO SHAME?
and, all because of
Folly!
What total Folly!
You're asking whether a guy like Inhofe has shame??? [}:)]
FB-
It was also brought to my attention that the note on the TTEP was silently paid off LAST SEPTEMBER, yet we have been still been assessed the fee for the last, what, ten months.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
You're asking whether a guy like Inhofe has shame??? [}:)]
Shortly after approving the Trash-to-Energy Plant and the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy (TARE), Mr. Inhofe got to move to a new job in Washington, D.C. to become our U.S. Representative for District 1.
He got to walk away, and left us holding his dude bag for the past 20 years.
We got to stick around and pay for it for 20 more years.
Thanks, Jimbo.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
FB-
It was also brought to my attention that the note on the TTEP was silently paid off LAST SEPTEMBER, yet we have been still been assessed the fee for the last, what, ten months.
Conan: You appear to be singularly well-informed.
I'm sure it's just a paperwork snafu; and that the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority (TMUA)
will be rebating the excess collections of TARE money to us shortly. Keep watching for the Check-in-the-Mail.
Of curious note:
Jim Cameron and Lou Reynolds, local attorneys, and their bitterly contested Re-Appointment to TMUA the proximate cause of the City Counselors Medlock and Mautino Recall Attempt, are alive, apparently well, and still pumping our fresh, treated water to growing Bixby and Owasso, at BARGAIN rates.
Remember Mayor Bill-me MisFortunates' bargain rate water contracts, approved by Cameron and Reynolds, under
40-year Sweetheart-Deal Contracts??
Sheperded by Mayor MisFortunate, former Land Attorney, in order to subsidize the development of Tulsa's suburbs and help strangle Tulsa city government's oxygen supply (sales taxes).
Yes, they are STILL on TMUA. KEEP up the GREAT work, we LUV those guys. The Bixby and Owasso developers just
LOVE those guys, too.
Bet they can't thank them enough, or often enough.
[;)]
Gotta admit, I kinda missed FB's rambling global conspiracies and general pessimism.
*sniffle*
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Gotta admit, I kinda missed FB's rambling global conspiracies and general pessimism.
*sniffle*
Enjoy until Bear's next Borg Hibernation Cycle.
Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated.
Or, bored silly.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I'm sure it's just a paperwork snafu; and that the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority (TMUA)
will be rebating the excess collections of TARE money to us shortly. Keep watching for the Check-in-the-Mail.
Sort of like those darned "scrivener's errors", eh? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I'm sure it's just a paperwork snafu; and that the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority (TMUA)
will be rebating the excess collections of TARE money to us shortly. Keep watching for the Check-in-the-Mail.
Sort of like those darned "scrivener's errors", eh? [;)]
Achtung! ALAAAAARm.
Kamaraden, Vee are just starting to Veer dangerously off-topic, slightly increasing the potential of a Locked Thread......by the Forum GESTAPO, which as we know is a department of the Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department).
River Plan - Taxes/Funding is the topic of this post, henceforth, now and forevermore.Zu Befehl!
Okay, here's a New idea for
River Funding:
SELL the excess water in the River to North Texas, then PAVE the ARKANSAS River bed in Tulsa County, replacing any foliage with artificial trees and Astro-Turf, creating permanent Low Maintenance!
There could be BILLIONS of dollars worth of water sales that those thirsty, economically-booming Norte Texicanos can be fleeced out of.
We should be
On Guard, as they may want to ANNEX Oklahoma to get their sticky fingers on our Brown Gold: Arkansas River Water!
Uh, one problem: Don't the Indians own everything from Arkansas river bank to river bank, including water, sand, dirt, minerals, fish, and game, from some treaty back with President Millard Fillmore?????
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Uh, one problem: Don't the Indians own everything from Arkansas river bank to river bank, including water, sand, dirt, minerals, fish, and game, from some treaty back with President Millard Fillmore?????
[;)]
I know nuthink. NUTHINK!
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by the Artist.
"As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river."
This is exactly what the Mayor had asked the TMAPC to come up with...
Originally posted by the Arstist.
But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed
You are an awfully trusting soul Sir.........
INCOG planned it.... True...
INCOG can not enforce what is built on property that is not yet zoned..
Without the "zoning" in place Charles Norman, and others, could make these up as the interest in the private development became an issue.
There would be no "appropriate use" designated because we would be dealing with property that was not zoned....
In other words..... We would have no "guarantee".... What we would wind up with....
If this vote were to be put off until the TMAPC finished the zoning on the corridor..... I think it would be more palatable.
I, for one, am not handing money to developers.... and you may say it is the City, County etc., with no promised results....
Then .... 5 years or so from the start of this tax... "well construction costs have doubled" "we will have to spend more to get the desired results....?"
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Tax_.jpg)
I just figure at the moment that there really isn't a lot of available river front property that can be developed in Tulsa. Other than the areas west of downtown and west of 71st. Most of the area is city owned park space now or owned by the refineries and industrial companies. Not that there is going to be any rush to develop over there.
So again the, Kum-n-Go every hundred yards scenario, doesn't ring true. But yes I would still like to see zoning in place especially for the area west of Downtown.
But I wonder why the city wants to buy the Concrete property over there? Can't the Tulsa Landing guy buy it? Or does the city still have the option pending to do so? My assumption, and hope, would be that if the city or county wants to buy it to then sell to the Tulsa Landing developer, its because they want to have some say in how and what is developed there. Do they also still hold the option to buy the Westport property?
So.... Senor....
Buford.... selling any of his parcels has never crossed your mind..?
The acquisition of a few.... hell.., make it and even "20" Riverside homes between 21st and 41st would not be an issue..??
I know they are zoned a certain way now....
but without zoning and development guidelines for the entire corridor.... What makes you feel they are protected from whatever the highest buck wants to make of them,,?
Ms Miller is once again on the side of a "hurry up and decide" issue.. Not so different than the way the Islands were thrown at the Tulsa public.............
and a very happy Bing Thom to you....!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/RMiller.jpg)
Originally posted by the Artist.
I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by the Artist.
"As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river."
This is exactly what the Mayor had asked the TMAPC to come up with...
Originally posted by the Arstist.
But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed
You are an awfully trusting soul Sir.........
INCOG planned it.... True...
INCOG can not enforce what is built on property that is not yet zoned..
Without the "zoning" in place Charles Norman, and others, could make these up as the interest in the private development became an issue.
There would be no "appropriate use" designated because we would be dealing with property that was not zoned....
In other words..... We would have no "guarantee".... What we would wind up with....
If this vote were to be put off until the TMAPC finished the zoning on the corridor..... I think it would be more palatable.
I, for one, am not handing money to developers.... and you may say it is the City, County etc., with no promised results....
Then .... 5 years or so from the start of this tax... "well construction costs have doubled" "we will have to spend more to get the desired results....?"
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Tax_.jpg)
I just figure at the moment that there really isn't a lot of available river front property that can be developed in Tulsa. Other than the areas west of downtown and west of 71st. Most of the area is city owned park space now or owned by the refineries and industrial companies. Not that there is going to be any rush to develop over there.
So again the, Kum-n-Go every hundred yards scenario, doesn't ring true. But yes I would still like to see zoning in place especially for the area west of Downtown.
But I wonder why the city wants to buy the Concrete property over there? Can't the Tulsa Landing guy buy it? Or does the city still have the option pending to do so? My assumption, and hope, would be that if the city or county wants to buy it to then sell to the Tulsa Landing developer, its because they want to have some say in how and what is developed there. Do they also still hold the option to buy the Westport property?
The West Bank concrete plant was allegedly sold this year by Roger Hardesty, local Concrete Magnate, to a Mexican Concrete Cartel.
As reported in the
Lorton's World.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
[
The West Bank concrete plant was allegedly sold this year by Roger Hardesty, local Concrete Magnate, to a Mexican Concrete Cartel.
As reported in the Lorton's World.
Wasn't it just the concrete business that they bought? Did they buy the land?
Artist there is land other than what you mentioned. Including along Avery Drive, County land near the proposed Gilcrease bridge, Newblock park, the soccer fields next to PSO, and of course the ever popular "fill in the river" process that the Indians used to build their gambling palace.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
So.... Senor....
Buford.... selling any of his parcels has never crossed your mind..?
The acquisition of a few.... hell.., make it and even "20" Riverside homes between 21st and 41st would not be an issue..??
I know they are zoned a certain way now....
but without zoning and development guidelines for the entire corridor.... What makes you feel they are protected from whatever the highest buck wants to make of them,,?
Ms Miller is once again on the side of a "hurry up and decide" issue.. Not so different than the way the Islands were thrown at the Tulsa public.............
and a very happy Bing Thom to you....!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/RMiller.jpg)
Originally posted by the Artist.
I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary.
[}:)]
Thats absurd to even bring up the area between 21st and 41st. If thats such a desirable area to build a gas station or some other development, and its easy to do so now, whats been stopping them from doing it... well heck, my entire life? "protected from the highest buck" you make it sound like there is a bidding war going on that I dont know about?
I have no idea who Buford is btw.
As for Avery drive, Gilcrease Bridge, Newblock Park, etc. I have no idea where those things are? All Terra Incognito to me. So if I have never seen them I don't really care what they build there. Must get a lot of Traffic and be in a booming area if it is likely to get a gas station or a Micky-Ds every 100 yards. And if those are such desirable areas for them, why haven't they been built there up till now?
Yes, it was my understanding they bought the company but not the facility.
"As for Avery drive, Gilcrease Bridge, Newblock Park, etc. I have no idea where those things are? All Terra Incognito to me. So if I have never seen them I don't really care what they build there. Must get a lot of Traffic and be in a booming area if it is likely to get a gas station or a Micky-Ds every 100 yards. And if those are such desirable areas for them, why haven't they been built there up till now?"
^
Sounds as though you have done ample research to be an informed advocate for this cause.........
For the record....
Buford owns that little tiny white house on Riverside with the 40 acres, or so, front yard..
I have heard it called many things.... But from now on... I kinda like the name "Terra Incognito"
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
As for Avery drive, Gilcrease Bridge, Newblock Park, etc. I have no idea where those things are? All Terra Incognito to me.
Sorry if I sound condecending, but you really should get out to see the city more. As an artist, you should at least be familiar with Waterworks studio, in Newblock Park. Not only a great service to the community, but a really cool building as well. http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Recreation/Parks/WaterWorks.asp
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Uh, one problem: Don't the Indians own everything from Arkansas river bank to river bank, including water, sand, dirt, minerals, fish, and game, from some treaty back with President Millard Fillmore?????
Does a Friendly Bear s*#t in the woods?(Sorry, I couldn't resist) As long as the grass grows and the water flows, babe.
This alone is enough reason to oppose this river tax (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/070719_A1_hAVis52652_a1river.jpg)
Is our mayor that short?
Who's the woman in the back doing the Derek Zoolander pose?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
So.... Senor....
[}:)]
Thats absurd to even bring up the area between 21st and 41st. If thats such a desirable area to build a gas station or some other development, and its easy to do so now, whats been stopping them from doing it... well heck, my entire life? "protected from the highest buck" you make it sound like there is a bidding war going on that I dont know about?
I have no idea who Buford is btw.
As for Avery drive, Gilcrease Bridge, Newblock Park, etc. I have no idea where those things are? All Terra Incognito to me. So if I have never seen them I don't really care what they build there. Must get a lot of Traffic and be in a booming area if it is likely to get a gas station or a Micky-Ds every 100 yards. And if those are such desirable areas for them, why haven't they been built there up till now?
Nice job of cherry picking my post. Its embarrasing enough that you don't know Avery drive or Newblock, but just take the PSO soccer fields, or what the Indians did at 81st. Then remember that regardless of what officials proclaim, the rights to the river are not all that settled. They could press the case and force a settlement. You like their style of building and advertising the casino?
Does no one remember what happened along the river in 1984 and 1986? Not sure I want too much taxpayer money spent on the river to find in under water someday. Private industry wants to build and have flood insurance, fine.
One last comment then i go to work.
I find myself in strange company with anti-tax and anti-river forces, AA, FB and the dean of inside info, Conan. But the truth is this:
There is no guarantee with sales tax funding that this plan will ever come to fruition. They can spend the money any way they please then come back later with pleas for more. Kind of like a bad remodeling contractor. The money will likely be moved to roads, arena and downtown if past history is repeated.
Oversight is self administered. So many lies and half truths about the river and its development have been promoted for so long that credibility is shot.
There is no overall zoning plan that I can determine. Artist made me aware of that, yet now seems to overlook its importance.
There is no focus for the river plans. If this were a business plan that a bank was considering funding, that would kill it. Where is the excitement? A roller coaster, a cable car, a fountain...anything...is more exciting than just walks along a pretty (expensive) river bank. "Hey honey, while we're in town lets go watch the immigrants fish off the pier!"
No interconnected areas. This is a killer for me. Without locks/dams, lifts, canal connections between each lake, the synergy of the development is blunted. You expect there to be three different dinner cruises, excursion boats, rental operations etc.?? No, worse yet little thought has even been given to that type of develpment because everyone's focussed on retail, lofts and other commercial. good luck with that.
I am totally disgusted that the inertia of bureaucracy will keep this river comfortably cosmopolitan for another generation. Find another way to fund it, provide public oversight, find a focus (the channels at least had one) and a comprehensive zoning program or bug off.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
This alone is enough reason to oppose this river tax (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/070719_A1_hAVis52652_a1river.jpg)
Not quite visible in this picture are Randi Miller's knees knocking, while taking the measure of that
Hunk-a-Hunk-of-Burning-Love ARVEST President Don Walker.
Mayor Taylor, on the other hand, is happy to see that Mr. Walker has found the missing IUD, and is holding it up in his left hand, looking for a claimant.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There is no focus for the river plans. If this were a business plan that a bank was considering funding, that would kill it.
That's the funny part WB- Don Walker with Arvest is one of the big proponents...LOL!
Sgrizz- the Derek Zoolander character is one of the mover-and-shaker TYPros or YP's or whatever they call themselves when they are patting themselves on the back whilst having drinks at Suede's or McNellie's.
I think the locals are going to want the roads repaired before approving improvements to the river. The river can wait; the roads can't. The beating our roads took this past winter cinches that.
If Randi Miller can't get another Commissioner to agree, there won't be a vote and this plan will be the same as the Channels.
I am not sure either of the other two want this vote.
This whole discussion is probably moot.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
If Randi Miller can't get another Commissioner to agree, there won't be a vote and this plan will be the same as the Channels.
I am not sure either of the other two want this vote.
This whole discussion is probably moot.
If the two new commissioners are RINO's, then I think she'll easily get a least one other commissioner to vote Yes with her.
Perry and Smaligo were both elected last November, and don't have to face re-election until the year 2010.
Which ever one or both of them who side with her will have another 3.5 years for the voters to forget about his Affirmative Vote to raise their taxes.
And, another 3.5 years will provide ample time for the coterie of connected-crony construction companies, engineers, architects, sub-contractors, attorneys, accountants, and bond underwriters to fund them an UNBEATABLE campaign war-chest, or maybe steer some other inducements to the commissioners side businesses.
Does it make you wonder how many city council family members are riding around "test-driving" Dollar/Thrifty rental cars, gratis?
Elected Officials operating at all levels of government form basically a
FAVORS-TRADING network, financed of course with O.P.M., to benefit the connected and privileged few.
And we Pay the Freight. Every minute of every day.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Government at all levels is basically a FAVORS-TRADING network, financed of course with O.P.M., to benefit the connected and privileged few.
All levels?...
Sorry to hear you are so cynical to believe that. I completely disagree.
I have known many an elected official and many a public official who gave up their time to serve or passed up more lucrative careers because they tried to make a difference in their community.
Our government is full of good people too.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Government at all levels is basically a FAVORS-TRADING network, financed of course with O.P.M., to benefit the connected and privileged few.
All levels?...
Sorry to hear you are so cynical to believe that. I completely disagree.
I have known many an elected official and many a public official who gave up their time to serve or passed up more lucrative careers because they tried to make a difference in their community.
Our government is full of good people too.
Don't waste a moment feeling sorry for me; feel sorry for the beleagured taxpayers of our city, state and nation, with upwards of 50% of their economic substance sucked dry by "the plague of a multitude of offices."
I totally agree our government if full of good, dedicated, hard-working employees. You are probably one of many of our hard-working, dedicated City CIVIL SERVICE employees that keep our necessary vital services functioning despite the wrong-headed spending priorities and ruinously expensive buddy-deals of the
SELECTED leaders.
I will edit my previous comments to say that our
ELECTED officials at all levels of Government are part of a vast, favors-trading network, because from the lowest school board position to President of the United States, they preside over the control of spending O.P.M. That is why locally they are selected by their Founder Family patrons, and then elected with their financial backing and the support of the
Lorton's World Echo Chamber.
Different networks and different players, but it operates under the same basic ground rule:
THE
NEED TO
FEED THEIR PATRONS'
GREED.Using O.P.M.
A CAUTIONARY NOTE:Michael: Our latest discussion has slightly drifted Off-Topic, which is:
"Comments related to the taxes and private donations for the river plan."
Maybe you'd like to start a New Topic under
Political:
Tulsa Banana Republic/Ruling Power Oligarchy/Founder Families/Flint-Rooney-Lorton-Helmerich/NEED TO FEED THE GREED/Black Helicopters/FBI CARNIVORE/UFO's/Ebola Virus.So, please let's TRY to again
STAY on the TOPIC of taxes and private donations for the River Plan.
What?! Since when is politics and taxes two separate issues....geeeesh I'm laughing.
quote:
Originally posted by cks511
What?! Since when is politics and taxes two separate issues....geeeesh I'm laughing.
They are separate issues because Tulsanow.org Forum Moderator says they are separate.
Tulsanow.org has separate Forums for
Development, and also for
Political Arena.
The "Moderator" posted this Topic under
Development.So, it
IS Development.
You've just got to get your mind right.
"Still shaking that bush, boss".
Cool Hand Luke
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
If Randi Miller can't get another Commissioner to agree, there won't be a vote and this plan will be the same as the Channels.
I am not sure either of the other two want this vote.
This whole discussion is probably moot.
Not moot if word of it trickles back to the county commissioners that there are some Tulsan's concerned enough about it to waste a lot of monitor time to it. I notice at any given time of the day there are 30 to 50 "guests" on the forum. No telling who mines this board for ideas or to keep a pulse on what the rank-and-file are saying about the city.
Oh, and Friendly Bear- your comment about the demo cars was very, very creepy. Our councilor friend was driving a newer Chrysler the other day- a 300 or whatever the current luxury sedan is. It's a strech connecting the dots, but does make you go: "Hmmm".
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
If Randi Miller can't get another Commissioner to agree, there won't be a vote and this plan will be the same as the Channels.
I am not sure either of the other two want this vote.
This whole discussion is probably moot.
Not moot if word of it trickles back to the county commissioners that there are some Tulsan's concerned enough about it to waste a lot of monitor time to it. I notice at any given time of the day there are 30 to 50 "guests" on the forum. No telling who mines this board for ideas or to keep a pulse on what the rank-and-file are saying about the city.
Oh, and Friendly Bear- your comment about the demo cars was very, very creepy. Our councilor friend was driving a newer Chrysler the other day- a 300 or whatever the current luxury sedan is. It's a strech connecting the dots, but does make you go: "Hmmm".
Yes, curious about
MANY more lurkers than posters. Strong
HEAT indicator on this Topic.
Friends or Foes? [?]
On the Cars-for-Our-Close-Family-Friends thread....
Suspicions arose when what were formerly Grizzly Bear City Councilors became Teddy Bear City Councilors once Mayor Taylor assumed office. They are mostly purring now like a WELL-cared for cub.
Theoretically, one of the many ways that politicians graft is to be handed a set of car keys by one of their sponsoring patrons, with the send-off:
"
When you're tired of the color, bring it back and we'll exchange it for another one."
No paper trail. No asset transfer. No money changes hands. No operator insurance. Down on the Patrons books as merely a "loaner" or "demo". And, just a virtually untraceable tax-deductible business expense for the Patron.
If the politico somehow gets caught red-handed, it's acknowledged as either a "loaner", or the paper-work gets back-dated for the "Lease".
Wonder who hands delivers the monthly pre-paid gasoline card, too, for their wife or kids to use?
Or, maybe their kids get a Summer minimal effort or No-Show job at their Patron's company, lawfirm, etc.
All untraceable, unless the FBI already has them staked out or bugged, but likely a LOW risk.
Kind of like how the OU Booster Club provides cool transportation and Walking-Around-Money to its star athletes.
[:O]
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
I say we go for the river proposal and all drive landrovers. Actually scatter some large boulders around some of the streets for added effect. Now THAT would have the makings of a really trendy city. Kind of an "Urban Wilderness" theme. The mayor can have neighborhood camp outs instead of picnics. For short jaunts we can get out the ol mountain bikes. Next time a water main breaks, just let er rip, we can have little streams to splash over. And hey, you definitely would not have to mow the grass in such a scenario, it would just add to the authentic ambiance. Uuuuber kewl duude. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
Feel free to show why I'm wrong........
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
That's not fair. I originally am on record as supporting this plan, any plan to get moving on developing the river. After seeing no one able to refute the criticisms presented and beginning to see some patterns emerge on these projects, I changed my mind. It doesn't help that no one seems to care about mine and others reservations. Do they know and hope no one notices? Or do they figure I'm a crackpot and no one will pay attention?
I know they read these forum threads and when they've had enough, they respond or incorporate our ideas. Here's hoping.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
That's not fair. I originally am on record as supporting this plan, any plan to get moving on developing the river. After seeing no one able to refute the criticisms presented and beginning to see some patterns emerge on these projects, I changed my mind. It doesn't help that no one seems to care about mine and others reservations. Do they know and hope no one notices? Or do they figure I'm a crackpot and no one will pay attention?
I know they read these forum threads and when they've had enough, they respond or incorporate our ideas. Here's hoping.
WB:
The
Vote Yes to Higher Taxes group fully expects that:
their million dollar media buy,
the endorsement by local notables and politicos,
their positive news and editorial coverage in the
Lorton's Daily World,
the thousands of
Vote Yes Yard Signs placed under implicit threat of immediate termination for non-compliance in the yards of captive employees of companies controlled by the local power elite,
the
VACUMNING of the paltry number of yard signs put out by the impotent Vote No Volunteers by the
suspiciously recently re-invigorated Yard Sign Nazis,
the very favorable Vote YES slanted news provided by "news" Channel 862,
and, finally and probably
MOST IMPORTANT, the heavy thumb of the Tulsa County Commissioner-controlled County Election Board on the ballot count could be more than enough to pick our pockets to fill the pockets of the
Flint, Rooney, Lorton, and Kaiser financial interests for
many, many years to come.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.Ain't Democracy Great?
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa!
[B)]
Randys hot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would still like to see a more detailed presentation of the plan. I really want to see something done along the river. And at first glimpes this looks fine. Not perfect or exactly what I would choose, but no plan will be unless they let me design it. [:D]
Assuming the more detailed plan that they would put out before the vote had no major "bad suprises" in it, I would vote for it.
However if this happens...
The suburbs not on the river vote against it, especially after thinking of what they could do with that tax money for themselves. Most of the suburbs are growing and have needs. Also as I see the larger suburbs fleshing out into full blown small cities in their own right, they may tend to more and more just focus on themselves and on how they can attract more corporations, people, etc. I would like to think that they would have an "enlightened self interest" in seeing Tulsa have improved image among other similar sized cities by having these great facilities along the river thus making the whole area grow more. But they seem to be doing quite fine as it is so they may feel more pressure to use a new tax directly for themselves. I can't quite peg how the average voter is going to see this. So if the county vote for this relatively moderate river proposal fails it will send a clear signal that its now dog eat dog, everyone for themselves in this county.
If this vote fails for this reason, then we are left with a couple of scenarios that I can see.
1. Some sort of "River Community" tax and organization where only the cities directly on the river vote for this plan.
2. A city of Tulsa only vote on a pared down version of the Kaiser plan. A pared down version having only those items directly in Tulsa. The low water dams are the most expensive items. Would like to see a dam for Jenks since it would put water in Tulsas part of the river. But if the first vote fails we would definitely have to leave out some of the most expensive items, the Jenks and Sand Springs dams, and still have a healthy dose of Kaiser funds, to get it to pass.
Hopefully as more info about the plan comes out and then we get a better feel for voter opinion, we will have an idea of which way this could go. And if it appears that this Kaiser plan will not pass as it is now that they will really consider one of the other 2 options. And do so quickly. In other words, even while pushing for this vote, be working on plan B.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
That's not fair. I originally am on record as supporting this plan, any plan to get moving on developing the river. After seeing no one able to refute the criticisms presented and beginning to see some patterns emerge on these projects, I changed my mind. It doesn't help that no one seems to care about mine and others reservations. Do they know and hope no one notices? Or do they figure I'm a crackpot and no one will pay attention?
I know they read these forum threads and when they've had enough, they respond or incorporate our ideas. Here's hoping.
WB:
The Vote Yes to Higher Taxes group fully expects that:
their million dollar media buy,
the endorsement by local notables and politicos,
their positive news and editorial coverage in the Lorton's Daily World,
the thousands of Vote Yes Yard Signs placed under implicit threat of immediate termination for non-compliance in the yards of captive employees of companies controlled by the local power elite,
the VACUMNING of the paltry number of yard signs put out by the impotent Vote No Volunteers by the suspiciously recently re-invigorated Yard Sign Nazis,
the very favorable Vote YES slanted news provided by "news" Channel 862,
and, finally and probably MOST IMPORTANT, the heavy thumb of the Tulsa County Commissioner-controlled County Election Board on the ballot count will be more than enough to pick our pockets to fill the pockets of the Flint, Rooney, Lorton, and Kaiser financial interests for many, many years to come.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.
Ain't Democracy Great?
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa!
[B)]
Yea would hate to see those local people and companies getting rich. Lord knows they don't do anything for or give back to the community. Especially that greedy Kaiser fella. Yea, we should just not do anything to our river. That would show them greedy sob's. Or if we do, don't do it in an area of town where they or anyone else might make money on it. I would never ask for anyone else to help make my home or business interests, heck it might help my neighbors and other businesses do better as well. We sure wouldn't want that.
Waterboy - as I understand it, the main sources of your reservations seem to be: a) the absence of navigable locks in the dams; and b) the tax issue.
Since this is the tax thread, I'll just deal with the fiscal question.
It seems like we have to balance aspirations for river development with a reluctance to raise taxes. That reluctance to tax is compounded by an apparent mistrust of municipal authorities to use the funds. Understandable. But I will suggest this:
It's not going to get any better.
We're never going to see a "perfect" river plan, even if one existed. We're never going to have perfect management and oversight. As a conservative I sympathize with the urge to demand fiscal responsibility of our leaders. But as a Tulsan I must balance that urge with the needs of the municipality. Those needs include road maintenance and crime enforcement, to be sure. I would support reasonable taxes necessary to solve those problems. But perfect asphalt would does not create a sense of place. My outlook is such that river renewal is just as necessary as pavement renewal. We're never going to get a perfect plan, but this one seems to have sprung from a long process of civic discussion and honest feasibility studies.
We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront. I support the latter. For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Waterboy - as I understand it, the main sources of your reservations seem to be: a) the absence of navigable locks in the dams; and b) the tax issue.
Since this is the tax thread, I'll just deal with the fiscal question.
It seems like we have to balance aspirations for river development with a reluctance to raise taxes. That reluctance to tax is compounded by an apparent mistrust of municipal authorities to use the funds. Understandable. But I will suggest this:
It's not going to get any better.
We're never going to see a "perfect" river plan, even if one existed. We're never going to have perfect management and oversight. As a conservative I sympathize with the urge to demand fiscal responsibility of our leaders. But as a Tulsan I must balance that urge with the needs of the municipality. Those needs include road maintenance and crime enforcement, to be sure. I would support reasonable taxes necessary to solve those problems. But perfect asphalt would does not create a sense of place. My outlook is such that river renewal is just as necessary as pavement renewal. We're never going to get a perfect plan, but this one seems to have sprung from a long process of civic discussion and honest feasibility studies.
We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront. I support the latter. For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.
I don't need perfect to support it. The lack of connectivity, the lack of a focal point and the lack of credibility for a sales tax make it flawed. I remember when v2025 was touted as both a downtown arena AND river development. That was a falsehood. A fraction was spent on river 'engineering studies". Unless this is a bond issue or has public oversight I just can't depend upon the kindness of strangers anymore. Especially for Channel lite.
Do you remember voting to have the Meadow Gold sign moved at a cost of over $130,000 even though the pre v2025 bid had been around $75,000? It was then stored away for future erection at a different site which will probably cost more v2025 dollars. And that was with oversight from a mayoral appointed v2025 committee to protect our interests. They could have at least moved it to the river and pretended it was development.
Do you remember the public input phase? I was working long days at that time ferrying boat passengers upstream to the dam and back so I wasn't able to participate until phase 2. It sure didn't feel like anything but benevolent dictatorship to me by then and I didn't see any new ideas. Some people like that sort of patronage, I don't. No one outside of the press ever showed any interest in getting my input. I wasn't part of the network of engineers, lawyers, partisans and contractors who lined up at the trough and promised to carry a battle flag. Sorry but thats the way I feel.
It seemed odd to me that a lot of people who knew nothing about tourism, development, river dynamics, history, science and politics were invited to come up with "input" and anyone expected something imaginative to come of it. All it did was lead to the Channels.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront. I support the latter. For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.
What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.
With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront. I support the latter. For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.
What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.
With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.
Very logical. Sounds perfectly feasible and reasonable.
Problem is: The local controlling plutocrats lust for that extra $0.004, because they already CONTROL the overages from the $0.006 Vision 2025 sales tax, and they ALWAYS want more.
And, they just aren't going to let go of either of them, until our Sales Tax is 8.917% on the dollar. Nearly 10% of every dollar we spend.
They need to feed their greed.
And, they are
always hungry.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.
Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.
That's not fair. I originally am on record as supporting this plan, any plan to get moving on developing the river. After seeing no one able to refute the criticisms presented and beginning to see some patterns emerge on these projects, I changed my mind. It doesn't help that no one seems to care about mine and others reservations. Do they know and hope no one notices? Or do they figure I'm a crackpot and no one will pay attention?
I know they read these forum threads and when they've had enough, they respond or incorporate our ideas. Here's hoping.
WB:
The Vote Yes to Higher Taxes group fully expects that:
their million dollar media buy,
the endorsement by local notables and politicos,
their positive news and editorial coverage in the Lorton's Daily World,
the thousands of Vote Yes Yard Signs placed under implicit threat of immediate termination for non-compliance in the yards of captive employees of companies controlled by the local power elite,
the VACUMNING of the paltry number of yard signs put out by the impotent Vote No Volunteers by the suspiciously recently re-invigorated Yard Sign Nazis,
the very favorable Vote YES slanted news provided by "news" Channel 862,
and, finally and probably MOST IMPORTANT, the heavy thumb of the Tulsa County Commissioner-controlled County Election Board on the ballot count will be more than enough to pick our pockets to fill the pockets of the Flint, Rooney, Lorton, and Kaiser financial interests for many, many years to come.
They NEED to FEED their GREED.
Ain't Democracy Great?
Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa!
[B)]
Yea would hate to see those local people and companies getting rich. Lord knows they don't do anything for or give back to the community. Especially that greedy Kaiser fella. Yea, we should just not do anything to our river. That would show them greedy sob's. Or if we do, don't do it in an area of town where they or anyone else might make money on it. I would never ask for anyone else to help make my home or business interests, heck it might help my neighbors and other businesses do better as well. We sure wouldn't want that.
I said earlier in this thread that while Mr. Kaiser's philanthropy, if genuine, could be put to good use, but that overall I am wholly unimpressed when Philanthropy is
CONDITIONAL, i.e. used as BAIT to gull the voters into contributing an enormous premium above the purported private gift.
The Kaiser River Tax is only PHASE I of the River Tax. Check back in with us in 2050 when we're still paying for Phase V.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront. I support the latter. For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.
What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.
With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.
I like thinking big, but as a feasible alternative I could certainly get on board with that.
Michael Bates, are you posing a hypothetical or is it really there?
If there really is money in already available via the V2025 tax for the dams and they can be built for $25mm or less each, there's no reason to not support it.
If it is, I don't get the point of the money-grab for this project if the funds supposedly exist. I also don't trust estimates as it relates to municipal projects any more, considering the over-runs on the arena.
Floyd, I have a hard time comparing funding an "update" to the river as even remotely relevant to the priority of funds to fix and upgrade our crumbling and insufficient infrastructure that all of us must use to carry on our daily commerce and convenience.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There is no focus for the river plans. If this were a business plan that a bank was considering funding, that would kill it.
That's the funny part WB- Don Walker with Arvest is one of the big proponents...LOL!
Sgrizz- the Derek Zoolander character is one of the mover-and-shaker TYPros or YP's or whatever they call themselves when they are patting themselves on the back whilst having drinks at Suede's or McNellie's.
are tose turds hired professionals because they Ypros or whatever look NOTHING like the majority of young workers I see downtown.
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
Bruno:
Why
WAIT for the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...
Join the "Tax Me More Club".
Send your donation to:
Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK 74103
Bruno,
I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:
- Managed existing assets better
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
...our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
Well said.
I am not for nor against the river tax yet... waiting to see the final package, but am OK to pay a little more for the right additions to our community.
I want better, and I am willing to pay more.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Michael Bates, are you posing a hypothetical or is it really there?
If there really is money in already available via the V2025 tax for the dams and they can be built for $25mm or less each, there's no reason to not support it.
If it is, I don't get the point of the money-grab for this project if the funds supposedly exist. I also don't trust estimates as it relates to municipal projects any more, considering the over-runs on the arena.
Floyd, I have a hard time comparing funding an "update" to the river as even remotely relevant to the priority of funds to fix and upgrade our crumbling and insufficient infrastructure that all of us must use to carry on our daily commerce and convenience.
In this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly (available online at http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675
Michael Bates analyzes the overages being collected in the Vision 2025 Sales Tax, and does some pretty thorough calculations that show that there will be adequate overcollections of the Vision 2025 tax to fund the majority of the Kaiser River Plan projects.
All without raising a "New" $0.004 Sales Tax.
Makes perfect sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
Bruno:
Why WAIT for the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...
Join the "Tax Me More Club".
Send your donation to:
Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK 74103
FriendlyBear:
Why
***** ABOUT the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're taxed too much, then...
Move to some low tax ****hole...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Bruno,
I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:
- Managed existing assets better
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?
all of your points are theories or conjecture at best... at the very least, they are issues that exist in EVERY other goddamn city in the US...
if we approve the package, we might just get something great... if we don't approve it, we won't get anything anytime soon/ever... if we ever get something else approved, we'll be that much further behind the eight-ball...
we have not gotten anything in 30 ****ing years...
aside from the 70-80's run, we've been dying on the vine since the 30's...
maybe the man isn't screwing us, maybe we screwed ourselves...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Bruno,
I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:
- Managed existing assets better
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?
all of your points are theories or conjecture at best... at the very least, they are issues that exist in EVERY other goddamn city in the US...
if we approve the package, we might just get something great... if we don't approve it, we won't get anything anytime soon/ever... if we ever get something else approved, we'll be that much further behind the eight-ball...
we have not gotten anything in 30 ****ing years...
aside from the 70-80's run, we've been dying on the vine since the 30's...
maybe the man isn't screwing us, maybe we screwed ourselves...
Doing the RIGHT thing with finite tax resources is much preferable than just doing something.
The river is long and the river is wide.
As a result, other than bike and walking trails running parallel to the river, the only development that creates an economic engine feeding off of recreation, entertainment, dining, etc. will be at HUBS along the river.
These Hubs will be spread out for MILES and MILES, and therefore much more EXPENSIVE.
The Bricktown area of OKC, which some hold up as some kind of example, is very
COMPACT compared to Arkansas River Development.
Ultimately, whatever someone decides to build on the river other than for Flood Control, the Indian Tribes will want a piece of the action. It is long-settled law that the Indian Tribes own EVERYTHING from Riverbank to Riverbank. Everything.
They may let the County proceed to built along, in and over the river. Then, at some future point, serve notice that the city/county has a court date.
The owner of a property right does NOT have to notify anyone of an looming encroachment. They can patiently wait until after the construction is complete, then serve notice of the encroachment on their property, and demand to vacate the property.
Witness the Lone Star Steakhouse on East 71st & Mingo. It was completed, yet did not open for YEARS because the builder had encroached on another's property, and it became a very protracted legal matter.
The encroacher has to either pay the property owner for the encroachment, or MOVE their building off of the encroachment.
The Indians will be patient.........
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
Exactly right.
And for the "do the roads first crowd:
You really must not travel much. Our roads may well have some pot holes, but at least they function. Traffic moves and moves well here. Try going to other cities and see how great those smooth roads are when you sit stopped in traffic for hours a day. Ask the average American if they would trade perfect smooth and terribly congested roads for somewhat bumpy roads where traffic actually flows and they would vote for our situation every time.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
Bruno:
Why WAIT for the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...
Join the "Tax Me More Club".
Send your donation to:
Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK 74103
FriendlyBear:
Why ***** ABOUT the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're taxed too much, then...
Move to some low tax ****hole...
Ummm problem is he is already there. Along with the rest of us. Find another city our size or larger in the country whose citizens pay less over all taxes. Oklahomans already have the lowest tax burden in the nation, along with high rates of child abuse, neglect, hunger, death, high murder rates, drug abuse, poverty, homelessness, divorce... Even adding in our "wonderful suburban havens" we still suck.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Bruno,
I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:
- Managed existing assets better
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?
This is mostly exaggeration. I'll give you lack of asset management in the past, but that is something I would like to think is being corrected by current planning.
Given the reality that there will always be a certain amount of inefficiency and incompetence in government, whatever the level, it still is our obligation to improve our city. We have one of the lowest tax burdens in the country, and many Tulsans will be willing to pay a little more to get a whole lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Ultimately, whatever someone decides to build on the river other than for Flood Control, the Indian Tribes will want a piece of the action. It is long-settled law that the Indian Tribes own EVERYTHING from Riverbank to Riverbank. Everything.
They may let the County proceed to built along, in and over the river. Then, at some future point, serve notice that the city/county has a court date.
The owner of a property right does NOT have to notify anyone of an looming encroachment. They can patiently wait until after the construction is complete, then serve notice of the encroachment on their property, and demand to vacate the property.
Witness the Lone Star Steakhouse on East 71st & Mingo. It was completed, yet did not open for YEARS because the builder had encroached on another's property, and it became a very protracted legal matter.
The encroacher has to either pay the property owner for the encroachment, or MOVE their building off of the encroachment.
The Indians will be patient.........
I don't want to get into the equitable doctrine of laches (//%22http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm%22), covenants of fair use, or any other legal concepts that exist in the real world, but I just wanted to point out with all possible respect that what you're talking about regarding the consequences of tribal rights to what's built in the river has abolutely no basis in reality.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
You really must not travel much. Our roads may well have some pot holes, but at least they function. Traffic moves and moves well here. Try going to other cities and see how great those smooth roads are when you sit stopped in traffic for hours a day. Ask the average American if they would trade perfect smooth and terribly congested roads for somewhat bumpy roads where traffic actually flows and they would vote for our situation every time.
You really must not travel much between Riverside and Memorial between 81st & 101st during rush hour. Some nice, wide intersections. Narrow bumpy asphalt two lane roads connecting them.
Witness also poorly designed turn lanes at Harvard & Lewis along I-44. I believe there are new bridges coming in the future which may solve this, but it was inefficient planning when they were originally drawn up and implemented.
Widened intersections have helped ease some of the issues, but we don't seem to have enough foresight nor appropriation of funding to four-lane an entire mile much like other municipalities our size and larger do.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...
but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...
the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...
i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...
the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...
Bruno:
Why WAIT for the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...
Join the "Tax Me More Club".
Send your donation to:
Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK 74103
FriendlyBear:
Why ***** ABOUT the new Sales Tax?
Feel like you're taxed too much, then...
Move to some low tax ****hole...
Ummm problem is he is already there. Along with the rest of us. Find another city our size or larger in the country whose citizens pay less over all taxes. Oklahomans already have the lowest tax burden in the nation, along with high rates of child abuse, neglect, hunger, death, high murder rates, drug abuse, poverty, homelessness, divorce... Even adding in our "wonderful suburban havens" we still suck.
CNN Money thinks we are 40th in Tax Burden.
//http://http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html
However, if you measure state & local tax burden compared to MEDIAN state income rather than per capital income, we shoot up to about #15.
Why? Because our
MEDIAN income is in the bottom 20th Percentile of all 50 states, so the tax BURDEN is actually relatively high. Oklahoma being a premier low-wage state, in fact we have been #1 in the Growth of MINIMUM wage jobs.
Therefore, Oklahoma is only relatively "low-taxed" if you are a high-earner.
Moreover, if you are a high-earner, you'd be better off in Texas because of NO State Income Taxes.
If you are a low earner but own a house, you're better off here tax-wise, probably. Oklahomans have much lower Real Estate taxes. Why?
Because the Swells simply can't stand paying a lot of R.E. taxes on their vast R.E. holdings, preferring righteously that the tax burden be weighted on Sales Taxes so that the poor and middle class can "share" the tax burden to PAY them to build Arenas, etc. when we buy groceries, clothes, and furniture for our families.
What Sweethearts!
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Ultimately, whatever someone decides to build on the river other than for Flood Control, the Indian Tribes will want a piece of the action. It is long-settled law that the Indian Tribes own EVERYTHING from Riverbank to Riverbank. Everything.
They may let the County proceed to built along, in and over the river. Then, at some future point, serve notice that the city/county has a court date.
The owner of a property right does NOT have to notify anyone of an looming encroachment. They can patiently wait until after the construction is complete, then serve notice of the encroachment on their property, and demand to vacate the property.
Witness the Lone Star Steakhouse on East 71st & Mingo. It was completed, yet did not open for YEARS because the builder had encroached on another's property, and it became a very protracted legal matter.
The encroacher has to either pay the property owner for the encroachment, or MOVE their building off of the encroachment.
The Indians will be patient.........
I don't want to get into the equitable doctrine of laches (//%22http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm%22), covenants of fair use, or any other legal concepts that exist in the real world, but I just wanted to point out with all possible respect that what you're talking about regarding the consequences of tribal rights to what's built in the river has abolutely no basis in reality.
If you encroach with a fence or structure on my property, and I point it out to you IN A REASONABLE amount of time, you have to move it.
If I wait YEARS, then you may have created an easement or have other legal rights to my property via your actions.
So, if for instance, your fence is over on my property, and I promptly point this fact out, you get to move it. Or pay me.
The Indians can say that they were not aware that the rotating restaurant was actually going to be partly IN the River.......
So, move it, Cowboy, or pay us $$'s. Period.
Heh, Heh.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Bruno,
I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:
- Managed existing assets better
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?
all of your points are theories or conjecture at best...
Really? Some recent examples:
- Managed existing assets better
Crumbling and mold-infested City Hall which needs to be replaced to the tune of $76mm with speculative financing
Potholes, potholes, potholes,
- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose
Okay might be a little too much conjecture on that one as I can't cite a specific recent example
- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management
I'm presently working on a city project which used incredibly inept engineers who are not located in Tulsa, and from all appearances, were given carte blanche without bid.
They also used a local installing contractor with very little experience with our type of equipment. We are fighting to get an expensive piece of equipment paid for which was left out of the project by the engineers and is essential for it to operate as designed.
Otherwise Tulsa would be stuck with a $5mm project which will not function at all. Not to mention another very large and necessary component was left out and the operation will not be able to function for more than a year over when it was supposed to be in operation.
My boss calls this the biggest donkey-pain project our company has been on in 50 years. I can only compare to projects I've worked on the last three years I've been here and it's been pure hell. All I will say as to the nature is it falls under public works.
- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements
The Civic Center Plaza couldn't have been well-designed nor implimented for it to have started crumbling within 20 years of it's construction.
A confusing lane alignment on S. Yale at the Creek Turnpike which was NOT lined out according to the alignment recommended by the civil engineers they pay a ton of money to to figure these things out
- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting
Staubach & Co. with a sweet little bonus of $1mm if the deal closes. Can you say "loaded study"?
Outside search firm for a new police chief
Outside studies, consulting, and engineering for BOK center. All money which could have gone to perfectly competent engineering and consulting firms here in Tulsa.
Saying that other cities have problems is no justification for being satisfied with incompetent leadership and salaried department heads.
Do you support a river tax if the funds are already there on V2025 over-collection?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Saying that other cities have problems is no justification for being satisfied with incompetent leadership and salaried department heads.
it is also no justification to sit around and refuse to support any major improvements...
i support the river and will pay for it with v2025 and an additional tax if needed...
waterboy wrote:
Do you remember voting to have the Meadow Gold sign moved at a cost of over $130,000 even though the pre v2025 bid had been around $75,000? It was then stored away for future erection at a different site which will probably cost more v2025 dollars. And that was with oversight from a mayoral appointed v2025 committee to protect our interests. They could have at least moved it to the river and pretended it was development.
<end clip>
A clarification, waterboy. It's a bit off-topic, but important:
The Vision 2025 money was never meant to "move" the Meadow Gold sign. The money was earmarked for restoration of the sign at its original Lewis and 11th location, and the sign also won a grant from the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act, administered by the National Park Service, for this purpose.
The only reason it was moved because Chris Nikel (of car dealer fame) wanted it moved. Members of the city and the Route 66 community tried to persuade him to leave it alone, but he was intractable. He cited some excuse that birds roosting near the sign were crapping on his precious cars. (That's why dealerships have car washes, Chris.)
So, facing a stiff deadline, the sign was reluctantly disassembled and stored. A good portion of the money to move the sign came from donations, and I heard that Claude Neon donated some services. It took a while, but a new site for the Meadow Gold sign has been found at 11th and Quaker (near Peoria).
Nikel then demolished the building on which the sign stood. He had his sights on the floral shop on the corner, but that business owner wouldn't budge.
Less than two years after this sorry saga, Nikel picked up and moved his entire dealership to Broken Arrow.
Jerk.
Now you know why hell will freeze over, and I still will never buy a car from Chris Nikel Chrysler Jeep Dodge.
And if this story makes you mad and you decide to boycott him as well, I won't complain.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Saying that other cities have problems is no justification for being satisfied with incompetent leadership and salaried department heads.
it is also no justification to sit around and refuse to support any major improvements...
i support the river and will pay for it with v2025 and an additional tax if needed...
Believe it or not, Bruno I'm usually one of the more optimistic people in a room. [;)]
I guess with advancing age, I tend to look at expenditures more from the "want vs. need" aspect. I do realize there are people who view river improvement as a need while I view it as a want.
Major improvements in Tulsa seem to have a history of turning into total cluster-#$%@'s with cost over-runs while the tax-payer is left holding the bag. We've got a $180 million TTE plant which now sits vacant right after the note was paid off. That is the kind of stuff that illustrates the stupidity with which our tax dollars have been wasted on half-baked plans over the years.
I don't have a problem paying for improvements, but given past and current history of the city and county, they have created a measure of cynicism in me that makes me skeptical when they want more funding from the tax-payer for another project.
I'm not voting for any new tax until every detail is on the table. If what they are saying makes sense, and it is believeable, I might just vote for it. If it looks like another Tulsa-made boondoggle, not a chance. I'll be happy to give it a fair evaluation, but we need more information. If all we wind up with are some more low water dams which could be paid for with existing revenue streams and that's it, what's the point in another tax?
Thus far there are far more questions than answers.
If they want to do it with existing taxes, or we can get the state to shake loose some additional funds, fine. Personally, I was against the income tax cut our state legislature approved. That was money which could have been funneled back to communities for operations, or infrastructure improvements.
I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing, there are a lot of Tulsans who are used to a long history of incompetence and mis-management who are tired of being asked to give more and more to feed it further.
From a personal perspective, I would really like to see a little more commercial development along the river and I don't believe it necessarily has to come with a high cost of public infrastructure, especially for west side development. So as not to drift too far OT I'd be more than happy to keep up the discussion on public infrastructure and comm'l development on the other threads provided.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
waterboy wrote:
Do you remember voting to have the Meadow Gold sign moved at a cost of over $130,000 even though the pre v2025 bid had been around $75,000? It was then stored away for future erection at a different site which will probably cost more v2025 dollars. And that was with oversight from a mayoral appointed v2025 committee to protect our interests. They could have at least moved it to the river and pretended it was development.
<end clip>
A clarification, waterboy. It's a bit off-topic, but important:
The Vision 2025 money was never meant to "move" the Meadow Gold sign. The money was earmarked for restoration of the sign at its original Lewis and 11th location, and the sign also won a grant from the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act, administered by the National Park Service, for this purpose.
The only reason it was moved because Chris Nikel (of car dealer fame) wanted it moved. Members of the city and the Route 66 community tried to persuade him to leave it alone, but he was intractable. He cited some excuse that birds roosting near the sign were crapping on his precious cars. (That's why dealerships have car washes, Chris.)
So, facing a stiff deadline, the sign was reluctantly disassembled and stored. A good portion of the money to move the sign came from donations, and I heard that Claude Neon donated some services. It took a while, but a new site for the Meadow Gold sign has been found at 11th and Quaker (near Peoria).
Nikel then demolished the building on which the sign stood. He had his sights on the floral shop on the corner, but that business owner wouldn't budge.
Less than two years after this sorry saga, Nikel picked up and moved his entire dealership to Broken Arrow.
Jerk.
Now you know why hell will freeze over, and I still will never buy a car from Chris Nikel Chrysler Jeep Dodge.
And if this story makes you mad and you decide to boycott him as well, I won't complain.
Thanks for the story behind the story. All I had to work from was a puny little World story at the time that didn't mention any of that. From personal experience with the mad little German, I had already made a decision to avoid his operations.
This whole river thing gets stranger the more I learn about it. I didn't remember that the 2025 ballot had promised 2 low water dams. I was under the impression that the funds were to help fund the environmental study and or design of the dams. I was actually intent on finding the ballot and seeing if the wording had been misinterpreted or something. But I checked and there it was... "Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River... 5.6 million dollars" Plain and simple, nothing to really misinterpret there.
We now obviously realize that these dams are going to cost more. But right under the list of 2025 projects it says...
"While the cost esimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tula county, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made availabale."
Yes the original 5.6 mill wont pay for 2 new dams, but in the text it says that if the estimate is wrong and the project costs more, the project will still get paid for. THEN and only then, if there are any extra funds can those funds be available for additional projects and to go to local towns.
As much as I would like to see the dams done sooner than they will be under the 2025 plan. The only way to not do them that way is to do as it also says on the ballot...
"In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above...folowing a public hearing by such trust."
Unless there is some fine print that wasnt on the ballot, that would be the only way to legally remove the resposibility of building the two low water dams from the 2025 package. Has there been a public hearing and a change to remove the dams from the 2025 funding?
After watching the news I guess Quick Trip is planning to put a convenience store in that area....
Now, Randi Miller and her rich cronies are threatening the tax payers. "do this now or we won't help"
We all know that is BS. They already bought the land - it's going to be developed one way or another. Do they think we are that stupid?
We already voted on the funding for the low water dams. i see no reason to pay for it twice.
If they remove their private funding then fine. Someone else will come along that wants to develope it.... there is always someone else...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
This whole river thing gets stranger the more I learn about it. I didn't remember that the 2025 ballot had promised 2 low water dams. I was under the impression that the funds were to help fund the environmental study and or design of the dams. I was actually intent on finding the ballot and seeing if the wording had been misinterpreted or something. But I checked and there it was... "Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River... 5.6 million dollars" Plain and simple, nothing to really misinterpret there.
We now obviously realize that these dams are going to cost more. But right under the list of 2025 projects it says...
"While the cost esimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tula county, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made availabale."
Yes the original 5.6 mill wont pay for 2 new dams, but in the text it says that if the estimate is wrong and the project costs more, the project will still get paid for. THEN and only then, if there are any extra funds can those funds be available for additional projects and to go to local towns.
As much as I would like to see the dams done sooner than they will be under the 2025 plan. The only way to not do them that way is to do as it also says on the ballot...
"In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above...folowing a public hearing by such trust."
Unless there is some fine print that wasnt on the ballot, that would be the only way to legally remove the resposibility of building the two low water dams from the 2025 package. Has there been a public hearing and a change to remove the dams from the 2025 funding?
www.batesline.com impressario Michael Bates was on the KFAQ Morning Show today with Gwen Freeman & Chris Medlock, discussing how anticipated overages on the Vision 2025 sales tax collections would readily fund the construction of two Low Water Dams and remediate the existing 31st Street Low Water Dam, and conform to the proposed River Plan.
He also aptly mentions that the
CONSTRUCTION of two low water dams, the remediation of the existing 31st Street Dam, and shoreline beautification along the 31st street bridge area, were
ALREADY approved in Proposition #4 of the 2003 Vision 2025 Ballot.
He's also SHOCKED,
SHOCKED that the local Tax Promoters want us to pay for the Low Water Dams
TWICE. Once during Vision 2025 funding; and, again during the new $0.004 Kaiser River Tax.
He also wrote a compelling article in this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly, "Putting Money Where the River Is", discussing the same topic, which is online at:
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675[/url]
And, COINCIDENTALLY, City Councilor John Eagleton bravely brought forth as quoted in yesterday's
Lorton's World a similar idea of how to use overages on Vision 2025 to fund the Kaiser River Plan projects.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070726_1_A11_spanc05642
Eagleton's supremely timed counter-thrust to the tax blitzkrieg launched by the local ruling Power Oligarchy's mouthpiece Randi Miller, may just be pulling the right thread to unravel the whole, sordid River Tax comfort blanket.
And, Roscoe Turner at the City Council meeting remains his same old irrascible self, likewise strongly opposing any new County Tax.
It looks like this time the Tax Vampires may finally be facing some angry villagers carrying hammers and sharpened wooden stakes............
Come and
Get It!
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
This whole river thing gets stranger the more I learn about it. I didn't remember that the 2025 ballot had promised 2 low water dams. I was under the impression that the funds were to help fund the environmental study and or design of the dams. I was actually intent on finding the ballot and seeing if the wording had been misinterpreted or something. But I checked and there it was... "Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River... 5.6 million dollars" Plain and simple, nothing to really misinterpret there.
We now obviously realize that these dams are going to cost more. But right under the list of 2025 projects it says...
"While the cost esimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tula county, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made availabale."
Yes the original 5.6 mill wont pay for 2 new dams, but in the text it says that if the estimate is wrong and the project costs more, the project will still get paid for. THEN and only then, if there are any extra funds can those funds be available for additional projects and to go to local towns.
As much as I would like to see the dams done sooner than they will be under the 2025 plan. The only way to not do them that way is to do as it also says on the ballot...
"In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above...folowing a public hearing by such trust."
Unless there is some fine print that wasnt on the ballot, that would be the only way to legally remove the resposibility of building the two low water dams from the 2025 package. Has there been a public hearing and a change to remove the dams from the 2025 funding?
Artist, many people thought that v2025 was to quickly provide for construction of the dams. I was one of them and most people I knew thought this was going to happen right up to the time we voted. We were mislead and not by accident. The arena and other projects were always to come first. That is why I am skeptical now. There is no real outsider oversight.
From today's Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070727_1_A13_iispa15410
"The county plans its funding packages very conservatively, and any talk of surpluses is simply an estimate --"
"If anyone can tell me where we're going to be (financially) in 2017, then I'd like you to come up and take my place"
"..estimate is that the county will have a surplus of $84 million from the Vision 2025 sales-tax collections."
Okay. So, which is it. Surplus or not. We are barely into the collection of sales tax for Vision 2025 and we are already estimating $84M in surplus. Want to bet that number goes much higher.
And Randi Miller says, no way are you spending that money on that project.
Give me a break!
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't V2025 a collection of projects, the sum total of which would put a new face on Tulsa by the year 2025?
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Last time I checked, that would equate to about a 17.5 year deadline to have these projects finshed to complete the "vision".
What's the damn rush? We have not completed the BOK center as of yet, there are other projects on the table, and ostensibly the low water dams are a part of the original V2025 project.
Probably wouldn't hurt at this juncture for our V2025 poster or David Arnett to chime in.
If the dams were originally estimated to cost 5.6 mill and now they are estimated at 25 mill each, "or whatever it is".
Then that money they keep talking about as surplus, isn't surplus at all.
That money is supposed to pay for the projects we voted for, even if they cost more than originally projected. AFTER all the projects can be paid for, those monies are surplus. As I see it, most of that money they keep calling surplus is going to get used up by the cost of the dams.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't V2025 a collection of projects, the sum total of which would put a new face on Tulsa by the year 2025?
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Last time I checked, that would equate to about a 17.5 year deadline to have these projects finshed to complete the "vision".
What's the damn rush? We have not completed the BOK center as of yet, there are other projects on the table, and ostensibly the low water dams are a part of the original V2025 project.
Probably wouldn't hurt at this juncture for our V2025 poster or David Arnett to chime in.
The phrase
Vision 2025 was merely product packaging for a Tax-and-Spend package.
Sounded catchy. Sounded visionary. Sounded Futuristic.
Every project was ultimately about expanding Government infrastructure, whether needed or not, while coincidentally lining the pockets of a few of the local controlling Founder Families. Every city government along with OU, OSU and NSU got at least one building project.
Mr. Average Tulsa-Nobody of course paid for this all with every purchase at the grocery store, furniture store, etc.
In the summer of 2003 when it was being promoted, what Tulsan had ever any earthly idea of what, where or even how they would be living
22 years in the future, or even would be among the living??
Only Death and Taxes are forever........
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
From today's Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070727_1_A13_iispa15410
"The county plans its funding packages very conservatively, and any talk of surpluses is simply an estimate --"
"If anyone can tell me where we're going to be (financially) in 2017, then I'd like you to come up and take my place"
"..estimate is that the county will have a surplus of $84 million from the Vision 2025 sales-tax collections."
Okay. So, which is it. Surplus or not. We are barely into the collection of sales tax for Vision 2025 and we are already estimating $84M in surplus. Want to bet that number goes much higher.
And Randi Miller says, no way are you spending that money on that project.
Give me a break!
The reason there will be HUGE overages in the Vision 2025 Sales Tax collection is really very simple:
Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick very dishonestly stated that because the County Government was so
CONSERVATIVE, that its projections for the 13 year sales tax were
FLAT. A NO GROWTH budget.
Our city government routinely projects a minimum 2-3% growth in sales taxes annually, in its budget projections.
That's why there will be a tremendous mountain of money in the tax overcollection during the 13 term of the tax.
Literally, 100,000,000's of dollars.
And the Tax Vampires
NEED TO FEED THEIR GREED.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Are you saying our vision is a little blurred?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Are you saying our vision is a little blurred?
Give the man a cookie.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Are you saying our vision is a little blurred?
Give the man a cookie.
Always wondered why it wasn't Vision 2020:
Tulsa's PERFECT Vision for the Future.Maybe
Vision 2025 sounded like that rock-and-roll song:
In the Year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, we may find...........Kaiser River Plan Phase 5-2-5.
Course by then with global warming, the Arkansas River will be a direct tributary of the Gulf of Mexico.
Glub, glub.
[8D]
What bothers me most is that Randi Miller and the rest of the "Private" pushers for this never mentioned that it was already a part of Vision 2025.
If this is so important to Tulsa then why not be upfront and honest about everything?
Because they know if the voters knew all the real facts their project would sink just as fast as the channels.
You know what? Randi wants the money for the dams - she needs to have a cat fight with Kathy Taylor and take the money from the V2025. It would be a good fight but I think Randi can take her. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
This whole river thing gets stranger the more I learn about it. I didn't remember that the 2025 ballot had promised 2 low water dams. I was under the impression that the funds were to help fund the environmental study and or design of the dams. I was actually intent on finding the ballot and seeing if the wording had been misinterpreted or something. But I checked and there it was... "Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River... 5.6 million dollars" Plain and simple, nothing to really misinterpret there.
We now obviously realize that these dams are going to cost more. But right under the list of 2025 projects it says...
"While the cost esimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tula county, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made availabale."
Yes the original 5.6 mill wont pay for 2 new dams, but in the text it says that if the estimate is wrong and the project costs more, the project will still get paid for. THEN and only then, if there are any extra funds can those funds be available for additional projects and to go to local towns.
As much as I would like to see the dams done sooner than they will be under the 2025 plan. The only way to not do them that way is to do as it also says on the ballot...
"In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above...folowing a public hearing by such trust."
Unless there is some fine print that wasnt on the ballot, that would be the only way to legally remove the resposibility of building the two low water dams from the 2025 package. Has there been a public hearing and a change to remove the dams from the 2025 funding?
www.batesline.com impressario Michael Bates was on the KFAQ Morning Show today with Gwen Freeman & Chris Medlock, discussing how anticipated overages on the Vision 2025 sales tax collections would readily fund the construction of two Low Water Dams and remediate the existing 31st Street Low Water Dam, and conform to the proposed River Plan.
He also aptly mentions that the CONSTRUCTION of two low water dams, the remediation of the existing 31st Street Dam, and shoreline beautification along the 31st street bridge area, were ALREADY approved in Proposition #4 of the 2003 Vision 2025 Ballot.
He's also SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the local Tax Promoters want us to pay for the Low Water Dams TWICE. Once during Vision 2025 funding; and, again during the new $0.004 Kaiser River Tax.
He also wrote a compelling article in this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly, "Putting Money Where the River Is", discussing the same topic, which is online at:
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675[/url]
And, COINCIDENTALLY, City Councilor John Eagleton bravely brought forth as quoted in yesterday's Lorton's World a similar idea of how to use overages on Vision 2025 to fund the Kaiser River Plan projects.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070726_1_A11_spanc05642
Eagleton's supremely timed counter-thrust to the tax blitzkrieg launched by the local ruling Power Oligarchy's mouthpiece Randi Miller, may just be pulling the right thread to unravel the whole, sordid River Tax comfort blanket.
And, Roscoe Turner at the City Council meeting remains his same old irrascible self, likewise strongly opposing any new County Tax.
It looks like this time the Tax Vampires may finally be facing some angry villagers carrying hammers and sharpened wooden stakes............
Come and Get It!
Listen to Roscoe (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/Roscoe_driller.jpg)
I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, but I do want to weigh in with my vote. If this "river tax" comes to a vote this fall, I will cast my vote as a "NO."
We all have our opinions on this, and I respect the pros and cons of both sides, but my vote will be "no", and there is not much I can hear or learn to change my mind on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, but I do want to weigh in with my vote. If this "river tax" comes to a vote this fall, I will cast my vote as a "NO."
We all have our opinions on this, and I respect the pros and cons of both sides, but my vote will be "no", and there is not much I can hear or learn to change my mind on this one.
especially when it was already promised to you before in a previous tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't V2025 a collection of projects, the sum total of which would put a new face on Tulsa by the year 2025?
Or was Vision 2025 referring to the fact that our city is slightly myopic?
Last time I checked, that would equate to about a 17.5 year deadline to have these projects finshed to complete the "vision".
What's the damn rush? We have not completed the BOK center as of yet, there are other projects on the table, and ostensibly the low water dams are a part of the original V2025 project.
Probably wouldn't hurt at this juncture for our V2025 poster or David Arnett to chime in.
The phrase Vision 2025 was merely product packaging for a Tax-and-Spend package.
Sounded catchy. Sounded visionary. Sounded Futuristic.
Every project was ultimately about expanding Government infrastructure, whether needed or not, while coincidentally lining the pockets of a few of the local controlling Founder Families. Every city government along with OU, OSU and NSU got at least one building project.
Mr. Average Tulsa-Nobody of course paid for this all with every purchase at the grocery store, furniture store, etc.
In the summer of 2003 when it was being promoted, in the future, or even would be among the living??
Only Death and Taxes are forever........
I sure as heck hope you arent complaining about OU Tulsa, OSU Tulsa and NSU Broken Arrow getting some funding. IMO I would rather see my tax dollars go to them than roads or the river. Tulsa for so long never had a publicly funded university and all the benefits that gives to an area. "what Tulsan had ever any earthly idea of what, where or even how they would be living
22 years..? " Yea we fought for so long to get some colleges here that we had practically given up. Who would have thought that we would actually have 3 budding new campuses. Oh and some of those "Founder families" have given quite generously to them and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Oh and here is yet another thing that greedy Mr Kaiser, and others, is up to.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070727_1_A1_spanc64288
and this...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070716_1_A1_ATTSJ31874
and this...
Donors to TCC's "Blueprint for the Future" campaign are:
Walt and Peggy Helmerich, who gave $250,000 for a nursing simulation lab.
Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which gave $150,000.
Howard and Billie Barnett, who gave $50,000 for a nursing classroom, plus $40,000 outside of the campaign for art for the building's atrium.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, which gave $50,000 for a nursing classroom.
Henry and the late Anne Zarrow, who gave $50,000 for the DNA biotechnology lab.
Hillcrest Healthcare System, which gave $25,000 for a lecture classroom on behalf of Hillcrest Medical Center, Tulsa Regional Medical Center and Hillcrest Specialty Hospital.
Ruth Kaiser Nelson, who gave $25,000 for an instrument lab.
Maxine and Jack Zarrow, who gave $25,000 for a lecture classroom.
Tulsa Spine and Specialty Hospital, which gave $10,000 for the student, faculty and staff conference room.
Dr. Jose Medina of the Heart Center of Tulsa, who gave $2,000.
A donation from the Kate and Herman Kaiser Foundation made possible construction of a new library in the northeast corner of LaFortune Park. It will adjoin a new community center funded by the Vision 2025 sales tax. The 13,000-square-foot library will replace the Library@51st.
A new library in Sperry is in the design stage. It will be built in large part by a donation from the Henry Zarrow family.
and this...The George Kaiser Family Foundation was the sustaining sponsorship of Toyland Ball with its gift to the Parent Child Center's SafeCare program. U.S. Cellular was the 2007 presenting sponsor.
Premier patrons included Don and Pat Hardin and Mollie Williford.
Major sponsors included Bank of Oklahoma, Bryan Close, CloseBend Inc., Jeff and Connie Cope, Tom and Julie Kivisto Family Foundation, Jack and Margaret Neely, Ruth and Al Sowards on behalf of the Sisk Charitable Trust, SemGroup, Unit Corporation, Williams Cos., and the John Steele Zink Foundation.
The Helmerich Advanced Technology Research Center (ATRC) at OSU-Tulsa will house laboratories for faculty and graduate students who will develop the next generation of composites and materials used by many Oklahoma industries. Funds for the facility were provided from three sources: $30 million from Tulsa County's Vision 2025, $12.9 million from the state's higher education bond issue and $9 million from Walter and Peggy Helmerich of Tulsa.
And very importantly this....
In 2005, for the fifth year, the Tulsa Community Foundation led the nation in gifts received, reporting a record $791.3 million. (thats more than the yearly city revenue, taxes, and budget)
12 & 12 Fund
12 & 12 Reserve Fund
A New Leaf Endowment Fund
All Souls Unitarian Church Fund
Animal Rescue and Kare Fund
Arthritis Foundation EOC Investment Fund
Arts & Humanities Council Endowment Fund
Asian American Community Service Assoc. Fund
Association of Fundraising Professionals Education Fund
Barthelmes Trust Fund for the Tulsa Philharmonic Society, Inc.
Barthelmes Trust Endowment Fund for the Tulsa Youth Symphony
Bartlesville Uptown Civitan Club
Bartlesville Civitan Accessible Park Fund Battiest School and Community Fund
Battiest School and Community Fund
Behavioral Services, Inc. Endowment Fund
Big Brothers and Sisters of Green Country Fund
Brady Heights Art Parkway Fund
Brady Heights Neighborhood Association Endowment Fund
Broken Arrow Neighbors Endowment Fund
Broken Bow Education Fund
C.A.S.A. Cherokee County
Camp Fire Boys & Girls: WoHeLo Trust Fund
Caring Program for Children
CCBT Charitable Benefit Fund
Center Endowment Fund, The
Cherokee County/Cherokee Nations C.A.S.A. Endowment Fund
Cherokee National Historical Society, Inc. Fund
Child Abuse Network Endowment Fund
Children's Center Foundation Fund
Citizens Crime Commission
Clarehouse Fund
Community Action Project Children's Fund
Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma Endowment Fund
Community Health Foundation Fund
Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa, Inc. Endowment Fund
Consumer Credit Counseling Services
Crossroads Fund
Dillon International, Inc. Fund
Domestic Violence Interventions Services Fund
Double J Ranch Reserve Fund
Dr. Mark A. Hayes Faculty Development Fund
Dr. Paul Peter Koro Scholarship Fund
DREAM Institute Fund
DREAM Institute Academic Assistance Fund
DREAM Institute Fundraising Fund
Eastern Oklahoma Donated Dental Services (E.O.D.D.S.) Fund
Eastern Oklahoma Donated Dental Services Reserve Fund
Emergency Infant Services Endowment Fund
E.T. Dunlap Foundation Fund
Family and Children's Services Program Fund
Family Care Services Endowment Fund
Fellowship of Christian Athletes Endowment Fund
Foundation for Tulsa Schools Endowment Fund
Friends of Beaver Bend Fund
Friends of Early Education Fund
Funders Roundtable Fund
Fund For Teachers
Gay and Lesbian Fund
Girl Scouts Magic Empire Council Endowment Fund
Good Samaritan Health Services Endowment Fund
Goodwill Industries of Tulsa Fund
Guild of Tulsa Opera Endowment Fund
Habitat for Humanity Endowment Fund
Happy Hands Education Fund
HEAP Scholarship Award Fund FY04
HEAP Scholarship Award Fund FY05
Henryetta Historical Society Fund
Heritage Family Services Endowment Fund
Home of Hope, Key to Hope Endowment Fund
Home of Hope, Key to Hope Owen Trust Fund
Hospice of Green Country Fund
Human Skills and Resources Fund
Idabel Academic Fund
Idabel Chamber Fund
Idabel Kiwanis Club Fund
Idabel Lions Club Scholarship Fund
Idabel Rotary Fund
IMSI Fund
Indian Health Care Resource Center of Tulsa Fund
Iron Gate Trust Fund
John 3:16 Mission, Inc. Endowment Fund
Junior Achievement of Greater Tulsa Fund
Junior League of Tulsa Endowment Fund
Junior League of Tulsa Maintenance Fund
Kiwanis of Tulsa Southeast Fund
Leadership Tulsa Fund
League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Tulsa Fund
Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma Fund
LIFE Senior Services Fund
Little Light House Endowment Fund
Lollipops and Rainbows Endowment Fund
Make-A-Wish Foundation of Oklahoma Fund
Margaret Hudson Building Endowment Fund
Margaret Hudson Operating Endowment Fund
Mark Iola Scholarship Fund
McCurtain Community Fund
Mental Health Association in Tulsa, Inc. Fund
Mental Health Association in Tulsa, Inc. Reserve Fund
M.S.N.I. Fund
Neighbor for Neighbor Fund
Neighbors Along the Line
Neuro-Science Research Foundation, Inc., Fund
Neuro-Science Research Foundation Reserve Fund
OCCJ Fund
Oasis Adult Day Services Endowment Fund
OK Assist Fund
Oklahoma Caring Foundation Fund
Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits Fund
Operation Aware of Oklahoma, Inc. Endowment Fund
Oxley Nature Center Endowment Fund
Parent Child Center of Tulsa Fund, The
Partnership for the Availability of School Supplies (PASS) Fund
Planned Parenthood Endowment Fund
Reaching Hands Development Fund
Resonance Fund
Restore Hope Ministries Endowment Fund
Riverfield Country Day School Endowment Fund
Robert S. Rizley Opera Education Endowment Fund
Rogers County Youth Services Endowment Fund
Rotary Club of Bixby Fund
Rotary Medical Supplies Network
Salvation Army Endowment Fund
Senator Bob Dole Honorary Scholar Award Fund
Simon Estes Educational Fund
Save Our Schools (S.O.S.) Fund
Southern Hills Baptist Church Foundation Fund
Southminster Presbyterian Church Designated Capital Campaign Fund
Special Olympics Oklahoma Fund
Stand In The Gap Endowment Fund
TARC Endowment Fund
ESCOT Endowment Fund
Theater Arts Productions Endowment Fund
Tom Action Fund
TOHR Fund
Town and Country School, Inc. Fund
Trinity Episcopal Day School Endowment Fund
Trust for Public Land
TSHA Fund
Tulsa Air and Space Center Endowment Fund
Tulsa Area United Way - Bailey Endowment Fund
Tulsa Area United Way Endowment Fund
Tulsa Area Youth Symphony Endowment Fund
Tulsa Autism Foundation
Tulsa Boys' Home Endowment II Fund
Tulsa C.A.S.A.
Tulsa Cerebral Palsy Endowment Fund
Tulsa Community College Designated Fund
Tulsa Day Center for the Homeless Endowment Fund
Tulsa Day Center for the Homeless Capital Needs Reserve Fund
Tulsa Educare Designated Fund
Tulsa Engineering Foundation Endowment Fund
Tulsa Global Alliance Endowment Fund
Tulsa Historical Society Fund
Tulsa Junior Hurricane/Basket of Dreams Fund
Tulsa Library Trust: Library Books for Children Fund
Tulsa Metropolitan Citizens Crime Commission Fund
Tulsa Oklahomans for Human Rights Endowment Fund
Tulsa Opera Fund
Tulsa Partners Endowment Fund
Tulsa Police Officers Memorial
Tulsa Repertory Theatre Endowment Fund
Tulsa Zoo Friends Fund
Undercroft Montessori School Endowment Fund
United Christian Giving, A Christ-Centered Fund
University of Tulsa Presidential Scholars Endowment Fund
Up With Trees, Inc. Fund
Vian Community Charitable Trust Endowment Fund
Vinita Public Schools Educational Foundation Gatlin / FFA Trust Fund
Vinita Public Schools Educational Foundation General Fund
Visiting Nurse Association
Volunteers of America (Tulsa) Endowment Fund
Washington (Booker T.) High School Foundation Endowment Fund
Wright City Schools Foundation Fund
YMCA of Greater Tulsa Endowment Fund
Young Professionals of Tulsa
Youth Services of Tulsa Endowment Fund
YWCA of Tulsa Endowment Fund
YWCA of Tulsa North Endowment Fund
and I could go on and on and on.... Sorry bout the underline, don't know how I did that.
I am willing to wager that if you were to add up what has been given to Tulsa foundations, charities, schools, hospitals, etc. by 1 percent of the population, over the last decade that total would come close to equalling or even surpasing the total amount of city revenue over the same period paid by everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I am willing to wager that if you were to add up what has been given to Tulsa foundations, charities, schools, hospitals, etc. by 1 percent of the population, over the last decade that total would come close to equalling or even surpasing the total amount of city revenue over the same period paid by everyone.
I for one, do not understand your passion here. The same can be said for a lot of wealthy folks. Cornelius Vanderbilt started a University, but ran all of his competitors out of business. Carnegie started libraries, but destroyed common businessmen. Ford, Wrigley, Hershey, Stanford, etc. all have "donated" or started wonderful endeavors for the public. Not one of them did it out of the pure generosity of their selfless hearts. They did it after ruthlessly obtaining vast sums of wealth, more than they could spend or pass on. Even so they donated with a CPA's understanding of tax law, politics and savvy investing. We understand that and are willing to forgive them their transgressions against the common good...for the common good.
Why paint these locals as angels with only humanitarian interests? It isn't necessary. If it helps us and them, so be it. FB has a rather cynical way of expressing that but realistic nonetheless.
It just seems there are so many comments on lots of threads where people just immediately assume some nefarious intent when it comes to people "with money". Its often in a context thats much like any of us would do, except on a much larger scale. Heck I push for areas of my town to improve my property values and business interests. People could argue that the reason I wanted to see the taxpayers build new public buildings like the Central Center or Arena is so that I could get some art job off of it at the taxpayers expense. I have "connections" with people who make those descisions etc. I mean you could easily make me sound terrible and ruthless if you wanted to. But nobody is going to bother because I am... a nobody.
Give me a few hundred million and I decide to develop something with it. I would ask for a tiff. Why not, it would be stupid not to. I got to compete with other developers and if they get something and I dont I am immediately at a disadvantage. Perhaps I choose to develop around the Pearl District. I would definitely ask for the city to do its plan of adding the other 2 ponds and canals. And yea since I would have some money I would have some pull in getting it done versus if it were me as I am now and would say want to fix up a house in the area. But in either instance I would do whatever I could to get the plan implemented as soon as possible. And either way the taxpayers would be footing the bill to improve my property or business chances.
What, should we say we dont want to make any improvements that will help any wealthy people, just improvements that will help the average person? We are not gonna get much done if thats the case.
Unless you have some proof that these people are doing something illegaly or are any more "greedy" or less of an angel than I or any of the rest of us are. Why rag on them? From what I can tell its often differences in scale not differences in kind. You can always come up with some conspiracy to make money off of the taxpayers in these instances. Heck I hope we all can make some money and do better off of what the taxpayers decide. Just give me some proof that they are any more twisted than the rest of us.
I was re-reading this thread and came across this remark and wanted to respond.
TimHuntzinger: H2Oboy said the one thing some time ago about the Arkansas that sticks with me every time I am down there: 'It is a river, not a lake' (DAMN YOU WATERBOY, GET OUT OF MY HEAD - AHHHHHH!!!) Is the River navigable right now, BTW?
If you mean with all the water from the heavy rains is it navigable? Yes. If you mean at normal level is the river navigable, then...maybe. The USCG considers a body of water navigable if you can travel a mile between ports with a common motor boat. First there are no ports on the river. Secondly, you could travel a mile if you follow the channel or paid attention to where the shoals, rocks and abandoned pipelines are. And thirdly it depends on the draft of the boat. Short shaft outboard, hovercraft, airboat and electric powered jon boats can all do it.
I could do it. Have done it. But in general it is considered a non-navigable river. Because of the minimum 4mile length of the impounds should these dams be constructed, they will be considered navigable and be subject to rules and regulations of the USCG. Oh, boy, another regulatory body to bring to the party. Unless...boating by the public is prohibited. Not an idle remark. Think about the path of least resistance.
btw rowing crews historically receive preferential exclusions from these rules. They are not required to wear life preservers, even passengers in their coaches boats where they often stand in the front as their moving. And they do not have to have lights fore and aft to alert others. Bad ideas. Hard to see those slender hulls at dawn and dusk or in the glare of the sun.
River money:
Vision 2025 low water dams contribution $5.6 million
Vision 2025 Zink Lake improvements $3.9 million
3rd Penny Riverparks improvements $22.2 million
Kaiser Trails Donation $12.4 million
River bond issue $282.3 million
Kaiser river donation $111 million
County river tax $282.3 million
Tulsa Landing Development $450 million
Total taxes already commited, $31.7 million, donations already committed, $12.4 million for a total of $44.1 million. The county is asking for new taxes in the amount of $282.3 million for a total taxed amount of $314 million. This amount would then add the $123.4 in outright donations for a total of $437.4 million, then the Branson Landing developer has stated that he wants the land at 21st that is part of the $437 million to build a $450 million development. That, without any other development at all, brings the total development on the river to $887 million.
That is an outstanding ROI.
The county is asking for $282 million (to be added to the already voted $32 million) and we will get in return at least $887 million in river development, for nearly at 3 to 1 return, and that's just the start of the private development. To vote no would be more than foolish.
And consider the city's budget situation. A development like Tulsa Hills could easily see sales in the range of $1 million a day. Something like a third of a billion dollars over a year, that adds something in the range seven million dollars a year in the two cents of sales tax that the city uses for operating funds. A "Tulsa Hills" could easily have similar sales and much of it not even local to the metro. You want more police and more funds for streets. Here it is.
These two projects could add about $15 million a year in operating funds to the city and another $6-7 million in 3rd penny money a year. That means medians are mowed, streets are fixed and we can add dozens of new cops. Tell me why we should vote no again?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And consider the city's budget situation. A development like Tulsa Hills could easily see sales in the range of $1 million a day. Something like a third of a billion dollars over a year, that adds something in the range seven million dollars a year in the two cents of sales tax that the city uses for operating funds. A "Tulsa Hills" could easily have similar sales and much of it not even local to the metro. You want more police and more funds for streets. Here it is.
These two projects could add about $15 million a year in operating funds to the city and another $6-7 million in 3rd penny money a year. That means medians are mowed, streets are fixed and we can add dozens of new cops. Tell me why we should vote no again?
Its a matter of trust and credibility. YOU trust that all those promises of donations and pretty river plans are in the bank. You think that they will actually spend the money like they say they will without anything that says they have to.
To me its like the same little sailboats that have been put in renderings since the fifties. YOU still believe the sailboats will happen, I don't. How many phrases you want? Pig in a Poke? Counting your Chickens before they hatch? Cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice...shame on me?
If it happens like you've laid out and the plan is presented, well, its a godsend. If it doesn't the city may go broke. Sounds like Vegas to me.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And consider the city's budget situation. A development like Tulsa Hills could easily see sales in the range of $1 million a day. Something like a third of a billion dollars over a year, that adds something in the range seven million dollars a year in the two cents of sales tax that the city uses for operating funds. A "Tulsa Hills" could easily have similar sales and much of it not even local to the metro. You want more police and more funds for streets. Here it is.
These two projects could add about $15 million a year in operating funds to the city and another $6-7 million in 3rd penny money a year. That means medians are mowed, streets are fixed and we can add dozens of new cops. Tell me why we should vote no again?
Its a matter of trust and credibility. YOU trust that all those promises of donations and pretty river plans are in the bank. You think that they will actually spend the money like they say they will without anything that says they have to.
To me its like the same little sailboats that have been put in renderings since the fifties. YOU still believe the sailboats will happen, I don't. How many phrases you want? Pig in a Poke? Counting your Chickens before they hatch? Cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice...shame on me?
If it happens like you've laid out and the plan is presented, well, its a godsend. If it doesn't the city may go broke. Sounds like Vegas to me.
Go broke? On what? An additional sales tax of less than half a cent? That's more than a little over the top.
I don't particularly like Randi Miller, she is my county commissioner and I've never voted for her.
But here is what I do like, George Kaiser and company are putting in a $111 million donation. When you put that much money into something, you are going to to be damn sure it's done right, and he has proven himself a very good businessman.
His image, and the very important image of his local company, The Bank of Oklahoma, are now tied to this project, for good or bad. And he's certainly not going to accept failure for his hundred million dollars and his public image.
You make some good points about it only being four tenths of a penny and Kaiser being involved.
Four tenths of a penny means my happy meal will cost another penny. I will probably still be happy.
Everything that George Kaiser gets involved in is first class. I am sure his involvement means that this will be done right.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And consider the city's budget situation. A development like Tulsa Hills could easily see sales in the range of $1 million a day. Something like a third of a billion dollars over a year, that adds something in the range seven million dollars a year in the two cents of sales tax that the city uses for operating funds. A "Tulsa Hills" could easily have similar sales and much of it not even local to the metro. You want more police and more funds for streets. Here it is.
These two projects could add about $15 million a year in operating funds to the city and another $6-7 million in 3rd penny money a year. That means medians are mowed, streets are fixed and we can add dozens of new cops. Tell me why we should vote no again?
Its a matter of trust and credibility. YOU trust that all those promises of donations and pretty river plans are in the bank. You think that they will actually spend the money like they say they will without anything that says they have to.
To me its like the same little sailboats that have been put in renderings since the fifties. YOU still believe the sailboats will happen, I don't. How many phrases you want? Pig in a Poke? Counting your Chickens before they hatch? Cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice...shame on me?
If it happens like you've laid out and the plan is presented, well, its a godsend. If it doesn't the city may go broke. Sounds like Vegas to me.
Go broke? On what? An additional sales tax of less than half a cent? That's more than a little over the top.
I don't particularly like Randi Miller, she is my county commissioner and I've never voted for her.
But here is what I do like, George Kaiser and company are putting in a $111 million donation. When you put that much money into something, you are going to to be damn sure it's done right, and he has proven himself a very good businessman.
His image, and the very important image of his local company, The Bank of Oklahoma, are now tied to this project, for good or bad. And he's certainly not going to accept failure for his hundred million dollars and his public image.
I admit hyperbole. We probably won't go broke, just another day older and deeper in debt. The city needs money for lots of current needs and deferred maintenance. With no real way to make the city/county use these collections for what they promise, and their history of shuffling funds around to cover shortages, what makes you think the execution of this plan will be any different? Surely not because of Kaiser. What percentage of the city/county budget is 100million over 10 years? Not enough to swing the dog.
That's not even taking into account the perception of the plan as a parks and shopping center development. Parks and shopping is unimaginative. We needed a focal point and I contributed a couple ideas that were largely ignored. How many others did? I know Artist had some great ideas that were ignored. He stood up and championed zoning for the river. When will that happen? After construction begins? With all that public input, we ended up with the same 57Chevy with bigger shinier bumpers and a promise for extended terms...If you buy today!
Listen, I want the river to get some quality attention. Honestly, I tried to get someone to take me half assed seriously. Probably my poor efforts I'm sure, that I failed. But they have a credibility problem that must be addressed too. It may pass anyway but its going to be a bumpy ride.