The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Here is the resolution as released by the Tulsa County Commission on Friday:



THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE TULSA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 500 SOUTH DENVER AVENUE, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, ON THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2007, AT 9:30 O'CLOCK A.M.







PRESENT:                





ABSENT:                  





           Notice of this special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners having been given to the County Clerk of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, forty-eight (48) hours prior to such meeting and public notice and agenda having been posted in prominent public view at the Tulsa County Administration Building, 500 South Denver Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma, twenty-four (24) hours prior to this meeting, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, all in compliance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.





(OTHER PROCEEDINGS)



           Commissioner Miller introduced a Resolution and upon motion by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Perry, was adopted by the following vote:





AYE:                          





NAY:                          





           Said Resolution was thereupon signed by the Chairman, attested by the County Clerk, sealed with the seal of said County and is as follows:










RESOLUTION



A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CALLING AND HOLDING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED, QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID COUNTY THE QUESTION OF LEVYING AND COLLECTING A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE; PROVIDING BALLOT TITLE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO TULSA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, POLLING PLACES AND CONDUCT OF SUCH ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF SUCH SALES TAX.



           WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable by the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to improve the general economic conditions and quality of life of the people of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by development of the Arkansas River corridor within the County; and



           WHEREAS, there are no funds in the treasury for such purpose and power is granted said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 1370, as amended, to levy and collect a sales tax to provide funds for such purpose providing the same be authorized by a majority of the registered voters thereof voting at an election duly held for such purpose; and



           WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, adopted a comprehensive resolution on August 2, 2007 (the "Original Resolution"), calling an election for the foregoing purpose; and



           WHEREAS, it has been determined to amend and restate the Original Resolution in its entirety as hereinafter provided in order to clarify certain aspects of the projects to be funded from such sales tax and the composition and duties of the public trust created in connection therewith.



           BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA:



Section 1.  The Original Resolution is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



"RESOLUTION



A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CALLING AND HOLDING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED, QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID COUNTY THE QUESTION OF LEVYING AND COLLECTING A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE; PROVIDING BALLOT TITLE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO TULSA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, POLLING PLACES AND CONDUCT OF SUCH ELECTION; AND PROVIDING FOR COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF SUCH SALES TAX.



           WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable by the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to improve the general economic conditions and quality of life of the people of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by development of the Arkansas River corridor within the County; and



           WHEREAS, there are no funds in the treasury for such purpose and power is granted said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 1370, as amended, to levy and collect a sales tax to provide funds for such purpose providing the same be authorized by a majority of the registered voters thereof voting at an election duly held for such purpose.



           Section 1.  There is hereby called a special election in Tulsa County to be held on the 9th day of October, 2007, for the purpose of submitting to the registered voters thereof the following proposition:






PROPOSITION



           "SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

           

           Section 2.  The ballot setting forth the above proposition shall also contain in connection with the said proposition the following words:



                                                             FOR                  




                                  The Above Proposition

                                                                                       

                                                   AGAINST                  

                                  The Above Proposition



         Only the registered, qualified voters of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, may vote upon the proposition as above set forth.



         The polls shall be opened at 7:00 o'clock A.M. and shall remain open continuously until and be closed at 7:00 o'clock P.M.



         The number and location of the polling places for said election shall be the same or the regular precinct polling places as designated for statewide and county elections by the Tulsa County Election Board.  Such election shall be conducted by those officers designated by the Tulsa County Election Board, which officers shall also act as counters and certify the election results as required by law.



         Section 3.  The County Clerk of Tulsa County is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Secretary of the Tulsa County Election Board immediately upon approval hereof by the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.



         Section 4.  Subject to approval of a majority of the registered voters of Tulsa County voting thereon as herein provided, there is hereby levied in addition to all other taxes in effect in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, a sales tax of four-tenths of one percent (4/10%) upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales or services in Tulsa County upon which a consumers sales tax is levied by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose set forth in Section 7 hereof.



         Section 5.  The tax herein levied shall be and remain in effect for a period commencing on January 1, 2008, and continuing thereafter to December 31, 2014.











Section 6.

A.  For the purpose of this Section only, the following words and terms shall be defined as follows:

1.      "County" shall mean Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

2.      "County Treasurer" shall mean the Treasurer of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

3.      "Dependent" shall mean every person who is a member of the household of the applicant and for whom applicant is entitled to claim a personal exemption under and pursuant to the Federal income tax laws.

4.      "Family" shall mean one or more persons living in the same household who pool their various sources of income into one budget to achieve the effect of sharing the cost of providing for support of the group.

5.      "Household" includes all persons who occupy a group of rooms or single room which is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied as separate living quarters, and when there is either:

i.  Direct access from the outside of the building or through a common    hall; or

ii.  Complete kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants.

6.      "Income" includes all money received during the year and available to be used to provide support for the family or household.

7.      "Person" shall mean an individual, but shall not include a company, partnership, joint venture, joint agreement, association (mutual or otherwise), corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, or trustee appointed by state or federal court or otherwise, syndicate, the State of Oklahoma, any court, city, municipality, school district, or any other political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma or group or combination acting as a unit, in the plural or singular number.

8.      "Resident" shall mean any person who has resided in the corporate limits of the County for the entire calendar year for which the refund is applied.



B.  Every person desiring to make a claim for a tax rebate must submit to the County a written application therefore, on forms to be provided by the County, between January 1 and March 31 of the year following the year for which the rebate is being sought, beginning with the year 2009.



C.      The qualifications for senior rebate include the following:

1.      The person must be a resident of the County.

2.      The person must be sixty-five (65) years of age or older during a portion of the year for which the rebate is being sought.

3.      The person can claim a rebate only as a family member who contributed the greatest share of the family income and for members of the household who are residents of the County and who are dependent upon the said applicant.

4.      No person who may be claimed as a member of the household on another resident's application shall be entitled to a rebate.  If a rebate is claimed on more than one application for the same person, the County Treasurer shall determine the person entitled to claim the rebate provided in this Section.



D.  The qualifications for low-income rebate include the following:

1.  The person must meet the eligibility criteria for the Oklahoma Sales Tax Relief Act pursuant to Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 5011, as amended, OR the Oklahoma Earned Income Tax Credit pursuant to Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 2357.43, as amended, and must timely file for such with the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

2.   The person must be a resident of the County.

3.   The person can claim a rebate only as a family member who contributed the greatest share of the family income and for members of the household who are residents of the County and who are dependent upon the said applicant.

4.   No person may be claimed as a member of the household on another resident's application shall be entitled to a rebate.  If a rebate is claimed on more than one application for the same person, the County Treasurer shall determine the person entitled to claim the rebate provided in this Section.          



E.  If the applicant meets the requirements to qualify for a senior rebate, the County shall rebate the sum of $25.00.  If the applicant meets the requirements to qualify for a low-income rebate, the County shall rebate the sum of $25.00.  A person may claim and shall be entitled to only one rebate, either the senior rebate or the low- income rebate, but not both rebates.



F.  The County Treasurer is to administer the rebate program established in this Section. He is authorized to prepare a form for application for rebate and adopt rules and regulations as long as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Section, and shall audit and check the applications.  The amount of rebate above set forth shall apply to each year of the seven-year program.



G.   The burden is on the applicant to establish that he is entitled to a rebate.  The County Treasurer is authorized to require reasonable supporting information which shall be uniformly required of all applicants.  Upon an audit of the application, the County Treasurer can require all reasonable written and other information necessary to satisfy him that the application is valid.



Should any application be denied, the County Treasurer shall state the reasons therefore in writing to the applicant and indicate all or the portion of the application being denied.  Such determination shall be final unless the applicant, within thirty (30) days after such notice of determination, shall apply in writing to the Board of County Commissioners of the County for a hearing. After such hearing the Board of County Commissioners of the County shall give written notice of the determination to the applicant.



An applicant shall not be entitled to a rebate when he has been denied by the Board of County Commissioners of the County or when he has had an opportunity for a hearing as provided in this Section and has failed to avail himself of the remedies herein provided.

         

         Section 7.  All valid and subsisting permits to do business issued by the Oklahoma Tax Commission pursuant to the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code are, for the purpose of this Resolution, hereby ratified, confirmed and adopted in lieu of any requirement for an additional County permit for the same purpose.



         Section 8.  It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this Resolution to provide revenue for the purpose of Arkansas River corridor development within Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and/or to be applied or pledged toward the payment of principal and interest on any indebtedness, including refunding indebtedness, incurred by or on behalf of Tulsa County for such purpose, including the following projects:




Total:

Arkansas River improvements including but not limited to Sand Springs low water dam, pedestrian bridge and lake ($24.70 million), Zink Dam modifications ($15.45 million), modification of river channel from Zink Lake to South Tulsa/Jenks Lake ($90 million), South Tulsa/Jenks low water dam, pedestrian bridge and lake, and low water dam, lake and river studies ($24.70 million).

                                       
 







$154,850,000

Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.    


 



$57,400,000



Bridging East and West Arkansas River Banks and Downtown, including but not limited to pedestrian River crossings at 41st Street and 61st Street ($30 million), and  connectors from downtown Tulsa to the Arkansas River and transportation corridor studies ($15 million).


 





$45,000,000



Projects Contingency


$25,000,000






While the cost estimates 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 Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made available. The nature and scope of all projects shall be determined by a public trust having Tulsa County, Oklahoma, the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and any other municipality having its mayor as a trustee of such trust as its beneficiaries. Such public trust shall have nine trustees consisting of, ex- officio, the three members of the governing body of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, the Mayor of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a member of the River Parks Authority designated by the Chairman of the River Parks Authority, two members appointed by the Mayor of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and two members appointed by the governing body of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, one of which shall be, ex officio, the Mayor of either Bixby, Jenks, Broken Arrow or Sand Springs, Oklahoma, and the other of which shall be, ex officio, the Mayor of either Owasso, Glenpool, Collinsville, Skiatook or Sperry, Oklahoma.  In the expenditure of all funds hereunder, preference shall be given to local vendors and contractors to the extent permitted by law. In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.  The Indian Nations Council of Governments shall provide consulting services to such public trust upon request.



         Section 9.  There is hereby specifically exempted from the sales tax levied by this Resolution all items that are exempt from the State sales tax under the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code.



         Section 10.  The tax levied hereunder shall be due and payable at the time and in the manner and form prescribed for payment of the State sales tax under the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code.



         Section 11.  Such sales taxes due hereunder shall at all times constitute a prior, superior and paramount claim as against the claims of unsecured creditors, and may be collected by suit as any other debt.



         Section 12.  The definitions of words, terms and phrases contained in the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code, Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 1352, as amended, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Resolution.






         Section 13.  The term "Tax Collector" as used herein means the department of the County government or the official agency of the State duly designated according to law or contract authorized by law to administer the collection of the tax herein levied.



         Section 14.  For the purpose of this Resolution the classification of taxpayers hereunder shall be as prescribed by state law for purposes of the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code.



         Section 15.   (a) The tax herein levied shall be paid to the Tax Collector at the time in form and manner provided for payment of State sales tax under the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code.  (b) The bracket system for the collection of the sales tax provided for herein by the Tax Collector shall be as the same is hereafter adopted by the agreement of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and the Tax Collector, in the collection of both the sales tax provided for herein and the State sales tax.



         Section 16.   (a) The tax levied hereunder shall be paid by the consumer or user to the vendor, and it shall be the duty of each and every vendor in this County to collect from the consumer or user, the full amount of the tax levied by this Resolution, or any amount equal as nearly as possible or practicable to the average equivalent thereof.



         (b)      Vendors shall add the tax imposed hereunder, or the average equivalent thereof, to the sales price, charge, consideration, gross receipts or gross proceeds of the sale of tangible personal property or services taxed by this Resolution, and when added such tax shall constitute a part of such price or charges, shall be debt from the consumer or user to vendor until paid, and shall be recoverable at law in the same manner as other debts.



         (c)      A vendor who willfully or intentionally fails, neglects or refuses to collect the full amount of the tax levied by this Resolution, or willfully or intentionally fails, neglects or refuses to comply with the provisions hereof or remits or rebates to a consumer or user, either directly or indirectly, and by whatsoever means, all or any part of the tax herein levied, or makes in any form of advertising, verbally or otherwise, any statement which infers that he is absorbing the tax, or paying the tax for the consumer or user by an adjustment of prices or at a price including the tax, or in any manner whatsoever, shall be deemed guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), plus costs, and upon conviction for a second or other subsequent offense shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), plus costs, or incarcerated for not more than sixty (60) days, or both.  Provided, sales by vending machines may be made at a stated price which includes state and any municipal sales tax.



         (d)      Any sum or sums collected or required to be collected hereunder shall be deemed to be held in trust for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and, as trustee, the collecting vendor shall have a fiduciary duty to Tulsa County, Oklahoma in regards to such sums and shall be subject to the trust laws of this state.  Any vendor who willfully or intentionally fails to remit the tax, after the tax levied by this article was collected from the consumer or user, and appropriates the tax held in trust to his own use, or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, without authority of law, shall be guilty of embezzlement.



         Section 17.   Returns and remittances of the tax herein levied and collected shall be made to the Tax Collector at the time and in the manner, form and amount as prescribed for returns and remittances required by the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code; and remittances of tax collected hereunder shall be subject to the same discount as may be allowed by the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code for collection of State sales tax.



         Section 18.   The provisions of Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 217, as amended, and of Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Sections 1350 et seq., as amended, are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Resolution, and interest and penalties at the rates and in amounts as therein specified are hereby levied and shall be applicable in cases of delinquency in reporting and paying the tax levied by this Resolution.  Provided, that the failure or refusal of any taxpayer to make and transmit the reports and remittances of tax in the time and manner required by this Resolution shall cause such tax to be delinquent.  In addition, if such delinquency continues for a period of five (5) days the taxpayer shall forfeit his claim to any discount allowed under this Resolution.






         Section 19.  The interest or penalty or any portion thereof accruing by reason of a taxpayer's failure to pay the sales tax herein levied may be waived or remitted in the same manner as provided for such waiver or remittance as applied in administration of the State sales tax provided in Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 220, as amended; and to accomplish the purposes of this section the applicable provisions of such Section 220 are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Resolution.



         Section 20.   Refund of erroneous payment of the sales tax herein levied may be made to any taxpayer making such erroneous payment in the same manner and procedure, and under the same limitations of time, as provided for administration of the State sales tax as set forth in Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 227, as amended, and to accomplish the purposes of this Section, the applicable provisions of such Section 227 are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Resolution.



         Section 21.   In addition to all civil penalties provided by this Resolution, the willful failure or refusal of any taxpayer to make reports and remittances herein required, or the making of any false and fraudulent report for the purpose for avoiding or escaping payment for any tax or portion thereof rightfully due under this Resolution shall be an offense, and upon conviction thereof the offending taxpayer shall be subject to such fines as set out under Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 241, as amended.  



         Section 22.  The confidential and privileged nature of the records and files concerning the administration of this sales tax is legislatively recognized and declared, and to protect the same the provisions of Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Section 205, as amended, of the Oklahoma Sales Tax Code, and each subsection thereof is hereby adopted by reference and made fully effective and applicable to administration of this sales tax as if here set forth in full.



         Section 23.  The people of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by their approval of the proposition set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution at the election hereinabove provided, hereby authorize the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by Resolutions duly enacted to make such administrative and technical changes or additions in the method and manner of administration and enforcing this Resolution as may be necessary or proper for efficiency and fairness except that neither the rate of the tax herein provided, nor the term, nor the purpose of the tax herein provided, shall be changed without approval of the qualified electors of the County as provided by law.



         Section 24.  The Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, hereby declares for the benefit of the taxpayers of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, its solemn intent that the sales tax levied pursuant to this Resolution be ended at the earliest possible time upon payment of all indebtedness secured by such sales tax, or adequate provision for such payment having been made, and sufficient funds collected for all projects contemplated hereunder.    



         Section 25.  The provisions hereof shall be cumulative, and in addition to any and all other taxing provisions of County Resolutions.



         Section 26.  The provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable, and if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or clause of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or inoperative by any Court of competent jurisdiction such decision shall not affect any other section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or clause hereof."










         PASSED AND APPROVED this 9th day of August, 2007.





BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

                                                     TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA





                                                                                       __________________________________                                                                  

                                                                                       Randi Miller, Chairman

                                                                                       Board of County Commissioners

ATTEST:



____________________________

Earlene Wilson, County Clerk

(SEAL)

Well.....Hell. Let's jus all pass the hat for Randi...

Connecting her and and a itty bitty bunch of cash.... To that ole South Tulsa Bridge....

Padestrian that is....

Oh..! but not jus limited by any ole Arkansas River Corridor Master plan...  

Jus let her money do the walkin up and down the street....

Girls gotta plan for her retirement in refrigerator heaven someday dusn't she...?


You and Terry come back real soon now ya hear....!
[}:)]

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

---

                                                Giant blank check. Vote no.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

---

Same wording they had about the low water dams in 2025. When did they have the "public hearing by such trust" in that instance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

---

Hey man this is Tulsa County..... Don't try to find facts in the fiction.

Same wording they had about the low water dams in 2025. When did they have the "public hearing by such trust" in that instance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

---

Same wording they had about the low water dams in 2025. When did they have the "public hearing by such trust" in that instance?

---

Yeah, how are we doing on those low water dams?

If they included that wording on the original v2025, shame on them. If you vote for this with the same wording, knowing they have no requirement to do what they've promised, then shame on you.

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

---

Does this include all the marketing costs forthcoming?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

---

Does this include all the marketing costs forthcoming?

---

Holy Smokes! I hadn't seen that. Are they asking to be repaid for the costs of "educating" the public through advertising and public relations? Is that common practice?

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

---

Does this include all the marketing costs forthcoming?

---

Holy Smokes! I hadn't seen that. Are they asking to be repaid for the costs of "educating" the public through advertising and public relations? Is that common practice?

---

I will vote NO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

---

Does this include all the marketing costs forthcoming?

---

Holy Smokes! I hadn't seen that. Are they asking to be repaid for the costs of "educating" the public through advertising and public relations? Is that common practice?

---

WHY DO YOU THINK THEY PRINT BALLOTS IN ALL CAPS ANYWAY? KIND OF MAKES ONE THINK OF THOSE CREDIT CARD OFFERS ONE RECEIVES IN THE MAIL WITH ALL CAP, SMALL POINT SCALE, STRETCHED VERTICALLY AND COMPRESSED HORIZONTALLY, 50% SCREENED AND IN A COLOR ONE NOTCH ABOVE THE BACKGROUND. RUN-ON SENTENCES AND NO PARAGRAPHS, LITTLE PUNCTUATION AND LOTS OF GIBBERISH TO BOOT.

INTENT: THEY DON'T WISH FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY READ IT, MUCH LESS UNDERSTAND THE THING.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"

---

Does this include all the marketing costs forthcoming?

---

Holy Smokes! I hadn't seen that. Are they asking to be repaid for the costs of "educating" the public through advertising and public relations? Is that common practice?

---

I propose a contest....rewrite the above ballot measure in plain English, using your best TPS protocol.

Then, follow that with the same paragraph in your best Okie.

I'll go first...

quote:

---

"SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

LEVY AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES TAX FOR THE PURPOSE

OF ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR

TO BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON ANY

INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS, INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF TULSA

COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE, SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND

CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO DECEMBER 31, 2014?"  

---

PLAIN ENGLISH VERSION:

quote:

---

"The County of Tulsa, Oklahoma, via a successful vote of its Board of County Commissioners, brings forth this public vote seeking permission of the public to allow it to raise Sales Tax by 0.4 Percent on all currently taxable items of sale in the County. The current Sales Tax rate will be increased by this amount, which will vary in total according to the particular taxing jurisdiction in which you vote/reside. For the City of Tulsa, whos current Sales Tax Rate is 8.517%, the new rate, if approved by voters, would become 8.917% for the term of seven years on all currently taxable items of sale in the County.

The purpose of this Sales Tax increase is for development of the Arkansas River Corridor within Tulsa County.

However, Sales Tax proceeds so collected may also be applied or pledged toward the payment of principal and interest on any indebtedness for such above stated purpose, including refunding indebtedness incurred by or on behalf of Tulsa County.

If passed by a majority of voters, this new Sales Tax will commence on January 1, 2008 and
continue for seven years through December 31, 2014, at which time it will terminate."


Do you FAVOR the above proposition?    =====>> YES   <<=====   =====>> NO <<=====

---

OKIE VERSON:

quote:

---

Tulsa County needs more money to develop the river.

To get more money, they want to raise your Sales Tax by 0.4% on everything you buy.

Once approved, the County can spend this money on anything they classify as "river development" and can even obtain debt in the form of loans or bonds to do so, which becomes payable by you. The County can also claim any number or amounts of other costs as related to this and charge you for them as well, even if they occurred prior to the vote.

If you pass this proposition, your sales taxes will increase by 0.4% for seven years beginning January 1, 2008, on top of Sales Taxes you currently pay.


Should this pass?     YES       NO   (circle one)

---

(http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7070/politicalpromisesoksd6.png)

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to their request......means NO!

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

---

he is too busy eating crow from the "we haven't broken any promises" speech.

I invited him over to the river threads after he lit into me over my comments about American Airlines' waste water treatment plant being built with V-2025 funds- which I don't see as something that would have created quality jobs other than keeping the payroll current at Crossland Heavy or Flintco.

All I can think of is Sgt. Hulka:

(http://www.movieactors.com/photos/stripes127.jpeg)

"I didn't think you had it in you. You gut-less.....punk."

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[;)]

---

Same wording they had about the low water dams in 2025. When did they have the "public hearing by such trust" in that instance?

---

The vision Authority has only met twice and yes they I do believe they had a public hearing on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

---

he is too busy eating crow from the "we haven't broken any promises" speech.

---

Sorry been a bit busy, took a little vacation (just when the River threads got going) and then thanks to a software upgrade I had a site password problems until late yesterday, and then earlier today, well it was getting close to Arnett's feeding time (and we all know he gets cranky he can get) and the well you know how it is, you put it off and then the store was all out of fresh ground democrat so I had to run all over town just to find some...  

Oh and there is an "e" on the end of Crowe, thank you very much.  Sorry, I'll stick to projects and leave humor to the appropriate professionals.

So what questions can I address for the fine members of this forum on the River proposal, or questions related to the River in general.

I'll do my best?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I invited him over to the river threads after he lit into me over my comments about American Airlines' waste water treatment plant being built with V-2025 funds- which I don't see as something that would have created quality jobs other than keeping the payroll current at Crossland Heavy or Flintco.

All I can think of is Sgt. Hulka:

(http://www.movieactors.com/photos/stripes127.jpeg)

"I didn't think you had it in you. You gut-less.....punk."

---

Please accept my apology and check your PM's

Sure...... I'll make it short..

What good is it..?

Sell us....!

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

Not trying to be on the attack.  Some of us just want simple answers.

A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?

What's pissing a lot of people off right now is we are getting double-talk out of the county that LWD's were not promised, that this was just study money, etc. etc.   That's not at all what the proposition had to say about it.

I realize hindsight is 20/25 [;)] and that the dreamliner never materialized.  I believe I read originally that Spirit (nee Boeing) was going to recieve $250mm as an incentive to bring that project to town.  I saw economic development as a very respectible goal which, in this case, would have benefitted every community in Tulsa Co. and even a few surrounding counties.  But what happens in 15 years when that project dries up and we have another liquidation of employees like McDonnell-Douglas in the late '80's early '90's?

In light of that, do you think it might be wise in the future, instead of earmarking so much "corporate welfare" to one or two large employers to using it for ED districts which could incubate more small business and provide the type of amenities that some Tulsan's say are needed to make Tulsa a destination city?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

---

What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)

What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access?  I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75.  What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites.  If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.   I understand the SW Chamber has endorsed a pedestrian bridge at this site.

Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.  People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it.  Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

The City could do river development, but I offer a few observations of my own:  

They haven't, since the early 1980's.

The City still has not taken any action to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development to the River on what had be already been identified and adopted by the City Council as a river development site in both the River Vision plan (phase 1 study) and in the Corridor Master Plan (Phase 2 study).  Yes, there is some zeal for River development at the City but not universally and the County by proven experience is a bigger picture entity.  Additionally, the County appears to be a good way to avoid conflict with other development interests active in the City.  

Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor?  Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor?  Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail.  In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there.  

Lastly, I understand the promoters of the package evaluated many options, approaches, and determined the County and the authority to be created to be the best method and it requires the least time for the tax to run to accomplish the plan.  

"What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)"

^
Suppose you could post a copy of the "amended resolution"........?

---

Originally posted by Conan71.
"A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?"

---

^
The answer to this would go quite a ways to define the approximate "time limit" for the proposed tax.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

---

What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)

What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access?  I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75.  What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites.  If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.   I understand the SW Chamber has endorsed a pedestrian bridge at this site.

Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.  People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it.  Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

---

I have driven all of these streets in the West Tulsa wasteland between 75 and the River as well.  In fact, extensively, not just one visit to size up the area.  The bridge across 41st street would make the now-industrial/warehouse type areas feasible to develop into something else.  Everything south of 41st street could eventually be rehabilitated into greatness.  The refinery poses a problem to the north of 41st.  The west bank south of the refinery to I-44 could be prime real estate if it were rehabbed and given access to midtown with a bridge.  A pedestrian bridge with nothing else being added to that portion of West Tulsa does indeed go to nowhere.  There already is a pedestrian bridge at 31st.  You walk to the west side, then do a U-turn and walk right back?  Splendid.

41st street crossing US-75 is not a very prohibitive interchange.  It doesn't kill the flow off like you suggest, infact it is a very peaceful spot.  You do have a big problem to the west where 244/SW Blvd/etc all blockade 41st's trek towards Red Fork.  That would need to be dealt with if the 41st River bridge went in.  Imagine how all of the communities would benefit if there was a smooth travel down 41st from Prattville to TCC to Red Fork to Brookside to OU/Promenade to points east.

That chunk of West Tulsa is salvageable.  If you rule out the 41st auto bridge, it probably will never be salvaged.

What you do:

Move warehouse/industrial land to where the houses backing the refinery currently sit.  People do not deserve to live next to a refinery, and thus probably have trouble moving out because no one will buy.  The refinery isn't moving any time soon.  Buy out the homes there.  Make that area a buffer.  The more warehouses and truck yards the better.  That buffer between the refinery and a thriving 41st street corridor with restraunts, retail, etc, will make the land SOUTH of 41st viable for other things than warehouses like it currently has.  New residential/apartment/mixed use stuff.  They could have plenty to do if the west bank of the river is developed with parks, a riverwalk, a branson landing type development, or whatever.  There is room over there, especially if you buffered the refinery, for a sports stadium, baseball, soccer, you name it.  You could even have an amusement park there, if it werent for all the warehouses and lack of street access.  Still can't picture that being a viable place for new living development?  To the south of this, you have Cherry Creek.  Cherry Creek flows through this area and could be developed like the great ideas flowing in the Creek/Tributary development thread.  It would also serve as another buffer for what I am calling the redevelopment area - on the south and west sides of it against I-44 and US-75.

So this redevelopment area, set back from the refinery, with a buffer of a thriving 41st street corridor, perhaps development on Elwood, a developed riverfront with parks/events/etc, and a Cherry Creek development on the south and west edges, I would dare say could be turned into some of the most desireable land in Tulsa, if a few things were set into motion.

I know none of this would happen overnight, and that vision could probably take a couple of decades to materialize, but a decision TODAY to obstruct the 41st street auto bridge would virtually kill any possibility of this area ever turning around.

I made a map of what I am talking about.  Sorry for the cluttered image, I threw it together quickly.  Probably shouldnt have used the satellite image.

The green redevelopment area would be prime.  Dark blue is Cherry Creek.  Yellow are the 41st and Elwood corridors that could have shops and restraunts to service the Redevelopment area/Cherry Creek areas.  The Red area is where the poor folks living in the shadow of the refinery would get buyouts, and the land then re-used as industrial/warehouse/trucking type interests.

(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/44/clutterki5.jpg)

As for pedestrian bridges, I wouldnt complain if the 41st auto bridge also had pedestrian, or perhaps could upgrade to pedestrian once the west side of the river took off.  A better idea in my eyes, would be for pedestrian bridges over RIVERSIDE, so people walking from Brookside to Riverparks wouldnt have to dodge cars hurtling down the autobahn at 50-60mph.  Riverside itself is getting close to needing to be redone/repaved.  Why not do it up 71st street style with landscaping, extra lanes, and dedicated left turn  lanes (every 2 blocks instead of letting every st. and pl. drive right into Riverside).  Adding more lanes and giving it a smooth ride isnt going to help the walkability, I understand, so put in a pedestrian overpass every 1/2 mile or so, as well as a decent sidewalk on the east side of the road.  (trails on the west side of the road cover that side)

You could probably cover all of riverside with pedestrian bridges for the cost of one going across that giant river.

YoungTulsan, this is an intriguing idea that I'm not going to dismiss.

Take a look at this Google Maps image:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tulsa,+OK&ie=UTF8&ll=36.104422,-96.021452&spn=0.001868,0.003648&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1

As you've noted, the tricky part would be to make the 41st Street contiguous in the Southwest Boulevard area.

But if you draw a straight line east before 41st Street curves into the railroad tracks, it would just about intersect with 41st Street / Southwest Boulevard on the other side of the tracks.

This would not affect the historical Red Fork buildings. A new road would have to be built over I-244, but since it's already been done, this wouldn't be difficult. You'd have to rejigger the stoplights on the intersection, but that shouldn't be a big problem, either.

The little jog on 41st that goes north to Southwest Boulevard could be converted into right-turn only lane for those wanting to drive north on Southwest.

There is a utility bridge going over I-244, but I don't think this would be a problem, either.

The railroad tracks are used only by the Sapulpa Railroad. I see that slow-moving train only a few times a year, so it wouldn't be much of a traffic hazard, either.

Interesting side note: According to old maps I consulted, 41st Street on the west side was never contiguous until that railroad overpass was built. Before, you'd get on 40th Place, drive over the tracks, which then would turn into 40th Street.

Also, that little S-curve on Southwest Boulevard in that area has always been there.

That is a great plan YT. I have explored that area along the river bank from the soccer fields to Cherry Creek. It is as you describe, prime. Moving warehouse/industrial closer to the refinery and I-75 entrances makes sense too. Those homes are not marketable except to other refinery workers.

The problem I see is ironically one of vision. It took people with intimate experience with the area and a reverence for it to concieve the potential you point out. Unfortunately, this input and reverence was not seen during the V2025 process. It still isn't. As Crowe says (like its gospel): "Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan .... People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it." (whatever that means)

I suppose if the most requested features were giant Pez dispensers in the image of SpongeBob spewing fish we would be planning $30million worth of plastic hinged fountains. They encouraged uninformed public input from folks who had more time than insight and chose the ones they knew they could do or had already planned. So we're stuck with McDonalds views of development and incongrous defenses (the pedestrian bridges that the public demanded messed up the cost projections of the low water dams?!) No one is demanding pedestrian bridges in tulsa. Nobody. They don't use the one in Jenks (with no traffic), the one in tulsa is populated with immigrant fishermen who may not even be here by the time we update the dam. Maintenance efforts keep have kept it closed for extended periods the last few years. There is little or no security along the half mile across the river so add policing to the plan or plan for no decent folks using them. Hey, maybe along with maintenance, the angelic foundation contributors could fund security along these attractive nuisances! Afterall with all the heavy usage by tourists who love to spend their time and money traversing stagnant ponds on contrived pedestrian walkways, we'll need someone to protect the employees who scoop up the money. Its like these plans were devised by people who visited but do not use the river parks area.

I could rant forever. Mr. Crowe, I suggest you read the threads where we have discussed these issues, then respond one by one.

edit:those recent topics include-
River Vote
Elm Creek...other tributary
How will you vote on River Tax
River Tax hike vote set
River Plan-Public Infrastructure

YoungTulsan,

Great plan, creativity is everything!

Many similar ideas were brought forward in the River Master Plan process (I was not a part of the study until near the end but attended the majority of the meetings and have read the plans, findings and public comments page by page).

Unfortunately in this area there are some significant infrastructure and environmental issues in the area that I will touch on.

1.  This area is immediately downwind of the City's waste water treatment plant (S. of 44) and the industrial looking facility on the N side of 44 and the creek right on the river is the flow equalization basin for the plant which fills up with raw sewage when it rains.  The cost to move these is more than the current river plan.

2. The area of the West Bank soccer fields in an old land fill and very unstable ground.

3.  There are known ground water contamination issues in parts of the area.

4.  I know the area pretty well from past construction projects.  10 years ago I ran an interceptor sewer in the area and on to the west and whenever we encountered ground water and had to pump it we were required to constantly monitor the discharge from the pumps and were always required to discharge it back into the sanitary sewer under an industrial pre-treatment permit.

Some day I believe you will be absolutely correct in the value of this area and will overcome the costs associated with properly utilizing it.  

Additionally, the river at this location had been identified as a potential dam site however if you back water up there in will flood what has been identified as sensitive habitat that the living river concept will greatly enhance.  

Lastly, I agree no one should have to live that close to a refienery.

I like your ideas YT but I would rather there not be any widening of riverside. For about 6 years I lived just a few houses off riverside on 46th st.  It was absolutely no problem crossing riverside. I would rollerblade and walk there often. I like the character of riverside in that area all the way towards downtown much better than the way it is at 71st. The 71st area with its wider roads feels more suburban. The areas towards downtown feel cozier. The trees reaching out and going over the roads feels very nice. Plus if you were to make the roads wider and add a lane you would decrease the walkability, or rollerbladability lol, of getting across them. If you added a pedestrian overpass every half mile those will require a lot of space and upkeep. Plus its highly unlikely I would go over to one of them but would do my regular zip down 46th street and right on across to the river. Even if an overpass were right near me I wouldnt bother going up and over it when I can go straight across. Again, the traffic was never a problem.

I have seen a pattern on many a post with people complaining about traffic in downtown, riverside, etc. I have never found any problem. The worst traffic I have ever run into was along 71st near the mall during the holidays. But even that is to be expected and a little patience goes a long way. Like I said, I lived right off riverside for 6 years. There was absolutely NO traffic problem whatsoever. (other than blocking off brookside or riverside for parades). I never had to wait for more than a couple of minutes. There was a pattern from the lights that would give you a huge emty space to drive out onto riverside or cross even during the busiest rush hour times. Its like people want to be able to drive everywhere without them ever having to stop or pause and park right in front of the place they want to go to.  Thats a rediculous and unrealistic expectation.

I wonder if this is just a Tulsa thing because I have lived in and stayed in cities where Tulsas traffic and parking are comparably, absurdly easy and frankly Tulsa is overly car centric already imo. (course there is Phoenix with its 24 lane highways, but I have not been there, and is that the direction we want to go?) I would rather come up with ideas to decrease traffic, monorail along riverside perhaps, or slow it down. Especially if we think that the city and downtown will grow in the future, with the car centric approach we will forever be wanting to widen the roads because it will never be enough if the same attitudes and outlook continue.

Waterboy

I have been catching up on the threads and am tying to help but by all means please don't let me interrupt your ranting by providing acurate  information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

YoungTulsan,

Great plan, creativity is everything!

Many similar ideas were brought forward in the River Master Plan process (I was not a part of the study until near the end but attended the majority of the meetings and have read the plans, findings and public comments page by page).

Unfortunately in this area there are some significant infrastructure and environmental issues in the area that I will touch on.

1.  This area is immediately downwind of the City's waste water treatment plant (S. of 44) and the industrial looking facility on the N side of 44 and the creek right on the river is the flow equalization basin for the plant which fills up with raw sewage when it rains.  The cost to move these is more than the current river plan.

2. The area of the West Bank soccer fields in an old land fill and very unstable ground.

3.  There are known ground water contamination issues in parts of the area.

4.  I know the area pretty well from past construction projects.  10 years ago I ran an interceptor sewer in the area and on to the west and whenever we encountered ground water and had to pump it we were required to constantly monitor the discharge from the pumps and were always required to discharge it back into the sanitary sewer under an industrial pre-treatment permit.

Some day I believe you will be absolutely correct in the value of this area and will overcome the costs associated with properly utilizing it.  

Additionally, the river at this location had been identified as a potential dam site however if you back water up there in will flood what has been identified as sensitive habitat that the living river concept will greatly enhance.  

Lastly, I agree no one should have to live that close to a refienery.

---

Perhaps if authorities would express the reality of development issues and the impact of past abuses we could move forward without cynicism from the public. In other words be truthful.

That word "landfill" implies a garbage dump. In reality, I'm told, the soccer fields sit on a sludge pit of some sort that was sealed with clay instead of being cleaned up. It was then given away to the county (leased for a $1??) because a sale would have necessitated federally mandated clean up for the buyer. Heaven forbid we should ask the abusing parties to just clean the area up and leave it like they found it.

So Cherry Creek is now a back up overflow for sewage. Sweet. And the living river which ostensibly will travel along that area and be populated with river users...will recieve that discharge and whatever leaks from the "landfill". Look for more of the "not for human contact" signs to sprout up too.

The much maligned Channels project acknowledged (exposed) to the public the reality of another "landfill". The protected islands by the 11th street bridge are actually covering barrels of refinery waste which leaks into the river. Apparently officials knew this since its inception but didn't deal with it. Channels would have cleaned up this toxic site. Look closely at the plan. Does it intend to clean up the islands?? Or just continue to allege they are a least tern refuge.

Then ask yourself why pedestrian bridges are suddenly replacing a real bridge. Could it be that it requires more planning, more complexity- since it interconnects with Riverside, more studies and then empties into areas designated "flood prone" and thus no federal funding could be involved? As pointed out the pedestrian bridges are faster development.

Just some truthiness please. Apparently that is different from accuracy?

Mr. Crowe, with all due respect, will you kindly acknowledge and address the post I made on the last page about the low water dams?

Young Tulsan-

It's with mixed emotion I looked at your re-alignment for the area.  It's brilliant on the surface.  Mixed emotion because I'm typing right now from a desk which would be in the middle of the 41st St. corridor you propose.  I can also look at it from the standpoint of economic gain for the family I work for.  They own several parcels of property between the river and H 75, 41st & Cherry Creek.

There is quite a bit of money pumped into the local economy from this rough-looking industrial area.  I know the area isn't pretty, and some of the lots are pretty weedy.  It's an ideal location for many of us.  The cost of purchasing and relocating industrial and transportation businesses wouldn't be cheap.  

Quite a bit of the housing in "Garden City" (misnomer if there ever was one) is rental and, I believe, mostly owned by a handful of slumlords investors.  I personally would love to see that blight forever removed from the face of Tulsa.  Word around the campfire is that one or two of them would be happy to cash out.

I'm in with Cherry Creek being a viable tributary development.  I don't know if that was the creek that V2025 alluded to or not or if it's something on the south side of the I-44 bridge which fills with raw sewage.  Does the ODEQ and EPA know that?  First I ever heard of it.

Speaking of bridges, I'm pretty ambivalent about either a pedestrian or auto bridge at 41st or a combination.  I can see where access to the heart of west Tulsa would be simplified, but with the exit/entrance lanes on the east and west-bound sides of the I-44 bridge, it's not that big of a PITA to get back and forth now.  I only work on this side of the river, I'd be interested to hear what the homeowners have to say.  Rwarn was right about the "jog" over I-244, that's an infrastructure engineering cluster **** if ever I've seen one.

As far as a pedestrian bridge, I don't really see much of a purpose either.  You can cross the 31st. st. bridge now and there is trail all the way to the boundaries of the WWT plant on the south side of the I-44 bridge.  To the north, you can go back to 11th St.

I believe you would see a traffic flow on a 41st St. bridge similar to the traffic flow at 11th/SW Blvd. bridge.  That is a mixed use bridge now.  Big difference between 71st St.  There might be a little more traffic from people using a Hwy 75 exit to get home to Brookside a little quicker, but I don't think it would have near the flow as the 71st St. bridge.

We have noted with interest that there were survey crews working up and down W. 41st a few weeks ago.  That raised the level of speculation around this office as to what is going on.

I like your idea, don't get me wrong.  In one way, there are fewer people to have to deal with on acquisition since on a per acre basis ownership is far more consolidated than it is when you build an expressway through a newer neighborhood.

I do not think an answer will be forthcoming Conan... If he answers... he would have to admit it was the carrot in front of the horse.

With his vast knowledge no other answer would fit.He had to know the number was low.

One additional question that came up yesterday..... I watched the (repeat) showing of the Economic Development City Council meeting for Tuesday. Ms Miller was in attendance; unless I misinterpreted what she said... The portion of the "River Vote" concerning certain LWD's is moot.
She stated "that it was the job of the County Commissioners to collect V2025 Tax money until all items on the ballot were complete. Then and only then can the V2025 Tax be retired."

According to everything, I have read, the LWD's are something that should be completed. Not just a study done.

If you took out all the projects in this river tax proposal that are NOT in the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan, you'd cut the price nearly in half. The "living river" ($90 million), the 41st and 61st pedestrian bridges ($30 million for both), and the "downtown connector" ($15 million) are not in the master plan.

On the other hand, a 41st Street vehicular bridge is in both the ARMCP and INCOG's regional transportation plan. It would give Red Fork residents direct access to Brookside. It would make it easier for eastsiders to discover what Red Fork has to offer. It would make Webster High School more viable as a magnet school. It may not need to be built right now, but as YoungTulsan said, it would be tragic to do something that would forever close off the possibility.

Kirby (I assume it's Mr. Crowe) made some interesting statements:

quote:

---

Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.

---

So how much would the dams cost now if we just built them as dams? And shouldn't we give voters a choice between more expensive dams with pedestrian bridges and less expensive dams without?

quote:

---

People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it. Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

---

The 11th St. bridge is also a vehicular bridge, but is a different experience for pedestrians than the 71st St. bridge. There are ways to provide enough separation that pedestrians feel shielded from the car traffic. A half-mile long pedestrian-only bridge, particularly one that connects to nothing on the other side, leaves most pedestrians feeling isolated and vulnerable, because there are fewer "eyes on the street" deterring trouble.

quote:

---

What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access? I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75. What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites. If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.

---

This is actually a stronger argument against a pedestrian-only bridge. People would be more willing to spend two minutes driving past a mile of warehouses to get between the river and Red Fork than to spend twenty minutes walking past a mile of warehouses.

quote:

---

The City still has not taken any action to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development to the River on what had be already been identified and adopted by the City Council as a river development site in both the River Vision plan (phase 1 study) and in the Corridor Master Plan (Phase 2 study). Yes, there is some zeal for River development at the City but not universally and the County by proven experience is a bigger picture entity. Additionally, the County appears to be a good way to avoid conflict with other development interests active in the City.

---

I'm not sure how to parse the phrase "to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development."  

I think I can paraphrase the second sentence, though: The city isn't moving fast enough on riverfront development, the city is putting more emphasis on downtown than the riverfront, so the county will usurp the city's role. Even if I don't like the way Taylor has handled west bank development, as a resident of Tulsa, I still want those decisions left in the hands of the level of government most directly accountable to me as a city resident.

quote:

---

Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor? Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor? Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail. In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there.

---

So use the existing county tax to pay for the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications as promised in Vision 2025, Proposition #4, then let the individual cities decide whether to pay for pedestrian bridges, living rivers, etc. Let Sand Springs voters decide if they want to pay the extra to put a pedestrian bridge on their low-water dam.

quote:

---

Lastly, I understand the promoters of the package evaluated many options, approaches, and determined the County and the authority to be created to be the best method and it requires the least time for the tax to run to accomplish the plan.

---

Why weren't these options and approaches debated publicly? Why not give the people the choice between different methods and approaches? The phrase "best method" raises the question: Best method for whom?

quote:

---

"Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor? Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor? Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail. In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there."

---

This stumps me.  Are we referring to a low water dam in Sand Springs being required to maintain water in the entire Tulsa Co. corridor of the Arkansas river?

Why not just build a higher lwd east of Bixby/BA and maintain a higher level throughout.  Or say "screw Jenks and everyone else downstream" and add a few feet to the Zink lwd?

I'm not a hydrologist, so excuse my relative ignorance on these damn dam concepts. [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Mr. Crowe, with all due respect, will you kindly acknowledge and address the post I made on the last page about the low water dams?

---

I Worked on it for quite awhile last evening and will post shortly... it is a bit long sorry for the delay but I just returned from the monthly Vision 2025 Sales Tax Overview Committee meeting which included which was followed by a presentation and tour of some of the Amierican Airlines projects.

Tulsa could always pair up with Sand Springs and help them with the dam if they chose to try and build it themselves. If it would benefit us to do so and it wouldnt be as cost effective, "work right" or environmentally feasible to raise the Zink Dam to hold more water. (Though one more possible reason is to let the water flow through the zink lake which helps with the stagnation and silt).



What really frustrates me about these river plans and others is indeed the approach.

Yes they should have public input during the initial phases. But where they always seem to go wrong is instead of putting out an "initial" plan and having an ensuing period of debate to allow for adjustments they say, Here is the final plan, take it or leave it.  There should be an initial proposal put out, debates, conversations, adjustments then a best compromises final proposal put out.  Would likely get more people on board, make many feel as though, "no its not the best plan but they did make good improvements" and who knows, it could really have ended up being a fantastic plan.


Also I think they are really tripping up on the difference between. "What people want for the river and Tulsa" and "What people are willing at the moment to pay for, and the priorities"

For instance; Yes we may want pedestrian bridges and connectors to downtown. BUT if allowed the choice between investing in those items at this time and investing the same amount for the Pearl District plans. I bet most people would choose the Pearl. But you cant have ideas like that when you dont have an initial proposal presented and a time for people to offer creative alternative ideas.


If the purpose of this particular tax is being sold as a "beautification, quality of life improvement, waterfront development stimulus," package. And we are willing to push for such a tax at this time, knowing that we are also going to have to deal with the roads as well.  Then if one also looks at the Pearl and all it could do for the same amount, and for the same over all reasons, as a couple of pedestrian bridges and downtown connectors... there is no question which the people would choose.

If we had been presented with a plan. Then were allowed to debate it and offer improvements. This would have come up before a vote was scheduled and could have allowed for a better plan to be drawn up and more likely passed. (funding, wording, and control issues as well)

People are fed up with city taxes. And yes I want river type development and other similar revitalization strategies, like the Pearl, done. Its going to be a hard enough sell to get a tax of this sort passed when we know we are going to also have to do something with the roads. I would say it would have been wise to look at the sum, which I think is reasonable,tolerable, and passable amount,but the city should have made an effort to get input to make sure every dollar of that sum is used to its best potential and keeping with the over all spirit of this particular tax.

Artist, you brought to mind something for me when I've looked over the names on various oversight and planning committees.  Does it seem to anyone else that these committees are usually devoid of "average" citizens and most usually occupied by CEO's, business owners, beaurocrats, someone involved in the media, political insiders, etc.?

This question is directed to no one specifically, just anyone who cares to put a thoughtful answer to it:

Why is that?  Is there not enough interest from the average citizen or are they excluded on purpose?  

If it's from a lack of interest by the average citizen then we do deserve to get whatever the "elite" thinks we need crammed down our throats.  If it's intentional exclusion, then how do we change that?  I don't have millions of $$ to bring to the table, but I'd love to be able to have more of a say in the planning process instead of being asked for my wholesale approval or disapproval on a plan.

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

---

Volunteers like Bobby Lorton, Zink, Coury, Cadieux, BOK/Frazier rep, etc. Yeah, citizens who just haved the average guys interests at heart.[:P]

Even the World noted they all had close interests in river development. Closer than ours I'll bet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

---

Since I'm not on any of them, you think that means I'm below average?  Hmmmm.

The average American is fourty pounds overweight.

I am finally above average in something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

The average American is fourty pounds overweight.

I am finally above average in something.

---

The average Brit may be fourty lbs. overweight, but the average American is forty lbs. overweight.[;)] Besides, you're probably exagerating er, exagerrating,uh, underestimating anyway.

I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Tulsa could always pair up with Sand Springs and help them with the dam if they chose to try and build it themselves.

---

Do it yourself dam building (sorry re-read your post, couldn't resist):

(http://www.parkdani.net/main/2005%20Fall%20-%202006%20Summer/122405%20to%20010106%20-%20Winter%20Break/images/145%20-%20Sand%20Castles%202.jpg)

[quote
This stumps me.  Are we referring to a low water dam in Sand Springs being required to maintain water in the entire Tulsa Co. corridor of the Arkansas river?

Why not just build a higher lwd east of Bixby/BA and maintain a higher level throughout.  Or say "screw Jenks and everyone else downstream" and add a few feet to the Zink lwd?

I'm not a hydrologist, so excuse my relative ignorance on these damn dam concepts. [;)]
[/quote]

To needing the SS dam for water in the river in Tulsa, the answer is YES, the storage capacity this lake would provide is what makes the living river concept work.  Water will be stored from the daily hydropower flow and then metered out at a lower rate during the day.  This stored water will be from the top couple of feet of the SS lake so it will remain an excellent facility for that City too.  Zink lake may also have a need variable lake level to a lesser extent during some periods to futher stabilize the desired downstream flows.

The simple answer is yes, I suppose the City of Tulsa could just modify Zink, although that does absolutely nothing to improve the appearance, use, or environmental condition of the river below Zink and there would not be sufficient water to meter out from this lake alone.  

Technically when you raise the level of Zink but you will have to do environmental restoration (improvement) work for the habitat loss associated with a deeper pool and downstream is the best area available.  In addition to beautifying that area and providing more recreation areas habitat restoration is exactly what a BIG component of the Living River concept is which will go a long way to offsetting the environmental impact of not just Zink improvements but also the south dam.   Then to have a significantly more constant flow in this improved area you need the SS dam to better regulate the flow for all.  In these terms I hope you can you see why these areas projects are connected?  


As for a higher dam east of BA/Bixby the answer is in what you say you are not, nor am I, but I understand it from years of working with them so I'll try.  Typically the river bed slopes downstream 1.8 feet per mile average (it is flatter in SS and has more slope at Jenks).  The banks are only so high, maybe 12 feet at a given location and say you can get a pool depth of 8-10 feet (without causing flooding) that would back water up 4.4-5.6 miles and you still have to allow for major flood passage which goes over a dam unless you utilize a full lay-flat gate dam which is a significantly more expensive approach.  Remember that extreem lake depth was one of the biggest technical issues with the Channels proposal with initially desired I believe a 19' deep lake).

As for the Screw Jenks approach... based upon the momentum and progressiveness is this a risk worth taking... As for what Tulsa will benefit from on this dam? From the calls I have had, I anticipate additional commercial development on the Tulsa side but only once the dam is in place.  

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

---

 

That's something I've thought about a few times... Zink lake didn't exactly bring developers banging down the door!  It creates a nice backdrop, but it certainly hasn't really added any development to the area.  I wonder if Riverwalks business dries up when there is no water?  Doubtful....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

---

Ask Jerry how man times he has asked what the  schedule is on the Low Water Damns...

He has done an amyzing feat with RiverWalk, which I frequent at least weekly but why has the second phase been so long ingetting started?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Not trying to be on the attack.  Some of us just want simple answers.

A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?

What's pissing a lot of people off right now is we are getting double-talk out of the county that LWD's were not promised, that this was just study money, etc. etc.   That's not at all what the proposition had to say about it.

I realize hindsight is 20/25 [;)] and that the dreamliner never materialized.  I believe I read originally that Spirit (nee Boeing) was going to recieve $250mm as an incentive to bring that project to town.  I saw economic development as a very respectible goal which, in this case, would have benefitted every community in Tulsa Co. and even a few surrounding counties.  But what happens in 15 years when that project dries up and we have another liquidation of employees like McDonnell-Douglas in the late '80's early '90's?

In light of that, do you think it might be wise in the future, instead of earmarking so much "corporate welfare" to one or two large employers to using it for ED districts which could incubate more small business and provide the type of amenities that some Tulsan's say are needed to make Tulsa a destination city?

---

SORRY THIS IS LONG, and has taken a long time.

The two dams (with pedestrian bridges) are projected to cost $55 million for both.  The $5.6 was based on a very aggressive match, 1/3 local – 2/3 from federal that was believed would be forthcoming.  I did not generate these numbers or match hope but 17 million was simply not enough regardless.  The other point is that those estimates were for Zink lake style dams in 2003 dollars with NO AMENITIES, no shore side public facilities, no fountains, nada, just the two dams.  I believe the hope was that the private side would spruce them up.    

Now besides the tremendous construction sector inflation which has occurred in recent years (which would have possibly doubled the projected costs into the same time frame Zink style facilities) and that Zink style dams are not what the Corridor Master Plan (Post Vision 2025 vote) said we as a community wanted and these documents were unanimously approved by the river Study advisory groups, INCOG, The County, the City of Tulsa and the Planning Commission and had significant public input and could have had more at any of those adoptions.

The $5.6 million we have, and have been guarding, will go towards construction and not just study dollars.  What was printed in Urban Tulsa to that effect was incorrect.  I corrected similar misstatements made on the radio but I guess the UT guest-ed piece was already in print and when I heard about it... it was too late.  Actually, the study currently underway is only $275K, the remaining funds would provide for engineering, permitting, and will continue towards utility relocations, and finally construction.

I have little basis for how the river dollars (5.6, 2.1 and 1.8) were developed but the later two do track well with preliminary estimates by the Corps.  From INCOG (who coordinated project input into Vision 2025) we understand that these were intended also as possible local match for federal funds however we don't believe, based upon discussions with the corps, that the Zink Lake silt improvements will qualify for any form of matching funds as a stand alone project and we have not budgeted for any on that work.   Now the shoreline beautification funds may qualify for federal matching funds provided that work includes a significant habitat improvement project and we have an authorization followed by an appropriation to the Corps.  

However; as an entire river corridor project we may be able to leverage all of them them as matching funds against a much larger scale project, one that will benefit as much of the corridor as possible which is why the local Corps officials believe that Tulsa County is the best sponsor for implementation of the corridor master plan as it covers the entire 42 miles.  In short the more we do the better chance we have of getting federal matching funds.



As to the promise made in Vision 2025.  At this point I do wish the language in the Vision 2025 resolution regarding the dams was clearer, but to think we would get 2 and all the bells and whistles for 5.6 is out there a bit.  I have always presented these funds as what they are, matching money for a bunch more that we need.  As a native Tulsan it is painful to see people feel duped but I see no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy to do that, if I did I would speak up.  

I have reviewed much of the campaign material and media portrayals for Vision 2025 and have found where it was presented as matching monies yet the resolutions don't expressly say that.  Unfortunately, I believe a good deal of those who are PO'd are the result of a planned frothing of the waters by some who are chronically against everything that is not their idea.  Quite simply, no human drafted document is perfect and they found something to rally behind and if it was not this it would be something else in my humble opinion.

I believed at the time as did the majority of voters that the AA support was the right thing to do at the time and I believe it even more so now but again by my position I get to see exactly what those funds have been used for and have helped to align the Tulsa base for in the future.  AA is our largest employer and the states second largest private employer, therefore we all have a vested interest in seeing it thrive.  Oh and those injection wells, I found out today that those were part of the original Air Force facilities.  

I can't really answer your question on economic development but:  Personally (strictly), I would like to see a method of providing a business incubator to benefit local start-up and expanding business, but that can be quite difficult to accomplish and with recent alleged abuse at the stare level it has proven to be an easy target; Then, if I were King for a day (hum), one of the things on my list would be a governmental supported fund to provide no interest loans and grants to business who are required to spend money to respond to the ever changing governmental regulations we seem to can't be able to live without, bet that would slow down some authors if they had to fund the downstream effect of implementing what they draft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Artist, you brought to mind something for me when I've looked over the names on various oversight and planning committees.  Does it seem to anyone else that these committees are usually devoid of "average" citizens and most usually occupied by CEO's, business owners, beaurocrats, someone involved in the media, political insiders, etc.?

This question is directed to no one specifically, just anyone who cares to put a thoughtful answer to it:

Why is that?  Is there not enough interest from the average citizen or are they excluded on purpose?  

If it's from a lack of interest by the average citizen then we do deserve to get whatever the "elite" thinks we need crammed down our throats.  If it's intentional exclusion, then how do we change that?  I don't have millions of $$ to bring to the table, but I'd love to be able to have more of a say in the planning process instead of being asked for my wholesale approval or disapproval on a plan.

---

One thing I have learned just from the meetings I have gone to on different issues and being involved with TN is that it certainly helps to be self employed. Many time meetings are during work hours and it may be that a lot of "average citizens" cant just ask off from work to go to those meetings and such. Plus it does take a commitment of time, effort, learning the issues and subject matter, etc. The more you get involved the more time, aka money, its going to cost you. Really the average person you see driving down the street probably only has an inkling that there is something going on with the river. (was a response in the TW online to the Kaiser plan by one lady who was complaining that Tulsa didnt need an island in the river and that is why she wouldnt support it).  It may be that people who are more involved with the economy on a larger scale, who own large businesses, are developers, etc. see and pay attention to things differently and notice more directly how the city and what it does affects them and the community. There is also the fact that once you have reached a point in your life where you are no longer struggling and spending a lot of mental effort to just make ends meet, your concerns and interests broaden outward more. Most likely its a combination of all of the above.

Thanks, twenty twenty five.

I do want better low water dams than we have now for Zink lake. Those cost us too much in maintenence and don't improve the water quality like the new designs I have seen.

I agree that it would have been impossible to construct two low water dams for 5.6 million and there has been quite of bit of inflation in construction prices.

55 million dollars does seem like a lot though. Does it include the all the stuff on the banks near the dams for that price? Just so there will not be any confusion for me, what is all the stuff budgeted for with this amount.

Has no one looked into the idea of releasing 5.6 million dollars worth of beavers into the river?

I tried to found out how many beavers we could buy for that much money...but every time the search engine would connect beaver and money it would list porn sites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

I tried to found out how many beavers we could buy for that much money...but every time the search engine would connect beaver and money it would list porn sites.

---

Bada Bing!

Ladies & Gentlemen! Recyclemichael!  He'll be playing here all week.  Don't forget to tip your waitress back to her normal upright position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71


To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

---

How will Cherokee Casino float its gambling boats with no water...oh yeah...I'm sure that has nothing to do with why we HAVE to have water in the river despite the fact that the Riverwalk is successful with out it...

I didn't know the Cherokee Casino out by Catoosa was going to have a boat. Heck, I didn't even know the Creek Nation Casino on the river was going to have a boat.

I thought gambling was going to be on shore.

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing [;)]), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing [;)]), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

---

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

Kirby, thank you for the reply.  I'm digesting what you wrote.  I thought you said it was a long reply.  Obviously, you've never seen one of my long rants. [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing [;)]), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

---

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

---

Maybe I can start a floating smoke shop...

quote:

---

Now besides the tremendous construction sector inflation which has occurred in recent years (which would have possibly doubled the projected costs into the same time frame Zink style facilities) and that Zink style dams are not what the Corridor Master Plan (Post Vision 2025 vote) said we as a community wanted and these documents were unanimously approved by the river Study advisory groups, INCOG, The County, the City of Tulsa and the Planning Commission and had significant public input and could have had more at any of those adoptions.

---

You are correct in stating that trying to quantify ANY number for construction for a project like this today would be impossible with the current status of the construction contractor market.  It's difficult, if not impossible, to get construction contractors for projects this large to even attempt an estimate of what it would cost...even on a unit rate basis.  Asking a construction contractor to give you a ballpark figure for construction this far in advance would generate a price that even Lady Taylor's husband would blush at.

OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
TO VOTE: Complete the arrow(s)
pointing to your choice(s), like this
USE A #2 PENCIL (NO INK)
PROPOSITION
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
“SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY
AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS
OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO
BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON
ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING
REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS,
INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE
ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO
DECEMBER 31, 2014?�
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO

---

This is the exact text used on the "Special Election Ballot"......

No room for misunderstanding here......

You will get exactly what you vote for.

Right Mister Crowe......!

Here's some of the resolution in Redneck ...

WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary an' advisable by th' Board of County Commisshuners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, t'improve th' juneral economic corndishuns an' quality of life of th' varmints of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by development of th' Arkansas Rivah co'rido' wifin th' County; an'

WHEREAS, thar is no funds in th' treasury fo' sech purpose an' power is granted said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Seckshun 1370, as amended, t'levy an' colleck a sales tax t'provide funds fo' sech purpose providin' th' same be autho'ized by a majo'ity of th' registered voters tharof votin' at an eleckshun duly held fo' sech purpose; an'

WHEREAS, th' Board of County Commisshuners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, adopped a comprehensive resolushun on Augest 2, 2007 (th' "Origeenal Resolushun"), callin' an eleckshun fo' th' fo'egwine purpose; an'

WHEREAS, it has been determined t'amend an' restate th' Origeenal Resolushun in its intirety as hyarinaf'er provided in o'der t'clarify sartin aspecks of th' projecks t'be funded fum sech sales tax an' th' composishun an' duties of th' public trest created in cornneckshun tharwif.

But I prefer the Moron version ....

WHEREAS, it is deemid necess 'n adbisaggle by de Board of County Commisshunehs of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, t' iprobe de genehal economic conbishuns 'n kality of life of de peoble of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by debelopmin of de Arkansas Ribeh corridor widin de County; and

WHEREAS, dehe are no funds in the, duh uhh, treasury f' such purpose 'n powebuhr is grantid said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statoots 2001, Seckion 1370, as amended, uh uh uh uh, t' leby 'n colleck a sales tax t' probide funds f' such purpose probidigg the, ERRRR, same be audorizid by a madgority of de registehid botehs deheof botigg at an eleckion du held f' such purpose; and

WHEREAS, de Board of County Commisshunehs of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, adoptid a c'prehensibe resolushun on August 2, 2007 (de "Original Resolushun"), calligg an eleckion f' the, uh uh uh, foregoigg purpose; and

WHEREAS, it has been detehminid to amend 'n restate de Original Resolushun in its entirety as heheinaffeh probidid in ordeh t' clarify cehtain aspecks of de probuhjecks t' be fundid from such sales tax 'n the, errr, c'posishun 'n duties of de public trust cratid in conneckion dehewid.

Thanks for the info Vision, the way you have put things has cleared up some things about the dams.

Those were estimates based on a very aggressive match, and..

1.  We did not get the match.  Though that alone would not absolve them of going ahead with building the dams under 2025 imo

2.  The estimates were probably too low anyway. How that happened and who is to blame could take up an eternity of argument on here if we chose to go there.

3.  Materials prices since the estimate have risen substantially on top of the above. Though there should have been a mechanism to take care of that.

4.  We have changed the nature of the dams from the original zink lake type that were originally envisioned to ones that are more expensive, saver, environmentally friendly, have less silt problems, etc.

5.  This new price also includes, if I am not mistaken, the cost of pedestrial walkways to be built along with them.

To me those give enough "differences in situation" and type of structure, to allow for additional and different funding.  It may be that it was not intended that the ballot say what it said. And thats terribly unfortunate because that is a mistake that has caused a lot of problems.

However... It could in this situation be perfectly fair and reasonable for them to say. OK, we will build the dams as originally intended under 2025, but also as the originally understood Zink Lake type. None higher and with the ability to have controlled release of water during the day, like at Sand Springs, none with added safety and silt reduction mechanisms, none with added features to help fish migration, none with the added pedestrian bridges, etc.

County and funding issues aside, I think from this perspective it is not too far fetched to build these different types of dams in this new situation, while still using those original funds intended for dams, yet along with an additional funding mechanism.

One argument that could be made, is for additional 2025 funds that would have perhaps gone for any increased cost for the original type of dams, be used to offset and decrease the new tax amount for the new dams. But here it seems we are picking nits and getting into other uncertainties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing [;)]), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

---

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

---

Surprise! They don't need any of those requirements to operate a casino on the river here. They need a captain with a drivers license, boat numbers and liability insurance (optional). Since the river will not be navigable due to no locks/dams or other connections, the Coast Guard will have no authority. None.  And I hadn't thought of it like that IP. They may very well be the only boats on the river by design. If I were as conspiratorial as you, I would wonder if that is why they didn't provide for connectability.

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

I don't know about the aesthetics of something like this...........

But you put some ladies in red... with those mesh stockings and heels and one could be tempted to have a look at the "Boat" ..

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Riverboat.jpg)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

---

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

---

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

---

Him don't know me vewy well do he?  Well they have already invested in the land. Its bought and paid for. Plus, even with the new dams, as variable as our river is there will still be times when it and area lakes will be extremely low, the river practically empty, and times when it's definitely, "over flowing with potential" lol. The Casino they are building now has a parking garage under it with the expectation that when it floods this will allow for enough height to not let flood water get to the actual floor of the casino Which is over the height of riverside drive. The riverwalk is designed to use the parking lot behind it as a flow channel to allow flood waters to flow around it. Looking at the size of those casinos I can imagine the size of any profitable riverboat being quite large. I am sure they could actually make it so that it was properly moored, but I keep envisioning one of those huge things slamming into the Jenks Bridges during a flood or beached like a dead whale on a dry riverbed during a drought.

Not to mention, I still think they are too danged ugly for any person to even consider. Not to mention they would look completely out of place on our river. This isnt old south Dixie.  And it would clash with their sleek, modern new casino. My money would bet that they would invest in a hotel next, then an expansion or continuation of more attractions on the other side of the river with a ferry boat dock and or pedestrian walkway to take people to the other side.

As tacky as those casinos can be. I should have know that some on here could imagine something even tackier. A riverboat?  You have got to be kidding. Nasty

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

---

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

---

Careful, your grudge against RPA is showing

My grudge? Him don't know me very well...That's silly. Eventually you always try to use my rocky past relationship with them to negate common sense. You seem to carry the memory longer than I do. RPA has almost nothing to do with this river development. It is merely part of an enabling mechanism. They will be eclipsed in power by the new County River Parks Authority. In fact Swake, no one governmental entity involved with this development can stop someone from floating a boat on this river. Especially the Indians. They may say otherwise but thats puffery. They may levy a tax on the boat or the revenue it produces. Or they may make an addendum to the compact.

What I do rebel against is the same naivete of which I was once guilty. I'm going to be blunt. Artist, stick to art/architecture and other soft disciplins of which you are quite knowledgeable. This is hardball business and your trust that casinos that foisted upon us the giant obnoxious neon TV screen at 81st & Riverside will somehow start exhibiting good taste in architecture over tackiness is absurd. No one could force them to take down the abomination either.

If it suits them, they will float a casino and there is nothing to keep them from that whether they own land, prepare for floods or dry spells. The cost of a good outfitted shallow draft casino boat that works in protected waters ranges from $150,000 to $650,000 (Island Princess 65' x 26' authentic side wheeler 140 passengers $339,000) as per Boats & Harbors. Not necessary to have river flow as they usually dredge out a deep bay to port them in and could care less whether they move around. They already have trained employees to operate it. All they need is a captain (with a drivers license) and some engineers.

The added benefit is that neither the Coast Guard, the Shore Patrol or the police would have any authority over their operation as it would be subject to their authorities. Doubt that? Take a boat, a cell phone, a passenger and a gun out on the river. Shoot the passenger then call the police for help. They will not respond. Eventually the OHP will launch a boat (the nearest one is in Cleveland on Keystone Lake) and if you're still around, attempt to arrest you.

I'm not saying the Indians will float a boat or that it financially would make sense. But saying they can't or won't like you assert is too big a leap of faith for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
TO VOTE: Complete the arrow(s)
pointing to your choice(s), like this
USE A #2 PENCIL (NO INK)
PROPOSITION
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
“SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY
AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS
OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO
BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON
ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING
REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS,
INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE
ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO
DECEMBER 31, 2014?�
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO

---

This is the exact text used on the "Special Election Ballot"......

No room for misunderstanding here......

You will get exactly what you vote for.

Right Mister Crowe......!

---

Any news on the changed ballot? The one that eliminates the "blank check" feature? Mr. Crowe seemed to be oblivious to the issues and questions we proffered. I've been ignored by smarter more important people. That's how you know when you've scored.

^     ^     ^

The Good News being...........

Stands an ice cubes chance in hell of passing....

The Bad News..............

One more chance at doing something on the River spoiled by the bureaucrats.......

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing [;)]), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

---

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

---

Surprise! They don't need any of those requirements to operate a casino on the river here. They need a captain with a drivers license, boat numbers and liability insurance (optional). Since the river will not be navigable due to no locks/dams or other connections, the Coast Guard will have no authority. None.  And I hadn't thought of it like that IP. They may very well be the only boats on the river by design. If I were as conspiratorial as you, I would wonder if that is why they didn't provide for connectability.

---

It's cuz I know da troof!

(http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/26755/2000595757396356540_rs.jpg)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
TO VOTE: Complete the arrow(s)
pointing to your choice(s), like this
USE A #2 PENCIL (NO INK)
PROPOSITION
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
“SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY
AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS
OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO
BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON
ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING
REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS,
INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE
ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO
DECEMBER 31, 2014?�
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO

---

This is the exact text used on the "Special Election Ballot"......

No room for misunderstanding here......

You will get exactly what you vote for.

Right Mister Crowe......!

---

Just how many pages do you want a ballot to be... if you want EVERYTING in the world on it call your state deligation.  

READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it. This is the EXACT methodology as the City of Tulsa, the surrounding and every other municipality that I know of in the state uses for ballots. You seem to be attacking me for what the State governs.  No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  In the County, since counties in Oklahoma cannot pass local ordnances this is accomplished by resolution.

^
Sir, unless you are the author of this, rush to judgment, I in no way am attacking you.........

I do have one question for you..

Why does this make no mention of the "Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan"....?

If this were to have been worded differently.....

There had been more citizen involvement.....

and not just slung at the County residents as an
idea that will solve all the development problems on the river.....

Things may very well be different.

Bear this in mind. This, as I have said.... "Has an ice cubes chance in hell of passing"

Possibly.... Mister Kaiser will understand that his support of the river is appreciated.
The approach of the County is not.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025


READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it....

No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  

---

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

---

What funds?  Are you demanding that "funds" means exclusively "Vision 2025 funds" or are you just assuming?

You know dam[sic] well what was included in Vision 2025 and what was not.  Now, for lack of things to b**** about, you're creating a problem just like with the fictional charter problem.  You know people won't read, so you read it for them and they eat it up.  That's how this works right?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025


READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it....

No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  

---

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

---

Mr Bates,

Did you or did you not know before the 2025 vote that the vision 2025 funds were intended to be matching funds?

And there's a story today by David Arnett.

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309&Itemid=2

He says:

"No one – ever – before, during or after the 2003 Tulsa County Vision 2025 infrastructure package was approved asserted that the projects included for the Arkansas River were anything more than a beginning of restoration and development efforts.  It was expected, at the time, that Federal money would be available and project specifics, including exact costs, awaited investigation by engineering and environmental specialists."

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

And there's a story today by David Arnett.

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309&Itemid=2

He says:

"No one – ever – before, during or after the 2003 Tulsa County Vision 2025 infrastructure package was approved asserted that the projects included for the Arkansas River were anything more than a beginning of restoration and development efforts.  It was expected, at the time, that Federal money would be available and project specifics, including exact costs, awaited investigation by engineering and environmental specialists."

---

Well, David does have a horse in this race, so to speak.

Seems like the LWD funding, or lack thereof has suddenly become quite clear.  Saying that "No one...asserted..." still doesn't settle my stomach on the issue.  When you say "no one said..." that's tantamount to an omission to me.

Nowhere on the ballot, nor on proposition IV did it make mention of the matching funds we were expecting from the government.  In fact, I'm not finding anywhere on the www.vision2025.info web site any mention whatsoever of contingent federal matching funds.

I wonder if anyone connected to V-2025 would be so obliged to please link to a press conference, news article, archive piece, papyrus scroll, etc. which has anyone at the time saying that the Arkansas River development was contingent on matching federal funds?

I didn't see any other projects contingent on matching federal funds either.  I'll be more than happy to shut up on the subject if someone cares to show me where this was ever brought to the attention of Tulsa County residents- prior to now.

People seem to be using very specific words now to deny what so many people believed the v2025 ballot said. You don't want to do a survey of the population who voted on v2025 to see what they actually thought they were voting for. It would embarrass us all.

 Perhaps to keep this from happening again we could have Arnett & co. write the ballot or the supporting documents for this project?

I'm not saying that many people believed or didn't believe.   But I guarantee you Bates knew, and this crap he's stirring up right now is exactly that: crap.

I'm sure someone will come across the old info on on Vision 2025.   Not 100% sure where Admin got this 5 years ago, but here's an old thread listing the projects.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

Obviously, the info was available in some form.  Whether or not people chose to check it out, that's another issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

I'm not saying that many people believed or didn't believe.   But I guarantee you Bates knew, and this crap he's stirring up right now is exactly that: crap.

I'm sure someone will come across the old info on on Vision 2025.   Not 100% sure where Admin got this 5 years ago, but here's an old thread listing the projects.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

Obviously, the info was available in some form.  Whether or not people chose to check it out, that's another issue.

---

I found a pre vote newspaper article, I don't have the link right now, but Bates is quoted in the same paragraph where it talked about the money being for matching funds.

So he obviously knew, and he knew long before the 2025 vote. He logged into this forum 17 minutes ago according to "members last seen" and didn't reply to my question.

So you tell me, is Bates acting in a fully honest and truthfull manner?

So are you saying that Michael Bates is lying?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

So are you saying that Michael Bates is lying?

---

I personally don't know that he has outright lied. But, I do know he is at least not sharing the whole truth as he knows it.

He is trying to win political points with a half-truth. You can call it what you want.

As bad as my memory is, I can chalk this up to a Bates memory loss or oversight.  However, it is truly hard to believe that someone that is supposedly so up to speed on Tulsa, in ways I've never been and will never likely be, would not know this.

I've always made the assumption that Bates is a damn smart guy, and I've had an appreciation for that.  But, I can not see a need for this, it's nothing but detrimental to fact and to Tulsa.

Michael C- thanks for taking the time to post this.

I honestly don't recall what all I read about V-2025 prior to the vote on it.  A lot has transpired in my life in four years.

What were the anticipated federal funds, and what happened that they are no longer available?  Was this a wild speculation on the part of V-2025 planners or a bait and switch by the Fed gov't?

I intend to post a full reply, but I have a job and things to get done at the moment. I do want to point out that the Vision 2025 project descriptions (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179%22) that MichaelC links to, which mentions matching funds, does not hint that the federal money will not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

---

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

---

Sounds like they meant for the public to understand that the money was sitting there waiting for us if only we would approve the tax.

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

I can provide more quotes and backup for what I've said, and I will do so and post it later tonight, but I don't have time to pull it all together right now. The column that ran in the July 26-August 1 UTW has references to quotes from the county commissioners that I found in specific editions of the daily paper.

No sweat Conan.  There used to be a chart that explained what amount of money they were expecting from the Fed, if I recall correctly.  

I don't know what's happened since then, on another thread people mentioned Inhoff trying to add on some funds for the dams, don't know what happened.  Coburn was opposed to it, naturally.

From what I've gathered so far, it sounds like it's currently not the best environment in DC to be asking for matching funds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

I intend to post a full reply, but I have a job and things to get done at the moment. I do want to point out that the Vision 2025 project descriptions (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179%22) that MichaelC links to, which mentions matching funds, does not hint that the federal money will not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

---

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

---

Sounds like they meant for the public to understand that the money was sitting there waiting for us if only we would approve the tax.

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

I can provide more quotes and backup for what I've said, and I will do so and post it later tonight, but I don't have time to pull it all together right now. The column that ran in the July 26-August 1 UTW has references to quotes from the county commissioners that I found in specific editions of the daily paper.

---

Mr Bates,

The people I have talked to said that Senator Jim Inhofe is the one that promised he would get the federal money for the river, and has failed to do so thus far. Not due in small part to changed funding priorities since Katrina and his loss of clout in the Senate.

He has $50 million for the river in a congressional bill right now, but it's a bill President Bush has promised to veto. So, it's not looking good, and to blame local officials for a the continued failures of our congressional delegation seems far from fair.  A congressional delegation that you personally worked to so hard to place in office. Not to mention the President, who is our current stumbling block.

I have to admit, I wasn't following what was going on down at the city and county near as close four years ago.  I had a lot going on at that time.  The only things I was hearing about V-2025 was what was in the paper and what was on the radio or TV, and even then it was more like back-ground noise or a cursory scan of the newsprint.  

It was an issue I felt somewhat detached from, but figured no more than it was going to affect sales tax for such an ambitious slate of projects, I honestly didn't have a major issue, though I did question the common reasoning about ever filling an 18,000 seat arena.  That and the Boeing funding, and some funds for outlying community centers are really all I had an awareness of at the time.

I guess you could say the haste with which this river vote is being put out is what's bothering me.  What about that is going to become the next:  "No one ever said..."?

The dams we were promised were very different from the dams we are now considering.

If we want to force 2025 to build the dams as promised, I suppose we should also do them as zink lake type dams as was originally intended?

The new dams are different and cost more.

The matching funds never came through.

The 2025 funds originally intended for the dams are still going to the new more expensive dams designs.

Basically the "dam part" of the new tax is on top of the old one, paying the cost differences in the new dam designs and pedestrian walkways that are being built with them, and covering the matching funds that did not come through.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

---

This is why I kind of jump on you occasionally.  First, you're claiming that it wasn't promised as "matching funds".  Now you're claiming that "we all knew" it was.

You're throwing out stuff, like a paid stock basher.  Claiming that everyone's "owned", when you yourself give exactly that appearance.  Crudely, you very much appear to enjoy flingin' poo on a wall and seeing if it sticks.

Yeah, the voters should have really read the fine print, too bad that wasn't on the ballot. They should really read the fine print on this tax, too bad it won't be on the ballot, either. I would really like to see a poll where they ask the question of voters if they thought they were voting to fund construction of two low water dams in V2025.

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

And, while it was understood ours was the 'match', no one ever said it wouldn't be possible if the Fed funding failed to come about. In fact, what they did say is that the measure had quite a bit of overage which would first be dedicated to achieving ALL of the projects before anything else was considered.

And, we now also know there's more than enough overage to build low water dams, even with the most conservative estimates by anyone. (at least $75 million is the lowest I've heard).

The rapid increase in cost of the LWD's is not due to 'new designs', rather the lumping of periphial stuff into it. But, even if one where to double the cost of Zink dam at todays' costs, it would come in way less than $60m.

So, how do you wish to spend the $15m minimum balance of V2025 funds?

^

Now......Now.. Wrinkle there are no extra monies...

Just like the Potato Chips.... an open bag is an empty bag...![}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

This is why I kind of jump on you occasionally.  First, you're claiming that it wasn't promised as "matching funds".  Now you're claiming that "we all knew" it was.

---

MichaelC, go back and read my column from July 25 (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675%22). I dealt with the issue of matching funds very clearly there.

This is long, but it has to be to make a complete response. Two issues have been raised: Whether voters were led to believe that Vision 2025 included low water dams, and whether voters were told that the dams were contingent on federal funding and might go away because federal matching funds was not forthcoming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

What funds?  Are you demanding that "funds" means exclusively "Vision 2025 funds" or are you just assuming?

---

Read the resolution for yourself (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) and note the context. The only funds mentioned in the resolution are the funds to be raised by the 0.1750% tax that the resolution submits to a vote of the people.

I don't recall any county commissioner saying before the Vision 2025 election that they might have to raise taxes again to pay for any of the projects on the list. (Someone show me where I'm wrong.) On the contrary, when we in the opposition mentioned the possibility of large overages, Commissioner Bob Dick said that the overages were there to make sure that every project was completed (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven%22).

quote:

---

Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.

"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.

Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

---

To swake's point about matching funds, KOTV ran a story in late July 2003 casting doubt about the availability of matching funds. Emory Bryan spoke to congressional offices, and he was told that all available federal Corps of Engineers money for Oklahoma would be going to the Tar Creek cleanup.

If Inhofe told someone that Corps money would be available, someone else in the Federal delegation (KOTV didn't identify sources) was telling a different story. The opposition called attention to this concern, but the proponents of Vision 2025 dismissed it and assured voters that the river projects would be built.

As recently as June 2005, Commissioners Dick and Miller said that first priority for surplus Vision 2025 funds would be completion of the river projects (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio%22), compensating for any lack of federal matching funds.

In a Tulsa Real Estate Roundtable discussion back in February (//%22http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/849939/tulsa_real_estate_roundtable_this_is_not_the_oklahoma_river/index.html%22), transcribed by the Journal Record, commercial real estate broker Steve Walman, who had a hand in both the Riverwalk Crossing and Kings Landing developments, said he understood that passing Vision 2025 would mean low water dams.

quote:

---

I think the problem I have right now, and for a lot of Tulsans is, in Vision 2025 I voted for a river and I got an arena. I sat three years ago with a city hydrologist when we were doing Riverwalk and considering King's Landing and I said, 'Listen, with $27 million of private money going on this river, it's imperative to know when this low-water dam's going in that was the No. 1 priority of Vision 2025 and is so critical to the catalyst that's going to come.' And we were never sold the reality of the process. As simplistic as my mind works, I think a lot of people thought that 2025 was going to get a low-water dam....

If in 2025 you'd said this is a 10-year process and you don't have the money, it's going to require a lot of these things and there's federal mandates, I'd put a dollar down 2025 wouldn't have passed.

---

At the same roundtable, Gaylon Pinc, formerly of INCOG, now with PMg, reinforced the idea that overages were originally prioritized for completing the low-water dams and was disappointed that the overage was redirected.

quote:

---

And then, when the overage went to the arena, that was very disappointing, because early on the overage (referring to Vision 2025 tax revenue rising beyond projections) was really talked about going to the river. And that would have made up the gap.

---

Back to MichaelC's accusations:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

You know dam[sic] well what was included in Vision 2025 and what was not.  Now, for lack of things to b**** about, you're creating a problem just like with the fictional charter problem.  You know people won't read, so you read it for them and they eat it up.  That's how this works right?

---

I've included a link to the ballot resolution (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) nearly every time I've quoted from it, here, on my blog, and in my column. Have you read the ballot resolution for yourself (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22)? The language is very clear. The parts I quoted are on pages five and six, but read the whole thing (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf%22) just to make sure I'm not trying to deceive you.

If you're made of money, perhaps it's not a big deal to be taxed twice for the same projects. It's a big deal to me, especially when there appears to be a way to get what people want -- water in the river -- without raising the sales tax rate.

Money notwithstanding, I have a problem when public officials wave aside promises that they made in black and white.

Here's the official projects map (//%22http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/05/file.pdf%22), dated July 22, 2003 (during the Vision 2025 election campaign), widely distributed during the campaign, taken straight from the official Vision 2025 website. Note the first item on the list of Infrastructure/Attractions: "Arkansas River Low Water Dams (2)" Not studies or plans, but dams.

A version of that same map appears on the front page of the Opinion section of the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/mm/pdf/PDFDirector.asp?Date=9/7/2003&Edition=1&PDFSeq=85%22)

Here's the text from a half-page ad on page A-6 of the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/mm/pdf/PDFDirector.asp?Date=9/7/2003&Edition=1&PDFSeq=6%22) (emphasis added):

quote:

---

If you vote YES...
The county sales tax will be raised 1% which will fund an incentive to bring Boeing aircraft to town, capital improvements for American Airlines, buildings for OU-Tulsa, OSU-Tulsa, TCC, NSU-Broken Arrow, and Langston-Tulsa, instructional materials for all Tulsa County Public Schools, a Regional Convention/Events Center, improvements to Tulsa Area Parks, Broken Arrow Community Center, Collinsville City Hall, Owasso Community Center, Skiatook Community Center and Pool, Sperry Community Center, Mohawk Park, Tulsa Air and Space Museum, Osage Trail, Midland Valley/Downtown Trail Extension, Arkansas Low Water Dams, Zink Lake Beautification, Historic Route 66, Oklahoma Aquarium, Jazz Hall of Fame, Tulsa County Downtowns/Neighborhoods improvements, Haikey Creek flood prevention, 61st Street and 36th Street North widenings, water lines for Owasso Medical Complex, Sand Springs/Keystone Area redevelopment, American Indian Cultural Center, continued improvements to Expo Center, new building for Morton Health Care, and a Senior Rebate available to all Tulsa County seniors age 65 and older.

---

Again, voters were not being sold studies or plans, but dams.

The Arkansas River Corridor Plan was mentioned in the ballot resolution, not as a project to be funded by Vision 2025, but as a process to determine where the Vision 2025-funded dams would be built:

quote:

---

Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan

---

The river plan was already funded, and the consulting firm for phase one was selected two days after the Vision 2025 election. From the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030907_Ne_a21_study%22) -- two days before the Vision 2025 election -- at the top left of the front page of the local section:

quote:

---

The estimated cost for the overall river study is $500,000, of which $400,000 will go to the consulting firm and $100,000 for INCOG and corps staffing costs, [INCOG Deputy Director Rich] Brierre said.

The first phase will cost $75,000 and the second phase will cost $325,000, he said. The corps has agreed to match up to $250,000 of the $500,000. Of the match, Lasker said, $75,000 is public funding that comes from the different entities along the river, including the city of Tulsa and Tulsa County.

Brierre said the first phase of the study was expected to begin in early fall and be completed by next summer, and the second phase to begin immediately after or overlap the end of the first phase.

Construction is projected to begin within a few years, he added.

---

I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating: Even the Vision 2025 project descriptions (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179%22) that MichaelC links to, which mention matching funds for the dams, does not hint that the federal money may not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

---

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

---

For the County Commissioners to say that they expect matching funds (and they did say that) is different from saying there is a danger that matching funds will not be available and if that happens the dams will go away (and they never said that).

The ballot resolution, the advertising, and the public statements made before the election, (reinforced by statements made after the election) convince me that the County Commissioners sincerely intended to build two low water dams, at locations determined by the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, if the taxpayers approved Vision 2025, and that they had a backup plan -- overages -- in case federal matching funds fell through. It is also apparent that they meant voters to have the same understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle
So, how do you wish to spend the $15m minimum balance of V2025 funds?

---

I would buy fifteen million powerball tickets.

When we win, we would have 245 million dollars and wouldn't have to raise the sales tax to pay for river improvements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

The more you guys keep saying that, the dumber you look.  Bates already cleared this up, sort of, though now it's really hard to count his "mistake" as a lapse of memory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected

---

"We all knew", says Bates.

Look, several people may have had that impression, that this thing was an automatic slam-dunk deal.  I'm not faulting them, but a quick read would have put that impression to rest.  I've never had that impression.  It's like the Gilcrease Expressway, we keep throwing local funds into it, but it's always waiting for state and federal matching funds.  The funds are almost guaranteed for the GE, but it takes time.  More than likely we can still get the funds for the dams, under the right condition.  We can wait for the Fed to cough up the cash, or we can get it done quicker and better.

You can dig up the details like Bates, make a big stink out of it, throw in a few lies, and freak out a bit at a few meetings; I don't care.  Of all the V2025 projects, the dams and the Indian Museum were the two I've always felt least likely to succeed as is.  If you had the impression that federal funding on the dams was a "done deal", you're at least slightly delusional or perhaps completely unaware of how the Fed works.

The rest of what Bates has said, I'm sorry, I just don't care that much.  If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.

How is that trash to energy plant working.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.

---

What lie did I put forth, MichaelC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.

---

What lie did I put forth, MichaelC?

---

Maybe it's not a lie, maybe Wrinkle was crediting you with something you didn't say.  Maybe your brain is as bad as mine.  Don't know the circumstances, if an apology is due; I apologize.

While you continue to string quotes together to make your case that they somehow promised "completion" of the dams, you know and I know and everyone except Wrinkle knows, that the dam funds required a federal match.  You've known that all along.  That's the bottom line.  

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I do not believe that you were ever under the delusion that this was anything more than matching funds.  And it is hard for me to believe that you would be so gullible as to believe something you know is not true.

That being said, I'll give you props for footwork.  Most politicians, worthless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breadburner

How is that trash to energy plant working.....

---

You can trace that pile of crap right back to Jim Inhofe as well, when he was mayor.

I live in Sand Springs and I do most of my shopping in Tulsa County.   I'm sick of our taxes being hiked!!!  I hope people come to their senses and vote NO on this.  Look at the sales tax increase for our roads.  What is that getting me?  I HUGE crack in my windshield and another nick, oh and dodging men throwing black asphalt in front of my car.  GRRRRR  I do not like what my tax dollars are going to so I do NOT trust these morons to do what is right.  Tax, tax, tax, tax, hell, I've had enough taxes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breadburner

How is that trash to energy plant working.....

---

Maybe they could apply the amount they've still been collecting from US since the TTE plant was paid off last September toward the dams.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you vote YES...
The county sales tax will be raised 1% which will fund an incentive to bring Boeing aircraft to town, capital improvements for American Airlines, buildings for OU-Tulsa, OSU-Tulsa, TCC, NSU-Broken Arrow, and Langston-Tulsa, instructional materials for all Tulsa County Public Schools, a Regional Convention/Events Center, improvements to Tulsa Area Parks, Broken Arrow Community Center, Collinsville City Hall, Owasso Community Center, Skiatook Community Center and Pool, Sperry Community Center, Mohawk Park, Tulsa Air and Space Museum, Osage Trail, Midland Valley/Downtown Trail Extension, Arkansas Low Water Dams, Zink Lake Beautification, Historic Route 66, Oklahoma Aquarium, Jazz Hall of Fame, Tulsa County Downtowns/Neighborhoods improvements, Haikey Creek flood prevention, 61st Street and 36th Street North widenings, water lines for Owasso Medical Complex, Sand Springs/Keystone Area redevelopment, American Indian Cultural Center, continued improvements to Expo Center, new building for Morton Health Care, and a Senior Rebate available to all Tulsa County seniors age 65 and older.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, voters were not being sold studies or plans, but dams.

The Arkansas River Corridor Plan was mentioned in the ballot resolution, not as a project to be funded by Vision 2025, but as a process to determine where the Vision 2025-funded dams would be built:

---

Read the list.  Anyone else notice how they tried to please every single demographic in Tulsa County with these projects?  Pretty brilliant to package all of them together, otherwise, we likely would have never gotten a single one of them by itself.  

Bob Dick should have just been honest and said:  "We really don't have the foggiest idea how much these dams will cost, but we threw them in because it will appeal to the younger demographic".

The county effed up by counting on the Federal Gov't.  They should have shot high on the number and put full funding for the LWD's into the V-2025 ballot and they wouldn't have this problem now.  

Michael Bates certainly knew about it, but I think Michael C is trying to badger him into another of his word-parsing games which is nothing new.  Count me in as one of the people who was un-aware of the federal matching funds which were required for the dams.  I just wasn't as interested in local government at the time to the depths I am now.  I honestly don't give a rat's rear end if Bates knew about it or not.  The average voter certainly did not if all they went on was the ballot or proposition abstract.

I'm sure there are a lot more people out there who are far more obtuse than I am.  If someone didn't bother to read up on the projects prior to getting into the ballot booth, they had no idea the LWD projects were contingent on federal funds.  As far as they knew, voting for prop. 4 would build low water dams.  My guess is less than 10% of voters are as astute on the issues as the people on here are.  

I'd be willing to bet that even fewer than 10% of the people bothered to research very far into the issue.  There were so many press stories around that time, it's easy to lose interest after you've made up your mind which way you will vote.  Even if someone was so inclined to read every word of each proposition, they still wouldn't have had a clue that the dams were contingent on matching funds.

There are a lot of people who are content to trust what is printed on the face of the ballot is what they are getting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Michael Bates certainly knew about it, but I think Michael C is trying to badger him into another of his word-parsing games which is nothing new.

---

That may not be new, but that's not what I'm doing here.  I've read some of Bates stuff, some of his arguments are pretty good.  And if you didn't know it was matching funds, no one is faulting you on that.    

There's a simple tactic that Bates uses, that I try not to let pass unchallenged.  He knows it's matching funds, he tells you it isn't, then he relies on your memory or your distrust of current or past politicians, to prove his version right.  It would be hilarious if he didn't do that all the damn time.

Instead of lying to each other, and worrying about who knew what when and who doesn't like who (Bates preferred line of thought), Tulsa would probably be better served diving into the River Tax, checking out the details, and seeing if it's worth passing.  There may be good reasons to pass it or let it sink, I haven't jumped too much into the details yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71


Instead of lying to each other, and worrying about who knew what when and who doesn't like who (Bates preferred line of thought), Tulsa would probably be better served diving into the River Tax, checking out the details, and seeing if it's worth passing.  There may be good reasons to pass it or let it sink, I haven't jumped too much into the details yet.

---

I'm not going to speak for what Bates' intentions are, as only he knows.  I do think it's relevant for voters to have it brought to our attention that the details on the 2003 promises were somewhere between hazy and just plain sloppy work.  I think it's relevant in considering whether or not I want to trust these politicians and beaurocrats with any more of my tax money.  

Drafters of the wording on our ballots need to quit thinking that the average voter can glean all the details through osmosis.  Most of the voters are only used to drawing a line next to the name of a candidate.  On issue votes, I think it needs to be clearly spelled out, especially if the project is contingent on something else having to happen for it to succeed.

In my business, if I tell a customer I can complete a project for a certain amount, I have to deliver on my quote, regardless of loss or profit, unless I've clearly stated there are contingencies which can make the project cost go up.  If I fail to deliver for the agreed price, I get sued.  Same thing goes with any of my vendors or sub-contractors.  That might be why I demand a lot more clarity when someone tells me they can complete something or deliver something at a given price.

I understand I'm making somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison, but just trying to give you an idea why I have this "hold their feet to the fire" issue.

I'm refusing to look at it simply as "...it's only going to cost each taxpayer xxx dollars a year so why not do it..." I'm a lot more skeptical in trusting the county commission than I used to be.  Randi Miller seems like she's about to wet her pants on this.  They've brought Simonson into the fold, IMO, simply to lend some credibility to it and to neutralize an outspoken and consistent foe to previous tax increases.  The timing was impeccable for that hire.  Maybe it's all coincidence and I'm just too damn cynical.

V-2025 has gotten enough publicity now about the matching funds, but I don't recall a whole lot of talk about it until after Bates started stirring the proverbial **** bucket.

If I recall, there wasn't a whole lot of talk about the dams.  Now, there were an awful lot of projects.  Maybe it could have been handled better.  I knew, that doesn't mean everyone else did.

For me, Vision 2025 is working within acceptable parameters.  We're about where I expected.  I don't focus too much on the characters around it, Miller might be crazier than loon, I couldn't tell ya.

I'm not saying anything was done perfectly.  I don't usually expect perfect, so, for what it's worth.  But, I can tell you this, I'm gonna have difficulty letting Bates slide on the train of thought.  Hopefully, he'll get off of it and on to something else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

He knows it's matching funds, he tells you it isn't....

---

Where did I do this, MichaelC?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

He knows it's matching funds, he tells you it isn't....

---

Where did I do this, MichaelC?

---

Any chance of moving on gents?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend

Any chance of moving on gents?

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend

Any chance of moving on gents?

---

Absolutely.

---

Not as long as MichaelC makes accusations about me and refuses to back them up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

Not as long as MichaelC makes accusations about me and refuses to back them up.

---

I understand, baby sitting you is my job.  Here it is again.

quote:

---

Maybe it's not a lie, maybe Wrinkle was crediting you with something you didn't say. Maybe your brain is as bad as mine. Don't know the circumstances, if an apology is due; I apologize.

While you continue to string quotes together to make your case that they somehow promised "completion" of the dams, you know and I know and everyone except Wrinkle knows, that the dam funds required a federal match. You've known that all along. That's the bottom line.

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I do not believe that you were ever under the delusion that this was anything more than matching funds. And it is hard for me to believe that you would be so gullible as to believe something you know is not true.

That being said, I'll give you props for footwork. Most politicians, worthless.

---

Now if you are completely delusional, or if you have no idea how the Fed works, you can continue saying that somehow "completion" of the dams within the confines of Vision 2025 was a "promise."  Even if you can piece together something that says that, it's not true, it's not what was passed, and you know it.

BTW, here's a story from July 23, 2003, that quotes Michael Bates AND specifically says that Vision 2025 money for the Arkansas River is for matching funds only.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven

It says:

"Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River."

Here's something from Tulsa Today on Aug. 10, 2003, about the Vision 2025 vote:

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=2

Again, it mentions "matching funds" twice for anticipated federal dollars.

It's apparent this was reported before the vote. If you don't pay attention, that's your fault.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

BTW, here's a story from July 23, 2003, that quotes Michael Bates AND specifically says that Vision 2025 money for the Arkansas River is for matching funds only.

---

I quoted that very article above and dealt with it in my column.

As a matter of fact, I called attention to the KOTV story (again, referenced above) in July of 2003, warning that matching funds might not be available.

Show me where the County Commissioners said that dams wouldn't be built if the Federal funds weren't available.

On the contrary, they assured voters that the money would be there and (in that same article you linked, rwarn) said they were committed to building every project. Here is what Bob Dick said in that article about potential overages:

quote:

---

Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.

"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.

Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

---

There's another word, "estimates."  Nothing about the dams project was a foregone conclusion.  We need to stop acting like it was, and move on.

Mr Bates, on some of your articles and such you've got a few ideas out there that might be decent funding alternatives for the County or City to get these dams done.  Have you tried to get the word out on those?  Have you talked to the City Council on these things?  Have you gotten any feedback on them?

I don't know what stretch you guys are making, and why the flogging continues, but it was Bob Dick and not Michael Bates who was quoted in the Tulsa World article as saying there were matching funds on the LWD's.

Geez, I really hate that this has been so strung out and that I am about to help even more. Michael C, you may not have paid much attention to the LWD discussions but I did. I thought the damn vote was about the Arena first, the river second and other projects third. NOWHERE did I ever get the idea that if matching funds were not found, the dams would be dropped. It was only later explained that the money proposed for the dams was just engineering studies and Bates even shows that was waffling, the figures don't match.

The important part about all this discussion is credibility and truthfulness. One can't operate without the other. Nothing assures that this project will be built as shown. The fact that I have expressed reservations not only about the county being in charge with a blank check but about a general dismissive attitude about the basic river issues being ignored, comes from that lack of truthfulness...leading to a lack of credibility.

IMO the vote will pass. But we could have done so much better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I don't know what stretch you guys are making, and why the flogging continues, but it was Bob Dick and not Michael Bates who was quoted in the Tulsa World article as saying there were matching funds on the LWD's.

---

Dude, I've already agreed to drop this crap and move on to something else.  But here again, is the explanation.

Bates has been acting this entire time as if the dams were a foregone conclusion.  Again, they were not.  He knows they weren't.  Here's more evidence.

Can we please move to some other aspect of this?  Something besides what Bates thinks?

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Geez, I really hate that this has been so strung out and that I am about to help even more. Michael C, you may not have paid much attention to the LWD discussions but I did. I thought the damn vote was about the Arena first, the river second and other projects third. NOWHERE did I ever get the idea that if matching funds were not found, the dams would be dropped. It was only later explained that the money proposed for the dams was just engineering studies and Bates even shows that was waffling, the figures don't match.

---

I understand.  And maybe it wasn't clear, I'm not defending that.  I'm not faulting you guys for not knowing.  But again, we solved this problem on last page, Bates and I and anyone who read it knew that the funds were matching funds.  The info was there beforehand.

And the dams have not been dropped.  The project still has money.  It's still doing whatever it's doing.  Federal match has not shown up, yet.  That's all.

And, you have more confidence than I do that it'll pass.

Can we please move on to some other aspect of this?

Moving forward- according to the three puff pieces in the World this morning, sounds like they have hired a consulting firm to start environmental studies for property which is assumed that would be acquired.

Kind of putting the cart before the horse.

Secondly, I'm trying to figure out how this retail corridor along the river is going to add 4500 jobs to the economy.  At least that's the latest claim from the broken calculator at our Chamber of Commerce.   Are these really the kind of "quality" jobs we seem to be demanding?

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

Change the wording on the Ballot.... Spell it out... Not Arkansas River Corridor Development..... "Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan" Also.... Detail the projects.... C'mon it ain't like we are voting on anything else that day..

No "Blind Faith" required.. Every bit in writing.

Simple enough really....!

Either all of the above or a 10 pound sack of those $100 Dollar Bills.[;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

---

Well said, Conan.  Could not agree more.

Furthermore, I do wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases.   AND, we already have a proposal for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water.  Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs.  Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

---

Well said, Conan.  Could not agree more.

Furthermore, I do wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases.   AND, we already have a proposal for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water.  Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs.  Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

---

                                             Did you watch the Council meeting? The children of privilege need playgrounds on the river to cruise their Mercedes. The ones we have aren't good enough. Isn't that a compelling reason enough to vote for it? C'mon, do it for the kids!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

There is nothing about this deal which can be changed to make it acceptable, except full revocation.

The County needs to build the dams and step aside, as promised in V2025, leaving local river development to local governments.

No new tax, no new County Authority to rule the river.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

The more you guys keep saying that, the dumber you look.  Bates already cleared this up, sort of, though now it's really hard to count his "mistake" as a lapse of memory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected

---

"We all knew", says Bates.

Look, several people may have had that impression, that this thing was an automatic slam-dunk deal.  I'm not faulting them, but a quick read would have put that impression to rest.  I've never had that impression.  It's like the Gilcrease Expressway, we keep throwing local funds into it, but it's always waiting for state and federal matching funds.  The funds are almost guaranteed for the GE, but it takes time.  More than likely we can still get the funds for the dams, under the right condition.  We can wait for the Fed to cough up the cash, or we can get it done quicker and better.

You can dig up the details like Bates, make a big stink out of it, throw in a few lies, and freak out a bit at a few meetings; I don't care.  Of all the V2025 projects, the dams and the Indian Museum were the two I've always felt least likely to succeed as is.  If you had the impression that federal funding on the dams was a "done deal", you're at least slightly delusional or perhaps completely unaware of how the Fed works.

The rest of what Bates has said, I'm sorry, I just don't care that much.  If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.

---

You seem to be in your own state of denial on this. It clearly says "construct two low water dams" and improve Zink Lake dam, shows them on the map, lists them in the project listing,  promises ALL V2025 projects will be built, even if it takes overages to do so.

What else is there? It doesn't say "if" anywhere.

You can't divert any of this to Bates (or me). Bates lays out a pretty good case of intent on the part of the County, which, btw, the County spread out themselves, not Bates. They told us what they would do. Nothing is being made up here as you more than suggest. That's far more dishonest than what you attempt to claim of others. Anyone performing a 'quick read' would much sooner come to that conclusion than what you promote.

This issue cannot be dropped as some here seem to wish. It's central to the point of this new River Tax plan both fiscally and in trust.

Besides being a bad plan on its' own merit, it bait and switches a V2025 project for its' central theme. Remove the dams from the current proposal and there's nothing much left worth considering.

Which, I guess, is why some wish to drop it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Which, I guess, is why some wish to drop it.

---

And then, here comes Wrinkle, apparently completely clueless as to what was posted before.  Bates knew it was matching funds, he's already admitted that.  On page 4.

No.  We can absolutely keep it up, some would like to talk about other things besides the craziness you're making up.  

Here's the V2025 descriptions, posted to the forum a couple months before the vote.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

We'll see if Bates wants more of this, you people keep bringing it up and I'll just have to keep swatting you down.  You didn't do your homework, so what?  Doesn't make you an idiot, but it's still your problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

There is nothing about this deal which can be changed to make it acceptable, except full revocation.

The County needs to build the dams and step aside, as promised in V2025, leaving local river development to local governments.

No new tax, no new County Authority to rule the river.

---

Keep it up, and watch more and more of Tulsa leave for the suburbs.

Pssst......Kenosha.... Still one maybe....
      For a mere
$453,592.40.......  or near as I can figure...

A very fair price for trying to keep an ice cube in hell from melting.
[}:)][;)][}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

Nothing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

1. Citizen oversight. Real, everyday, go to work citizens who aren't big name friends o'politician/developer types. They don't have to be rednecks. Engineers, architects, sportsmen, boilermakers are fine as long as they aren't connected. Then make sure they have a pipeline to the media and can't run for public office during the 10yr period.

2. Public input via internet. Like what is set up in Fort Worth's Trinity project. If we're going to write a blank check to the county, the only way we can stop idiocy like the $30million pedestrian bridges or the lack of connectivity on the river, is to make sure they get feedback. Different ideas need to be seen, heard and digested in real time.  Remember, they can spend this money any way they please as long as its to develop the corridor and roughly fits the plan. We should be able to plug in new ideas (like they plug in different dam configurations) when they are offered. It should be a process we're buying, not a package.

3.I am real uncomfortable with three county commissioners running this whole show. Not sure that one can be changed but I can hold my nose for long periods if 1,2 and 4 are in place.

4. Some serious attention to issues of policing, rescue, maintenance, infrastructure, river debris cleanup and zoning. Not just condescending pap saying we got that stuff covered. We don't. Show me budgets that recognize the understanding that if the plan is successful in attracting the masses, that we are prepared for the impact.

We lost credibility by glossing over stuff in v-2025. The public doesn't trust because of that. I want river development. This is what it would take for me.

Well hell, if booworld is against it, count me in.  He's damn near always wrong. [:P]

Actually, I'm currently residing somewhere in the vicinity of "the fence".

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Which, I guess, is why some wish to drop it.

---

And then, here comes Wrinkle, apparently completely clueless as to what was posted before.  Bates knew it was matching funds, he's already admitted that.  On page 4.

No.  We can absolutely keep it up, some would like to talk about other things besides the craziness you're making up.  

Here's the V2025 descriptions, posted to the forum a couple months before the vote.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

We'll see if Bates wants more of this, you people keep bringing it up and I'll just have to keep swatting you down.  You didn't do your homework, so what?  Doesn't make you an idiot, but it's still your problem.

---

You're not keeping track very well.

I even said it was matching funds. It has nothing to do with the contention that the County pledged to complete ALL V2025 projects, even if it took collection overages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

---

There is nothing about this deal which can be changed to make it acceptable, except full revocation.

The County needs to build the dams and step aside, as promised in V2025, leaving local river development to local governments.

No new tax, no new County Authority to rule the river.

---

Keep it up, and watch more and more of Tulsa leave for the suburbs.

---

It appears that's what our 'regional' government has in mind for Tulsa. All the more reason to stop the River plan proposed by the County. Tulsa needs to retain control of development of its' own portion of the river.

Remember, we already have 'water in the river'.

The last thing we need is the County deciding for us what gets built, who builds it and where it gets built (which may not be Tulsa at all).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

I even said it was matching funds. USIS was unable to verify within the allotted turn around period. Any information received will be forwarded.

---

Yeah, eventually you admitted it.  As did Bates.

Bates knew this before, during, and after the vote.  He's known this all along, I've known this all along.  You can string together whatever you want to, neither I nor Bates were under any delusion that this was anything more than matching.  If you were

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

that's your problem.  I know your argument, it's the same BS technical argument Bates was using to push for charter change.  Banking on the fact that you don't know jack or squat about elections.  If you don't know, I'm not taking the time to explain it to you.  You're opposed to this to be opposed to it, I'm cool with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

I even said it was matching funds. It has nothing to do with the contention that the County pledged to complete ALL V2025 projects, even if it took collection overages.

---

Yeah, eventually you admitted it.  As did Bates.

Bates knew this before, during, and after the vote.  He's known this all along, I've known this all along.  You can string together whatever you want to, neither I nor Bates were under any delusion that this was anything more than matching.  If you were

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

that's your problem.  I know your argument, it's the same BS technical argument Bates was using to push for charter change.  Banking on the fact that you don't know jack or squat about elections.  If you don't know, I'm not taking the time to explain it to you.  You're opposed to this to be opposed to it, I'm cool with that.

---

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

---

You didn't say this on page 4?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

Bates didn't believe anything that you're claiming he believed.  He knew, as a matter of FACT, that it was matching funds only.  Contingent on federal matching funds.  

As for this so-called "promise" your touting, it's very much full of holes and I can show you where they are.  Bates walked away from this though, I'm not sure why you want to keep up that train of thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

---

You didn't say this on page 4?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

---

Bates didn't believe anything that you're claiming he believed.  He knew, as a matter of FACT, that it was matching funds only.  Contingent on federal matching funds.  

As for this so-called "promise" your touting, it's very much full of holes and I can show you where they are.  Bates walked away from this though, I'm not sure why you want to keep up that train of thought.

---

I'm pretty sure Bates can speak for himself.

So far, you've been all fluff and no meat. If you have a point, it be a good time to make it.

Contingent and dams are two words never used together in V2025.

And, as far as I've read to date, no one has suggested the $5.6m was anything but matching.

The difference here is only in the County's honor, doing what they said they would.

So far, they have failed miserably.

^

I think the bottom line is ..... Brainiacs... and that is not meant in a negative way..

May very well have known what the fine print of Prop. 4 V2025 said.

Does everyone feel that the Average Joe had a full understanding of the Prop. 4 fine print....?

In a way it brings to mind the "Voter Fraud" or suspected "Voter Fraud" that occurred in Florida....

Everyone should have known where to go to Vote and when....?

You have "Boss Hog" telling them that they have all the info wrong... "Go here not there..."

Point being....

I really am on no ones side here... but.. the Citizens of Tulsa County... IMHO thought they were getting one thing.

True maybe they should all have an IQ equivalent to SWAKE or MichaelC or Michael Bates.... Fact is they do not...

And saying they should have known what they were going to be paying the V2025 Tax for....
Just strikes me as a little right of dead center.

Everyone in Tulsa County.... for the most part.. pays Sales Tax..Is it all that wrong to want the Taxpayers to understand exactly what they are paying for..?

Buenas Noches Companeros........!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Contingent and dams are two words never used together in V2025.

And, as far as I've read to date, no one has suggested the $5.6m was anything but matching.

The difference here is only in the County's honor, doing what they said they would.

So far, they have failed miserably.

---

So, now, all of the sudden, everything you've ever read on this subject says "matching funds", BUT, they promised you exclusively they'd do it without matching funds.  That's the sum total of your argument?

Read the resolution again.  Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, it's all estimates and potential funding, it does not at all guarantee or promise you anything in regards to fully funding the construction of the dams.  Not fully funding, nor partially funding, nor funding on contingency.  Nothing.  This kind of thing is typical, maybe they needed to do something special for all the people who choose not to read up on these things.  But it was never more than match funding.  Currently, you, like Bates, are saying you've always been aware of this.  It's a 180, but I'd rather have you there than in complete denial.

Is it wrong to ask that persistent critics who still have an axe to grind in trying to re-defeat Vision2025 argue about the current proposal based on its own merits?... instead of re-hashing promises of Vision2025 that had to be adjusted since there were no federal matching funds and because of higher arena construction costs due to Katrina?

Vision2025 passed.  And it passed because it included the entire county.  The city wouldn't vote "yes" on either of Susan Savage's downtown-only proposals... all the while, downtown OKC is looking at downtown Tulsa through its rear-view mirror... I visited Tulsa and OKC on a regular basis in the 90s.

Vision2025 is far from perfect, but it's definitely a step in the right direction after years of ???  Still undecided on the "river tax" but leaning in favor after reading the naysayers' and conspiracy theorists' arguments against it.

Maybe some of you should move to a comparably sized city and watch the political shenanigans there before singling out Tulsa County officials because they failed to implement everything you thought you read in the fine print of Vision2025...

If you put in too many promises, the critics will point to the broken ones... if you are purposefully vague so the project can have more flexibility, the critics will accuse you of requiring "a blank check."  If you ignore the political chattering class, you'll be accused of not getting sufficient "local input."

My pet peeve... terminally negativist Tulsans with their can't-do-won't-do attitudes who consistently make the perfect the enemy of the good...

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

Rico makes a good point. You guys are so far removed from average citizens whom you expect to devote as much study and committment as you have and if not, just shut up and vote for it. Well, the rest of us childlike morons will be paying for your little oversights like expecting steel and concrete prices to stay flat, incompetent senators to not bring home the bacon or shortsighted planning that builds ponds with no connections for water taxis..."because no one asked for them". I assert it is your responsibility to convince us hourly working peons who don't have access to internet during the day, do actual physical work that puts us asleep before the 10pm news, that this is a trustworthy proposal. It is not our job to defend something so vague and reminiscent of past falsehoods.

Yet when specific complaints, and specific solutions are offered, no one responds to them because its a take it or leave it proposal. I'm pretty sick of offering insights, complaints, solutions and concerns only to be ignored or sniped at. WE ARE DEVELOPING A RIVER WITH NO PROSPECTS OF BOAT USAGE ON IT! That alone causes questions. The seeds are planted gentlemen. If you don't answer my stuff, others won't even respond.

Three of these four changes can actually be done and applied to this proposition. Naive as they are, they address concerns that people relay to me on my 45 visits per day to professional offices staffed with working taxpayers:

1. Citizen oversight. Real, everyday, go to work citizens who aren't big name friends o'politician/developer types. They don't have to be rednecks. Engineers, architects, nurses, sportsmen, boilermakers are fine as long as they aren't connected. Then make sure they have a pipeline to the media and can't run for public office during the 10yr period.

2. Public input via internet. Like what is set up in Fort Worth's Trinity project. If we're going to write a blank check to the county, the only way we can stop idiocy like the $30million pedestrian bridges or the lack of connectivity on the river, is to make sure they get feedback. Different ideas need to be seen, heard and digested in real time. Remember, the county can spend this money any way they please as long as its to develop the corridor and roughly fits the plan. We should be able to plug in new ideas (like they plug in different dam configurations) when they are offered. It should be a process we're buying, not a package.

3.I am real uncomfortable with three county commissioners running this whole show. Not sure that one can be changed but I can hold my nose for long periods if 1,2 and 4 are in place.

4. Some serious attention to issues of policing, rescue, maintenance, infrastructure, river debris cleanup and zoning. Not just condescending pap saying we got that stuff covered. We don't. Show us budgets that recognize the understanding that if the plan is successful in attracting the masses, that we are prepared for the impact.

We lost credibility by glossing over stuff in v-2025. The public doesn't trust because of that. I want river development. This is what it would take for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

---

I'm game.  Let me try again:

I wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases. AND, we already have a proposal in the works for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water. Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs. Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

i'm really starting to wonder what we're getting as well...
there is no commercial development...
there ourriveryes.com site looks like and advert for a giant park...
BFD...
i don't want a giant park, that is what we have now...
i want a park with signficant green-space, but i also want mixed-use... and i want it navigable, at least partially...



"I want a hamburger, no a cheeseburger, I want french fries..."

"YOU'LL GET NOTHING AT ALL AND LIKE IT!!!!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

---

I'm game.  Let me try again:

I wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases. AND, we already have a proposal in the works for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water. Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs. Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

---

I agree.

I do think the reason for need for public money is the lack of land. The land for The River District sold for $3 million and is twice the size of the land at 21st which will take something like $50 million to buy.

Also, sadly the demographics are better in Jenks and that creates a funding gap for developers that would need to be paid for, probably through a TIFF.

What is that gap? Well, the average lease rates need to be lowered for storefronts to encourage the right mix of stores to sign leases despite lesser projected sales due to demographics. Those lower rents need to be offset somewhere and it's not in construction costs, because infill development construction costs are actually usually higher and we don't want crap built.

I know all of this, but it hasn't been said and little has been really said about the commercial aspect at 21st and it needs to be. They need to come out with what the process for a request for proposal will be and what kind of standards will be set on build quality and types of businesses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

Read the resolution again.  Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, it's all estimates and potential funding, it does not at all guarantee or promise you anything in regards to fully funding the construction of the dams.  Not fully funding, nor partially funding, nor funding on contingency.  Nothing.

---

Are you saying that none of the projects listed in the resolution were guaranteed to be built? There's no special language in the resolution that singles out the dams as non-guaranteed.

The language in the ballot resolution this year is almost identical to that used for 2025. Are the dams non-guaranteed this time, too?

As Wrinkle noted, if you take the current package, take out the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications that were promised as part of Vision 2025, you're not left with much.

If you also take out the projects that aren't included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (the pedestrian bridges, "downtown connector" and the "living river"), all that remains is this:

quote:

---

Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

---

I don't see the words 21st Street or 23rd Street or west bank anywhere in that. There's no official commitment to spend any of that $57.4 million to facilitate development in the City of Tulsa.

(Of course, in MichaelC's world, words don't have concrete meaning anyway, so what does it matter?)

While I can see the need to have county-wide coordination on the series of dams, I think anything that has to do with private development on the riverbank should be left to the individual cities to plan, fund, and regulate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

Read the resolution again.  Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, it's all estimates and potential funding, it does not at all guarantee or promise you anything in regards to fully funding the construction of the dams.  Not fully funding, nor partially funding, nor funding on contingency.  Nothing.

---

Are you saying that none of the projects listed in the resolution were guaranteed to be built? There's no special language in the resolution that singles out the dams as non-guaranteed.

The language in the ballot resolution this year is almost identical to that used for 2025. Are the dams non-guaranteed this time, too?

As Wrinkle noted, if you take the current package, take out the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications that were promised as part of Vision 2025, you're not left with much.

If you also take out the projects that aren't included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (the pedestrian bridges, "downtown connector" and the "living river"), all that remains is this:

quote:

---

Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

---

I don't see the words 21st Street or 23rd Street or west bank anywhere in that. There's no official commitment to spend any of that $57.4 million to facilitate development in the City of Tulsa.

(Of course, in MichaelC's world, words don't have concrete meaning anyway, so what does it matter?)

While I can see the need to have county-wide coordination on the series of dams, I think anything that has to do with private development on the riverbank should be left to the individual cities to plan, fund, and regulate.

---

This post is a great example of what is wrong here.

Many of the people who are so outraged today at the river plan are the same people that were outraged by vision 2025. The main tack of the arguments against 2025 at the time of the vote fell into two groups.

The first, and most vocal was the group that put up all the signs around town that said "Do The River First", do you really think these people were duped into thinking that the river was going to completed by 2025 alone? The signs prove otherwise.

The second group of the outraged was led by Mr Bates, and this doom and gloom crowd said over and over that business and employers would not move to a city with such a high sales tax rate. My argument at the time was that sales tax impact consumers and to some small extent retailers, not business and employers. At the time of the 2025 vote unemployment was up, population was falling in both the city and the metro and per capita income was plummeting. Was Mr Bates correct in his prognostication? Since then job and income growth have been among the best in the entire nation, population growth has been resumed in the city and has been relatively strong in the metro. So on this count, we can safely say this group was way, way off base.

The money for the low water dams in 2025 was just one item of three for the river. The river itself was just one of a about a dozen items that were being voted on together, which was again just one of four votes that voters had to choose on for 2025. It was a small line item that was easily entirely lost on the voter, as evidenced by the "Do The River First" signs.

I'm personally outraged that we can't debate the merits and flaws of the plan and cost, it's ended up all about accusations and innuendo. It's downright depressing that it's all degenerated to this.

Sorry, I have to Bates back in his hole.  It'll only take a second.

quote:

---

While the cost estimates 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 Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be
completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with
existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects,
such excess funds shall be expended for capital improvements for community enrichment
(which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose),

---

It's intended, and believed to be doable within estimate.  As projected funds, are made available.  Those are concrete enough.  But in Batesy's world, everyone personally promised him that by God if funds ran out the Talons would be forced to play in half built stadium.  Nothing is guaranteed, except Bates picking and choosing.  

You knew beforehand that on the dams "the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown."  What's your excuse?

Swake: I don't agree with your foundation but the result is true. I voted for three of the four items. I think I passed on the Boeing part. There was much anger among my contacts that the Arena became the focus even though no one seemed to have supported it during the planning process. Admittedly, I ran in a pro-river group. I just didn't see the two groups you define.

Now its up to you and the other river project supporters to change the subject or ignore more discussion of minutae from v2025. It suits anti-forces to keep up that dialogue. I have seen lots of questions and comments, some directed to Crowe that simply were ignored or sniped. That adds fuel to the fire too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Contingent and dams are two words never used together in V2025.

And, as far as I've read to date, no one has suggested the $5.6m was anything but matching.

The difference here is only in the County's honor, doing what they said they would.

So far, they have failed miserably.

---

So, now, all of the sudden, everything you've ever read on this subject says "matching funds", BUT, they promised you exclusively they'd do it without matching funds.  That's the sum total of your argument?

Read the resolution again.  Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, it's all estimates and potential funding, it does not at all guarantee or promise you anything in regards to fully funding the construction of the dams.  Not fully funding, nor partially funding, nor funding on contingency.  Nothing.  This kind of thing is typical, maybe they needed to do something special for all the people who choose not to read up on these things.  But it was never more than match funding.  Currently, you, like Bates, are saying you've always been aware of this.  It's a 180, but I'd rather have you there than in complete denial.

---

My position hasn't changed from V2025 election day. It appears that it's just today you finally get it. But, that's no guarantee.

You are correct on one thing: "Absolutely nothing is guaranteed", just as in the current River Tax proposal which duplicates the language of V2025.

Sales Tax is the revenue guarantee, not the projects. Projects only have the County's word that they will do what they said they would. In the case of V2025, they haven't. Why would we expect they might now?

The current plan is more about power than projects anyway. The County wants this new Authority over all the cities in the County. And, nothing would be more wrong for Tulsa.

The dams are the vehicle by which they are attempting to achieve that end, in spite of earlier promises.

Remove the dams from the current proposal and it's mostly cash to be spent at their discretion. But, then, the dams aren't guaranteed in the current proposal either.

If the County were serious, they'd write a Bond Issue after having issued an RFP for quotes on dams and tie revenue to the dam projects.

Even then, Sales Tax for the County is conceptually incorrect since it reduces the margin available to Cities for their own use (and, being the ONLY means Cities can use, while the County has bonding and ad valorem as their normal means).

There's just not much in the current proposal which fills any need.

Try this. Do a word search in the current proposal for "Master Plan". You'll soon discover it's not even in there. That's because the County's proposal includes provisions which do not conform the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, the thing we've spent years and millions developing, with much public imput. That's what people want. But, the County knows better, I guess, than experts in planning, rivers, water, etc.

Like I said, it's not about projects, it's about power. And, would also include control of the South Yale TOLL BRIDGE, which the City currently remains opposed.

There's nothing in the current River Tax proposal the County is offering, or I want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

^


May very well have known what the fine print of Prop. 4 V2025 said.

Does everyone feel that the Average Joe had a full understanding of the Prop. 4 fine print....?

---

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

I'm still rubbing sheep hair out of my eyes.

Other part is, everyone at the time, (including Bob Dick and Mike Keir) and even now says the revenue projections were conservative.  Use overages from the existing voter-approved tax and they can do what they originally promised in the V-2025 plan.  This is what is being over-looked in all the "Bates knew this..." rhetoric.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

---

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:

---

Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

---

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

After three puff pieces in the Tulsa World yesterday about how great the river plan is, this morning's World raises an important and stinky issue.  

The sewage treatment plant south of I-44 and the sludge drying beds at 71st. St.  

Estimated costs to do something like moving the plant further south to mitigating the stench seems to run in the $50mm to $500mm range.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070822_1_A1_hSmel63665

I was really quite surprised at the timing.  I wonder if Bobby Lorton knew about this story coming out.  If not, I'm guessing some things were thrown around and broken in his office this morning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

---

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:

---

Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

---

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

---

I'm not saying I do remember what was and wasn't in the media back then, I didn't even when it's been linked to here.  Anything which can be easily found on the V-2025 info site doesn't make reference to it.

I'm too used to "legal contracts" I guess where everything is spelled out.  Perhaps I'm a total dip-**** for viewing a ballot as a legal document between the government and the voter.  Therin lies the reason I don't intend to vote for this package, unless there is very, very clear wording what is and isn't included and what the contingencies are.

IMO, the county has a responsibility to the voters to outline the fine print in their official documents and the media can glean the details and present it.  Interviews with elected officials and beaurocrats is not sufficient to satisfy the obligation of trust on a proposition.  

The county should not be relying on the media to make all details clear when it's not even in the printed documentation released by the issuing authority nor on the ballot.

FWIW- I've tried to re-start this on the project.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

After three puff pieces in the Tulsa World yesterday about how great the river plan is, this morning's World raises an important and stinky issue.  

The sewage treatment plant south of I-44 and the sludge drying beds at 71st. St.  

Estimated costs to do something like moving the plant further south to mitigating the stench seems to run in the $50mm to $500mm range.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070822_1_A1_hSmel63665

I was really quite surprised at the timing.  I wonder if Bobby Lorton knew about this story coming out.  If not, I'm guessing some things were thrown around and broken in his office this morning.

---

and it gets even better... according to the article, the "planned [61st street] pedestrian bridge [goes] right across our sewer overflow basin".  Great planning!  [B)]

Vote No.....It's, whats for Dinner.....

I got ya conan.

I don't know near enough about the River plan, yet.  I'm sure more info is around here somewhere, but I am looking for a more in depth description of the projects.

If I voted on it today, I couldn't tell you in detail what I would be voting on.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

---

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:

---

Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

---

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

---

That's why they create documents, resolutions and contracts. So, if we can't remember, we can go back and read it again.

You seem to suggest they never intended to build dams, and that's just not true. It's really very clear. You may have to rely somewhat on Bates' chronology, complete with links, but it's in there.

So, on the current plan, the basis is that they were never promised. If true, then they're still in the game. If not, it sinks, even in this river.

Let me distill the river plan for you:

As of now, it is a total cluster-****.  

There has not been near enough thorough planning to this point, though there are those who will disagree.  I'm still seeing a lot of speculation in the plan in lieu of hard facts.

The whole rush to vote happened when Kaiser stepped up and said they could bring $111mm to the table.  Just because matching private funds are there, doesn't mean that is the appropriate time to tie up additional funding, nor that there is a viable plan all citizens agree upon.  Find out what all is needed and what the hard costs are, then come ask me for money.  I don't recall hearing of a time limit for those private funds to disappear.  Put it in trust and let it appreciate until we are ready to vote.

This $111mm has given Randi Miller a severe, well, ahem... (certain male function of excitement).

As of now, it looks like the development is primarily to the benefit of some land-owners on the west bank, some developers, and some hyped up claims of an economic boon by the CoC.

That's why I'm not going to vote for it.

This morning's story in the World adds another element to the development.  We are wanting to construct public use and commercial development in between a refinery and a **** plant.

It's just like constructing a new neighborhood right under the principal flight path of an existing airport then complaining about all the noise and then the rest of the citizens being on the hook to pay for remediation costs.

I would not have one single problem if the county had said:

"Even with best intentions, we have determined that we cannot affect the full potential of river deveolopment with V-2025 funding.  We are going to use the money originally allotted for low water dams, Zink lake upgrades, etc. to do feasibility, environmental, and other associated studies.  After we have all the facts in order, we will then call for a vote of the citizens of Tulsa County to approve a new 'River Tax'."

That would definitely ease the swelling in my bowels.  Study it for a year or two, accept more public input via committees and bring it to a vote in a year or two when there is more reliable information.  Even if nothing about the final project personally appealed to me- as long as there had been plenty of public input from average citizens and the will of the people really seemed to be represented in the plan then I would vote for a tax.  No sweat.

I'd be pitching a tent too, at $111 million.  That's a pretty good chunk of private change, in comparison to to the tax.

The actual details, I'm not clear on them yet.  It's probably my fault, I haven't taken the time yet.

I find it hard to buy this:  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I would not have one single problem if the county had said:

"Even with best intentions, we have determined that we cannot affect the full potential of river deveolopment with V-2025 funding.  We are going to use the money originally allotted for low water dams, Zink lake upgrades, etc. to do feasibility, environmental, and other associated studies.  After we have all the facts in order, we will then call for a vote of the citizens of Tulsa County to approve a new 'River Tax'."

---

Because it was never their intention to fully fund the dams with V2025 alone, and feasibility and environmental are a part of construction.  And, the majority of construction funds are still there, and the project is still feasible under the original plan (plus inflation), there's no guarantee on time.  It could take us twenty years to get a match, but dam construction is still possible under the original Vision2025 plan.  As far as I know.

Have you heard that the dams can not be completed under the original plan as put forth in Vision 2025?  If so, do you have a link?  I have not seen that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

I'd be pitching a tent too, at $111 million.  [}:)][}:)] Yeah Michael, who wouldn't?

Because it was never their intention to fully fund the dams with V2025 alone, and feasibility and environmental are a part of construction.  And, the majority of construction funds are still there, and the project is still feasible under the original plan (plus inflation), there's no guarantee on time.  It could take us twenty years to get a match, but dam construction is still possible under the original Vision2025 plan.  As far as I know.

Have you heard that the dams can not be completed under the original plan as put forth in Vision 2025?  If so, do you have a link?  I have not seen that.

---

According to the ballot and Prop IV, dams would be built- not studies of dams.

I'm trying to be careful not to get back into the whole quagmire of the last few pages, but the present vote seems to represent something between not being able to complete the dams as promised and that what was proposed on V-2025 is not what benefactors, commissioners, and beaurocrats want now.  

Apparently it was not the intent to complete the LWD and Zink projects soley from V-2025 tax collections- you are correct.  Though one needs to dig through news archives and forum archives to discover what the original intent was.

I find it interesting that proponents are being quick to point to comments by Bob Dick that no one knew what the actual cost of the dams would be and that there was plenty of info about federal matching funds.  However, those people also seem to be neglecting Dick's comments about the gross tax collection estimates being very conservative.

Everyone has heard the dams can't be completed under V-2025.  Cost estimate was too low, Inhofe didn't bring home the bacon, yada yada yada.  That's what the whole river tax is about.  Well, and now we want the red Ferrari, not the brown Chevrolet.

You are correct that they could still be constructed per 2025- without matching federal funds (emphasis is my opinion).  That is a point Michael Bates has been making all along- that there could be as much as a $150mm- plus overage on V-2025 tax collections.  In other words, there's no need for an additional tax because there very well would be more than enough funding to complete the originally-planned dams with overages or by extending the collection period for the tax by vote.  

It is my understanding these dams which are now proposed are a differing design than was was proffered on the 9/9/03 ballot, and there is more being added to the project which is why the cost is even higher.

Short summary to long answer- yes the original V-2025 dams and Zink lake improvements could be completed even without matching funds due to overages on collections.

I'm loathe to admit that local politics is something I've only had a peripheral interest in up until the last couple of years.

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

I have been conducting an informal survey of opinions from the 45 stops I make each day in South Tulsa. Not much yet, but the first few remarks were revealing.

1. I thought we took care of this stuff with the last tax vote. I haven't looked too close at it but why would Bixby vote for it? Tulsa gets most of the improvements. Undecided.

2. I live in Claremore. Don't know why anyone would want to vote even more sales tax. If that small a tax will do all that stuff why can't we get streets and stuff done. Can't vote.

3. No. Taxes too high already. Nothing over there for me.

Better start talking features, benefits and issues pretty soon or give up.

All, thanks for your patience.

I'm doing my best to answer questions posted that are of a technical nature related to the topic and will continue to do so as my time allows.  As for background and knowledge base I do have personal have experience with many significant river projects, including all of the original Zink Lake projects, I understand the Corridor Master Plan and the current proposal and yes I support it.  

Some of you know, (and I suspect some know me) as I have posted similarly before.  I don't participate on this forum because I "have to" or "was told to" it was my own (maybe dumb) idea... and yes, I'm tired of getting web-cained by a few and coming back for more (and since "thank you sir may I have another" is just not in my life plan for the sport of others) so if I get a little quick witted with a response I'm truly sorry, my mother did not raise me that way, but some should read what comes off of their own finger tips.  Try pretending you are using your lips rather than your fingers and see if that influences what you have to say.  

Do I have all the answers?  Nope!  But I'll try.   But again and I know it is a stretch over the web but just like "Cap'n Call" in Lonesome dove..."I just can stand rudeness in a man" so if we can we behave, maybe we can respectfully educate each other a bit so that each of us can make up our own mind with some basis in fact rather than just emotion?  

Waterboy, I understand you have direct river knowledge; if you wish to meet, (and I don't think we have officially) I would like to gain form your experieience so I'll make an evening available to discuss the river and review the plan, your call, just PM me throught this site. If this works, perhaps a next step might be a forum meeting to respond to technical questions if someone would coordinate it and the rules of civility were followed.

Tulsanow; If you have questions that fit what I can address (sorry I don't do politics and won't second guess long ago decisions)that I have not gotten to or new ones please post or restate.



Kirby Crowe, Vision 2025 Program Director

Ps.  Which came first; web-forums or road rage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

---

You've got me a little confused as to why Tulsa would be upset about finishing the dams from V2025 overages.  That is a county tax and therefore county funds.  COT isn't out a penny unless they want to do some of their own development along the banks.

Well, I see it this way.  Since the County never planned on fully funding those items, if you change V2025, you're changing the balance that got everyone to vote on it in the first place.   It looks like it can be done, I wouldn't advise it.

Jenks got funding for some downtown work, they arguably benefit most for the Aquarium loan payoff package.  Sand Springs got a huge amount for urban renewal.  They got their Vision 2025 funds.  The dams funds are still there, they got those going for them too.

Arguably, Tulsa, BA, and everyone else got what they voted for too.  But still.

These things don't come free.  And if we're going to have to start divvying up extra funds, beyond what was voted for, for the success of Jenks and Sand Springs, you might want to throw Tulsa a bone.  Tulsa is the primary economic engine of this county.  The dams are great, but we also need to consider what benefits Tulsa in this equation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

---

From 106th to 91st (Jenks City Limit) Jenks has a whopping 1.5 miles of shoreline on the 106th St dam. Jenks has done a lot on that portion true, but that's without the dam. Tulsa has the same shoreline on the east bank from 106th to 91st and both sides north of 91st. Jenks gets about ¼ of the total shoreline of the 106th St dam.

That amount new money for that dam is only $25 million, Jenks gets say ¼ of the shoreline. Plus, as reported by Mr Medlock, Creek Nation is giving $5 million to the project as they would like the dam too. So, Jenks gets 25% of the benefit of something with an outstanding balance of $20 million. That's a whopping $5 million out of a project with a total scope of $400 million. Sure, it's all for Jenks and Sand Springs. Tulsa is the winner in the river plan.

If this doesn't pass, I would look for Jenks, The Creek Nation and the county to come up with the $25 million for this dam pretty fast using a TIFF on The River District, 2025 overages and casino money pretty quick. Remember, those overages were promised, that's what's being beaten into people, the county better deliver.

The river plan is about Tulsa, more details need to be provided and assurances need to be made about issues like commercial development near downtown, but, it's about improving the city of Tulsa for the large most part.

That's one of those things, from Tulsa's perspective the River Plan appears to prep land that's already in a good location.  With water.  Kind of allows Tulsa to catch up a bit.  Don't know all the details yet, but that's my first impression.

Where, the dams in Jenks and Sand Springs, there may not have been much development without the potential for dams.  Especially, Jenks, they were already prepped for this.  It was nearly a blank slate.

Just plopping the dams down in Jenks and SS, It will benefit Tulsa to a degree, at the Jenks dam it will.  But, not near as much as if we prepare that land in Tulsa for development.  I don't see where going out of the way to stretch Vision 2025 helps, near as much as having the new plan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

The river plan is about Tulsa, more details need to be provided and assurances need to be made about issues like commercial development near downtown, but, it's about improving the city of Tulsa for the large most part.

---

Therein lies the problem in getting this passed county-wide.  Collinsville, Owasso, and Broken Arrow don't see a benefit because they don't buy into the "Tulsa is the hub..." argument.

Aside from attempting and accomplishing a bunch of Tulsa County projects, Vision 2025 was a stroke of marketing genious.

Every community got something, and just about every age and ethnic group got some benefit out of it.  

Unfortunately for the backers of this plan, the appeal is not universal.  There aren't any new medical clinics for black Tulsans, no libraries or community centers for the suburban cities/towns, no new education facilities, no projects that benefit senior citizens.

The bulk of the vote in Tulsa County is obviously the city of Tulsa.  There are many Tulsans against this proposal.  

There's a lot more polishing to do on this pig.  Someone pass the lipstick.

Waterboy, I pulled out what I see as questions that I can address.

"You guys are so far removed from average citizens whom you expect to devote as much study and committment as you have and if not, just shut up and vote for it"

Wrong, (unless you are not talking about me) I want people to be educated about what we are doing and or proposing. I was here on this forum before this and will be here after.  I volunteered to attend County Commissioner's meetings in a hope to answer questions.  As for a broad "you guys" the river corridor plan took comments and suggestions from all walks and areas of Tulsa County.

"WE ARE DEVELOPING A RIVER WITH NO PROSPECTS OF BOAT USAGE ON IT"

I don't know where you get this idea; each of the lakes has identified marina locations in the Master Plan.  

I understand from other postings (I think that was you) that going lake via locks is a must for you.  Unfortunately, that simply will not work (I wish and so do many others including Mr. Kaiser who' first request to his consultants was water-water everywhere) a few of those very serious constraints include the stormwater discharges (both sewers and creeks, tough to back water up them without causing big problems in them) wastewater and industrial discharge locations (in some locales we have a bunch of them and the majority of those need to discharge into free flowing waters not a lake), slope in the river, and most critically the habitat lost if you inundate it all which could not be mitigated so as to gain a 404 permit.  What was accomplished in OKC (and the lock through part I like, its fun) worked there because they do not have any federally protected endangered species on the Oklahoma River and (in this case it is unfortunate) but we do.  If you don't believe me call USF&W and see what they say.  Here, the best we can do and I think it is a good approach given the constraints is to be able to go downstream from Zink to the Jenks Lake via the meandering channel either by stream power or other.  Once thing that comes to mind is upstream white water trips via jet boat like in Oregon and such places do (I've done it and its way better than an air boat and not nearly as loud) these are activities that will have to be addressed from the operational side which is well down the road but if they are cool I believe Tulsa will want it.

"1. Citizen oversight"

Ok, you want regular folk and professionals; many argue that only elected officials should be in charge because they are accountable to the voters on a regular basis.  Sorry, but I don't believe there is a real answer to this one, comes under that political heading.

"2. Public input via internet. Like what is set up in Fort Worth's Trinity project. If we're going to write a blank check to the county, the only way we can stop idiocy like the $30million pedestrian bridges or the lack of connectivity on the river, is to make sure they get feedback. Different ideas need to be seen, heard and digested in real time. Remember, the county can spend this money any way they please as long as its to develop the corridor and roughly fits the plan. We should be able to plug in new ideas (like they plug in different dam configurations) when they are offered. It should be a process we're buying, not a package."

Implementation input via the net is an excellent idea and so noted.  These are important projects and I believe the public portions of it will see public review and comment made.

The pedestrian bridges are part of the deal brought forward and are fixed pieces unless they prove unfeasible (permitting) and I don't see that happening, you don't like them others do...again sorry no answer on that available

The dam designs are not done yet, the reason there are alternates (like cascade structures) mentioned in the master plan now is from my strong insistence in the final report phase of the Corridor Master Plan review... you got the choir here, I hate Ogee sections.  

"3. I am real uncomfortable with three county commissioners running this whole show. Not sure that one can be changed but I can hold my nose for long periods if 1,2 and 4 are in place."

The County does not control it.  There is a 9 member authority to be created by the County of which the County Commissioners and the City of Tulsa are equal at 3 and three other appointments including a non-river city Mayor.

4. Some serious attention to issues of policing, rescue, maintenance, infrastructure, river debris cleanup and zoning. Not just condescending pap saying we got that stuff covered. We don't. Show us budgets that recognize the understanding that if the plan is successful in attracting the masses, that we are prepared for the impact.

"Policing"

Already improved by Mr. Kaiser at RPA, so it is a priority.  Right now, I can not say now exactly how this will be improved but I have confidence that is will be greatly improved.  

"Rescue"

Presently covered on the river by the Tulsa Fire Department, I would anticipate that would stay there or perhaps be picked up by Jenks and Sand Springs or be addressed by mutual aid agreements like presently exist at Tulsa Riverside Airport where the Jenks fire Department is the first responder to accidents (recently happened) there as a trade for Tulsa being the first responder to river incidents at Jenks (already happened) and other mutual aid issues which are efficient ways to handle it.  As for equipment, this is the least of the expense.

Interesting point, with the discussions for the proposed whitewater facilities and their potential economic impact was white water rescue training, think about with very predictable flow and engineered facilities to create various conditions in the water, we could easily end up as a training locale those folks who might come here if some enterprising sole put together a program do stay in hotels and eat while they are here... kind of like the specialized law enforcement shooting school concept not a huge market but a market.

"Maintenance"

This is a huge issue one which was brought up before the program was rolled out.  I am confident it will be properly addressed.  I and many others have already pitched several funding methods such as revenue from commercial land sales and leases and I have been told directly by some of the benefactors that their donations include maintenance funds.  

"Debris removal"

The stream improvements between Zink and Jenks include debris removal, that is something that has to be accomplished or the beautification component of that item simply does not work and is fully a part of that project scope.

At the lakes it needs to be included, like the old bridge piers at Jenks upstream of the "white bridge" they need to be removed down to the stream bed (like they once were, talk about sand scour)

"I want river development"

Me too!  Will there be more on these questions addressed before October 9, I believe so.  Can everything be addressed?  In reality no, not unless we spend millions that we don't have and expend years more on study before we get going.  Are we technically far enough along to be ready to go?  Yes, which is why I believe the proposal was brought forward now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelC

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

---

You've got me a little confused as to why Tulsa would be upset about finishing the dams from V2025 overages.  That is a county tax and therefore county funds.  COT isn't out a penny unless they want to do some of their own development along the banks.

---

Something just smacked me in the face on this that I had previously ignored:

The COT engineering facility just south of 23rd street is one of the properties which would be purchased under the River Plan if I am not mistaken.

The workers in this facility are supposed to be consolidated into the new City Hall at OneTech.

That would take care of part of the City's pitch to selling off existing real estate.  Shame of it is, the city recently spent a fair amount of money upgrading the heating and air in this building.

Might be another reason for the rush to vote as well- some well-timed pressure from the Mayor's office.  Only part is, this parcel of land is already served by the Zink Lake dam.  

In other words, we don't need what is in the River Tax proposal to flip this property and make it attractive for private development, nor for a public gathering space if that was what were to go there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

Waterboy, I pulled out what I see as questions that I can address.

---

Thank you for responding. I just generated a reply and accidentally erased the whole thing. Testament to my forum skills. Let me apologize if any of my responses were...ungentlemanly. Hard to communicate without eye contact and physical feedback. And apologies can be slow in coming.

It is a responsible thing you do to post here and I can imagine your dismay at all the misinformation floating around whether purposefully or not. Let me hit some highpoints of the conversation.

1."you guys" was referring to the smart guys who regularly post here and don't grasp the fact that less than 20% of our residents have a college degree or have ever followed politics, development or planning. I figure some of them are current or former insiders, bureaucrats, planners, architects and lawyers by trade. They assume a lot and sometimes are impatient with the taste and behaviors of the middle class.

1a. Though v2025 attempted to gather public input from all walks of life in Tulsa county they were by no means a representative sample of the electorate. People have to work, take kids to athletics, fix meals, fix cars, buy groceries etc. and many also did not grasp the importance of the process believing it to be another marketing effort for yet another tax. Yes that's their fault they were not self-employed, college educated, young coulples, empty nesters ,retired or wealthy but it skewed the results. Remember the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline? It was slugged on the basis of a broad well written survey conducted by telephone. Only problem was only the wealthy republicans at the time had phones. That's why we need the online, real time survey and I'm glad you recognize that even if the pols don't.

1b. I saw the marinas on the Master Plan. I didn't see them on the Kaiser plan. Even if they are there, its just pictures isn't it? I doubt private boats will be allowed except human powered. As for commercial boats, I don't see them as economically feasible if the boats moored there are only usable on a two-four mile stretch of lake unless there are lots of tourists all day long. I speak from experience on this point. The riverbanks are dead until festivals, holidays, concerts etc. Which means it is an appointment business happening mostly during off hours. Not enough off hours to pay the freight. Concession fees, insurance, maintenance and fuel will kill off a private enterprize under the Authority. The OKC Brick canal boats needed more public money than they thought. So will this one.

That is unless you could make longer trips through each impoundment. It sounds like locks were considered. Should we ever have opportunity to meet I have some thoughts on how that could work. The jet boats are intriguing. They even use them in New Zealand on narrow steep rivers. They suck up sand and debris on this type of river creating maintenance problems but I think it could work. To achieve the entertainment value necessary they would be pretty fuelish and noisy too.

2.I'm glad you see the value of internet surveying. The other advantage of a real time, online survey is in creating a salable plan in the first place and fine tuning it. Current public input is what, 5years old? You would have found out real fast that pedestrian bridges are a non starter for a representative sample of average Tulsans. I ask everyone I know and they grimace at the thought of a 15million dollar walkway over the river. Perhaps a preface question of "have you ever been on the pedestrian bridge at Zink lake?" Then ask if they want another one. I know however that the politics are in play.

The only other highlight I want to take space on now is the one that I saw up close. Policing, safety, maintenance and debris cleanup. I have had some harrowing adventures on this river and won't go into all of them (thankfully). But the underlying problems are significant. Problems of jurisdiction, overlapping authority similar to 911 foul ups, disputes over ownership and hidden traps for maintenance as well as new pollution sources. I'm glad Jenks may get their old bridge debris removed but that should be done on the living river and specifically under the existing Tulsa/Sand Springs bridges too.

I will pm you as I would enjoy talking with you again. All is not lost for this project but the public does need a fair amount of persuading.

I haven't decided yet how to vote, but I have one question that really bugs me.  As far as I have seen, no one has asked or answered it.  There is 52.4 million slated for land acquisition.  Presumably this land is aquired for RFPs for development.  First, who gets to choose among the RFPs?  Is it the new board, or the city in which the property is located?  Second, and more importantly, after the land is sold off through the RFP, who gets the money?  Is it simply put back into the river development?  I assume that ultimately the land acquistion costs should be a wash, assuming that people want to develop this land.  But I haven't seen any explanation of how that money will be used.

I forget, does this plan buy out and destroy the Westport apartments?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I forget, does this plan buy out and destroy the Westport apartments?

---

I think that depends on whose plan for that area is accepted and how much land they desire. The Branson plan or whoever. Seems strange they would eliminate a ready source of patrons already committed to a river community lifestyle. Would rather see the concrete plant disappear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

Waterboy, I pulled out what I see as questions that I can address.

---

Thank you for responding. I just generated a reply and accidentally erased the whole thing. Testament to my forum skills. Let me apologize if any of my responses were...ungentlemanly. Hard to communicate without eye contact and physical feedback. And apologies can be slow in coming.

It is a responsible thing you do to post here and I can imagine your dismay at all the misinformation floating around whether purposefully or not. Let me hit some highpoints of the conversation.

1."you guys" was referring to the smart guys who regularly post here and don't grasp the fact that less than 20% of our residents have a college degree or have ever followed politics, development or planning. I figure some of them are current or former insiders, bureaucrats, planners, architects and lawyers by trade. They assume a lot and sometimes are impatient with the taste and behaviors of the middle class.

1a. Though v2025 attempted to gather public input from all walks of life in Tulsa county they were by no means a representative sample of the electorate. People have to work, take kids to athletics, fix meals, fix cars, buy groceries etc. and many also did not grasp the importance of the process believing it to be another marketing effort for yet another tax. Yes that's their fault they were not self-employed, college educated, young coulples, empty nesters ,retired or wealthy but it skewed the results. Remember the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline? It was slugged on the basis of a broad well written survey conducted by telephone. Only problem was only the wealthy republicans at the time had phones. That's why we need the online, real time survey and I'm glad you recognize that even if the pols don't.

1b. I saw the marinas on the Master Plan. I didn't see them on the Kaiser plan. Even if they are there, its just pictures isn't it? I doubt private boats will be allowed except human powered. As for commercial boats, I don't see them as economically feasible if the boats moored there are only usable on a two-four mile stretch of lake unless there are lots of tourists all day long. I speak from experience on this point. The riverbanks are dead until festivals, holidays, concerts etc. Which means it is an appointment business happening mostly during off hours. Not enough off hours to pay the freight. Concession fees, insurance, maintenance and fuel will kill off a private enterprize under the Authority. The OKC Brick canal boats needed more public money than they thought. So will this one.

That is unless you could make longer trips through each impoundment. It sounds like locks were considered. Should we ever have opportunity to meet I have some thoughts on how that could work. The jet boats are intriguing. They even use them in New Zealand on narrow steep rivers. They suck up sand and debris on this type of river creating maintenance problems but I think it could work. To achieve the entertainment value necessary they would be pretty fuelish and noisy too.

2.I'm glad you see the value of internet surveying. The other advantage of a real time, online survey is in creating a salable plan in the first place and fine tuning it. Current public input is what, 5years old? You would have found out real fast that pedestrian bridges are a non starter for a representative sample of average Tulsans. I ask everyone I know and they grimace at the thought of a 15million dollar walkway over the river. Perhaps a preface question of "have you ever been on the pedestrian bridge at Zink lake?" Then ask if they want another one. I know however that the politics are in play.

The only other highlight I want to take space on now is the one that I saw up close. Policing, safety, maintenance and debris cleanup. I have had some harrowing adventures on this river and won't go into all of them (thankfully). But the underlying problems are significant. Problems of jurisdiction, overlapping authority similar to 911 foul ups, disputes over ownership and hidden traps for maintenance as well as new pollution sources. I'm glad Jenks may get their old bridge debris removed but that should be done on the living river and specifically under the existing Tulsa/Sand Springs bridges too.

I will pm you as I would enjoy talking with you again. All is not lost for this project but the public does need a fair amount of persuading.

---

Congrats....! H20..   You have gone from an unemployed, broken computer, former river taxi pilot, posting to Tulsa Now from a remote location....To breaking bread with the Consiglieri for the current Capos..

Remarkable... and I mean no disrespect....

I took note of a mention of a water taxi service possibly being needed in the area should this project pass.......

Bona Suerte......!

Could you please find out at your meeting.....

Will one be able to surf in the proposed kayak rapids......?

Will one be able to swim the channels of the "new river"....?

Anyway.... Happy Sushimi.....! Either to you or Mister Crowe...[}:)]

Well, underemployed with a computer that has nasty viruses. But at least its not the library! Making progress.

I haven't made arrangements so I don't know if he was serious, but...why don't you come along? That is unless ...you're worried that your true identity as Shadows would be compromised.[:P]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

Waterboy, I pulled out what I see as questions that I can address.

---

Thank you for responding. I just generated a reply and accidentally erased the whole thing. Testament to my forum skills. Let me apologize if any of my responses were...ungentlemanly. Hard to communicate without eye contact and physical feedback. And apologies can be slow in coming.

It is a responsible thing you do to post here and I can imagine your dismay at all the misinformation floating around whether purposefully or not. Let me hit some highpoints of the conversation.

1."you guys" was referring to the smart guys who regularly post here and don't grasp the fact that less than 20% of our residents have a college degree or have ever followed politics, development or planning. I figure some of them are current or former insiders, bureaucrats, planners, architects and lawyers by trade. They assume a lot and sometimes are impatient with the taste and behaviors of the middle class.

1a. Though v2025 attempted to gather public input from all walks of life in Tulsa county they were by no means a representative sample of the electorate. People have to work, take kids to athletics, fix meals, fix cars, buy groceries etc. and many also did not grasp the importance of the process believing it to be another marketing effort for yet another tax. Yes that's their fault they were not self-employed, college educated, young coulples, empty nesters ,retired or wealthy but it skewed the results. Remember the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline? It was slugged on the basis of a broad well written survey conducted by telephone. Only problem was only the wealthy republicans at the time had phones. That's why we need the online, real time survey and I'm glad you recognize that even if the pols don't.

1b. I saw the marinas on the Master Plan. I didn't see them on the Kaiser plan. Even if they are there, its just pictures isn't it? I doubt private boats will be allowed except human powered. As for commercial boats, I don't see them as economically feasible if the boats moored there are only usable on a two-four mile stretch of lake unless there are lots of tourists all day long. I speak from experience on this point. The riverbanks are dead until festivals, holidays, concerts etc. Which means it is an appointment business happening mostly during off hours. Not enough off hours to pay the freight. Concession fees, insurance, maintenance and fuel will kill off a private enterprize under the Authority. The OKC Brick canal boats needed more public money than they thought. So will this one.

That is unless you could make longer trips through each impoundment. It sounds like locks were considered. Should we ever have opportunity to meet I have some thoughts on how that could work. The jet boats are intriguing. They even use them in New Zealand on narrow steep rivers. They suck up sand and debris on this type of river creating maintenance problems but I think it could work. To achieve the entertainment value necessary they would be pretty fuelish and noisy too.

2.I'm glad you see the value of internet surveying. The other advantage of a real time, online survey is in creating a salable plan in the first place and fine tuning it. Current public input is what, 5years old? You would have found out real fast that pedestrian bridges are a non starter for a representative sample of average Tulsans. I ask everyone I know and they grimace at the thought of a 15million dollar walkway over the river. Perhaps a preface question of "have you ever been on the pedestrian bridge at Zink lake?" Then ask if they want another one. I know however that the politics are in play.

The only other highlight I want to take space on now is the one that I saw up close. Policing, safety, maintenance and debris cleanup. I have had some harrowing adventures on this river and won't go into all of them (thankfully). But the underlying problems are significant. Problems of jurisdiction, overlapping authority similar to 911 foul ups, disputes over ownership and hidden traps for maintenance as well as new pollution sources. I'm glad Jenks may get their old bridge debris removed but that should be done on the living river and specifically under the existing Tulsa/Sand Springs bridges too.

I will pm you as I would enjoy talking with you again. All is not lost for this project but the public does need a fair amount of persuading.

---

Congrats....! H20..   You have gone from an unemployed, broken computer, former river taxi pilot, posting to Tulsa Now from a remote location....To breaking bread with the Consiglieri for the current Capos..

Remarkable... and I mean no disrespect....

I took note of a mention of a water taxi service possibly being needed in the area should this project pass.......

Bona Suerte......!

Could you please find out at your meeting.....

Will one be able to surf in the proposed kayak rapids......?

Will one be able to swim the channels of the "new river"....?

Anyway.... Happy Sushimi.....! Either to you or Mister Crowe...[}:)]

---

No swimming sign is posted.  The Arkansas River in Tulsa is considered safe only for what is called "SECONDARY CONTACT".

Meaning, if some of it splashed on you while you were riding in a boat, there's no direct danger.

Swimming in the Arkansas River runs a risk of ingestion.  And then you're talking next about a LONG cure for constipation.........

Kayaking involves a risk of capsizing.  And, that means being underwater.  Which means there is a reasonable chance of ingestion of the polluted water.

The river is absolutely NOT safe for a source of drinking water, without extensive chemical treatment.

The Kaiser River Tax represents just another wrong-headed prioritization of a WANT vs. a NEED.

The main NEED of the hidden promoters behind this tax (construction companies, architects, engineers, bond underwriters, bond attorneys, etc.) is the NEED to FEED their GREED.

That's all it is really about.

[:O]

Show me a No Swimming sign along the Arkansas River in Tulsa. The "not safe except for secondary contact" signs are there because the water is not regularly tested and the authorities will not take responsibility for ingestion. It also keeps people from having to be rescued. That does not mean it is not safe.
Its safety changes all the time just like Grand Lake.

The rowing crew would be a good test case for your theory of unsafe at any distance attitude. Kayakers likely won't be doing turnovers on this stretch except the wild ones, but once again check with those who do the "wave" and see if they experience intestinal problems. Probably more at risk for bugs from Big Splash than the from the river.

Everyone is an expert on the quality of the river, yet very little testing is ever done or released to the public.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Show me a No Swimming sign along the Arkansas River in Tulsa. The "not safe except for secondary contact" signs are there because the water is not regularly tested and the authorities will not take responsibility for ingestion. It also keeps people from having to be rescued. That does not mean it is not safe.
Its safety changes all the time just like Grand Lake.

The rowing crew would be a good test case for your theory of unsafe at any distance attitude. Kayakers likely won't be doing turnovers on this stretch except the wild ones, but once again check with those who do the "wave" and see if they experience intestinal problems. Probably more at risk for bugs from Big Splash than the from the river.

Everyone is an expert on the quality of the river, yet very little testing is ever done or released to the public.

---

Then by all means go have a nice, tall glass of Arkansas River water.

You'd then be married to a commode for a long time.

Dont know of many local ponds, lakes or rivers where that wouldnt be as likely a case.

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

Swimming has been discouraged in recent years for safety reasons, not water quality reasons.  The safety reasons include the potential for rapidly rising water levels from hydro releases (which I believe is the root cause of the majority of rescues needed, which the improvements plan will greatly help) and dangerous hydraulic conditions which exist at Zink Dam which have been at times tragic but these will be fixed.

Secondary Bodily Contact is a stream standard definition (a regulatory standard), the discharge permits in the area however are required to be even better as they must meet the standard for "Primary Bodily Contact" this is because the regulators know people do get in the river but again swimming is discouraged.

And yes surfing in the white water areas was identified as a possiblity by the whitewater consultant.  

With maybe minor leaching issues or a rare out-of-permit discharge by Sun or Sinclair, the Arkansas river water is of the same health quality as what is impounded in Keystone Lake.

It's about the same as the reservoirs where our drinking water supply comes from:  Oologah and Spavinaw.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

With maybe minor leaching issues or a rare out-of-permit discharge by Sun or Sinclair, the Arkansas river water is of the same health quality as what is impounded in Keystone Lake.

It's about the same as the reservoirs where our drinking water supply comes from:  Oologah and Spavinaw.

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

[/quote]
Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  
[/quote]

As happens to every other river around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  [/quote]

As happens to every other river around.
[/quote]
This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

With maybe minor leaching issues or a rare out-of-permit discharge by Sun or Sinclair, the Arkansas river water is of the same health quality as what is impounded in Keystone Lake.

It's about the same as the reservoirs where our drinking water supply comes from:  Oologah and Spavinaw.

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

---

Let's see, the Arkansas River starts near Leadville, Colorado.  Picks up animal feces, fertilizers, hydrocarbons from about 800 miles of storm water run-off, treated waste stream effluent from several municipalities including Wichita, treated waste streams from a number of agri-producers and other industries all upstream of Keystone and picks up additional human waste and hydrocarbons in Keystone from boats and boaters.

No one thinks twice about jumping in the water at Keystone.  Okay, maybe a few of you do.

It picks up all that stuff during those 100's of miles but it also deposits them along the way and mixes them with the other sources of water (rain, snow).

Great responses that match my experience on and in the river. I wouldn't worry to much about the animal feces. Nature deposits them everywhere. Especially in my front yard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

---

As happens to every other river around.
[/quote]
This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I wouldn't worry to much about the animal feces. Nature deposits them everywhere. Especially in my front yard.

---

Really?  My neighbor's dog isn't named "Nature".  Her name is Algae- dead serious.  Odd since we are talking about water here.  [}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

---

As happens to every other river around.

---

This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.


[/quote]

The CSA (used to be called SMSA) is 950,000, but what's another quarter million people between friends....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

---

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

---

As happens to every other river around.

---

This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.


[/quote]

Probably picks up at least that much between Canon City, Co. and Cleveland, Ok.  It tends to disperse along the way.  It's nothing compared to the 1000 barrels of oil released at the refinery in Coffeyville last month, yet that had all dispersed within 30 to 40 miles of it's release and barely made it to the headwaters of Oologah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

---

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

---

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

---

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

---

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

---

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

---

A TIFF could be, but would rob the city of the upside to the budget for a decade. Other than that I agree with, and there needs to some guarantee of a RFP on the land, and some city control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

---

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

---

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

---

A TIFF could be, but would rob the city of the upside to the budget for a decade. Other than that I agree with, and there needs to some guarantee of a RFP on the land, and some city control.

---

I'll remember that next time you or someone else cheer leads for yet another wasted TIF downtown.

I'd like to know exactly where this "river development" is supposed to occur.  East side, west side or both?  And where on the particular side?  Next to the existing refineries and sewage treatment plants? (West) Smack dab in the middle of the existing river parks? (East) The same park currently getting a $12 million bike and jogging trail?  Are we going to tear out the new trails if this thing passes?  

Has any developer said they would build on or next to land occupied by a refinery or sewage plant?  If so, I haven't seen it.  

Tulsa has a need for river development, but it needs to be more concrete than this plan.  

Unless and until the refineries are gone, this is nothing but an exercise in fantasy.  

Its the refinery, stupid.  No business in their right mind wants to open shop in the midst of gag reflex triggering sulfur discharge.  IMO, it really is that simple.

This vote will fail because the average Tulsan sees the River just as the poster above me does.  West Tulsa being a wasteland of warehouses, refineries, sewage, and unconnected confusing roads, it could not POSSIBLY have potential for development.  Atleast to about 95% of the county.

That and of course the views of the river as being some sort of toxic cesspool of nuclear waste (who cares that we don't have any sort of nuclear plant here)

The refineriers are not going anywhere.  The area around the 21st street bridge has some sort of buffer from the refineries, but the area around 41st to 51st is more prime.  61st to 81st is also great, skipping the water treatement plant and Turkey mountain.  It would take a little more vision and INFRASTRUCTURE (heaven forbid) to develop that area, but there it sits, far away from the refineries, all the while people claim that refineries are the reason we can't develop the river.

I realize even if the vote passed, it wouldn't develop the river in the way that it truly should.  This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoffeeBean

I'd like to know exactly where this "river development" is supposed to occur.  East side, west side or both?  And where on the particular side?  Next to the existing refineries and sewage treatment plants? (West) Smack dab in the middle of the existing river parks? (East) The same park currently getting a $12 million bike and jogging trail?  Are we going to tear out the new trails if this thing passes?  

Has any developer said they would build on or next to land occupied by a refinery or sewage plant?  If so, I haven't seen it.  

Tulsa has a need for river development, but it needs to be more concrete than this plan.  

Unless and until the refineries are gone, this is nothing but an exercise in fantasy.  

Its the refinery, stupid.  No business in their right mind wants to open shop in the midst of gag reflex triggering sulfur discharge.  IMO, it really is that simple.

---

Its supposed to be between 21st and 11th on the West side of the river. Probably taking up most of the property there from the Concrete plant to the West Port apartments, especially if they do a sports arena there which imo is very unlikely at this juncture.

So, what happens if the vote is NO.  Does the Kaiser carrot go away?  All of it?  I'm feeling like such a hostage these days...first the Warren....i mean Channels, now Kaiser. Does it just boil down to the biggest baddest oil tycoon who get the tax abandoned by Boeing wins?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

---

That's quite a statement.  Can you expand on the "half-assed crony-benefiting" part of this statement?  How is it "half-assed" and which "crony" is it benefiting (and how is it doing so)?  I'm not challenging the statement; I'm honestly curious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

---

That's quite a statement.  Can you expand on the "half-assed crony-benefiting" part of this statement?  How is it "half-assed" and which "crony" is it benefiting (and how is it doing so)?  I'm not challenging the statement; I'm honestly curious.

---

It is "half-assed" in that there are much better ideas being come up with on what could be done with the river rather than tear down the Westport and build pedestrian bridges to nowhere.  We are told this is our only choice, or nothing else is coming.

It benefits cronyism because it is likely local construction interests, who are buddies with those nice fellows making the tax-writeoff, erm, I mean, donations, to the project - which stand to benefit.  These people that stand to benefit from the taxation of the public are VERY interested in influcing you and I to go vote YES for this authorization of more taxes.  It explains why most people are saying a new pedestrian bridge would be useless, but some "people" expressed interest in it at some planning meetings.  You don't think a local construction interest wanting to build a useless pedestrian bridge across a quarter mile river might have sent some people "interested" in a pedestrian bridge to a meeting?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by akupetsky

QuoteOriginally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

---

---

My understanding is that these donations are from non-profit foundations. Non-taxable, non-profit foundations. So the argument that they are avoiding taxes is only true insomuch as they may have originally established for that purpose. Perhaps an accountant/cpa could note their requirements to disburse foundation earnings. Foundations generally have altruistic mission statements to achieve.

I object to people casting negatives like "cronyism" towards those who are involved with the program. Though some may benefit from PR or general business growth within the city, it is unfair and scurrilous to accuse them of insider activity. Simply put, little gets done without powerful, moneyed people or government money. They prime the pump. Show how someone is profitting directly and unfairly then you have a point.

My favorite part of the plan is the "living river". It will truly be a three mile active habitat open to the public. By recreating the natural life of a plaines river complete with meandering streams, sand bars, islands, vegetation, rapids, wildlife and the opportunity to walk or float through it, we will be giving the public a unique experience. This is really a big deal and somewhat overlooked by everyone.  The dams are inevitable. This part makes up for habitats that will be changed and makes good use of land as the surrounding land between 27th and 61st is not amenable to the same type development that Jenks land is.

With that in mind, the pedestrian crossings with gathering areas, start to make sense. Not everyone has the urge to be a part of the habitat but will still want to see the process and others involved. Since West Tulsa has shown little interest in a vehicle bridge (and the additional car traffic won't be missed) then the crossings can be useful for pedestrians/runners/cycling etc. Not my first choice for plan monies but one that upon reflection makes sense.

Look, with a plan this large not everything will be to each person's liking but like v2025, there is something for everyone to like.  There are still questions about the land acquisition, the v2025 overages, and the eventual operation of the corridor. But one cannot deny that the business growth effect on the entire county will be tremendous.

I hope for more explanation of the plan to the public in the coming weeks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you voted for the original vision 2025, how can you possibly vote against the river plan?  If you were willing to raise sales taxes 4/10 cent to give to Boeing, how can you not be willing to raise tax by the same amount to spur development on the river, and provide for a unique Tulsa attribute?  The Generation Y's and Millennials aren't going to stay in Tulsa or move into Tulsa if the city doesn't have a unique culture scene.  The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you voted for the original vision 2025, how can you possibly vote against the river plan?  If you were willing to raise sales taxes 4/10 cent to give to Boeing, how can you not be willing to raise tax by the same amount to spur development on the river, and provide for a unique Tulsa attribute?  The Generation Y's and Millennials aren't going to stay in Tulsa or move into Tulsa if the city doesn't have a unique culture scene.  The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

It's really quite easy...just blacken the bar on the "NO" portion of the ballot.

IF someone voted FOR Vision2025, then perhaps they think they've already been promised two dams and silt modifications to Zink Lake dam. Why vote for them again?

IAC, comparing the Boeing 0.4-Cent deal and this one is apples vs Volkswagons.

And, there's other reasons to not support this River Tax plan, like the new County Authority which would retain absolute authority over the river. All Cities would require County approval to do any river development within their own cities.

The County has stated ONE OPTION they have is to pass purchased parcels to cities who could then develop a TIF, while that can be done anyway, without the County as a middleman. And, it also remains only 'one option', with it remaining their choice as to whether it is actually done this way, or instead by one of the various 'other' means.

And, how about the fact that a COUNTY SALES TAX is not actually tied to real projects. The County can decide to do whatever they want with this money as long as they find a way to classify it as 'River Development'.

Then there's the fact that the County's 'plan' does not adhere to INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, especially as it relates to the 41st Pedestrian bridge they propose, in direct conflict with INCOG's plan for a combined vehicle/pedestrian bridge.

Since the County announced this sickly plan, they've been trying to figure out ways to spend all the money it would generate. This is due to really poor advanced planning, promotion and implimentation. It should fail on this count by itself.

I'm voting "NO RIVER TAX". But, it's not that I don't wish for development to occur on our River, rather the deal being promoted is lacking in almost every way.

Your logic defies gravity.
What makes you think Tulsa doesn't already have a 'unique culture [sic] scene'?

Where else can people go to see politics like this played out upon its' citizens?

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[;)]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

You're clearly an intelligent, sensible person.  Do you really think the river plan will turn out to be a boondoggle (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boondoggle_%28project%29%22)?

Far as I can tell, it includes four aspects:
1) River engineering with dreding and dams (signed off on by the Army Corps)
2) Major public parks creation and beautification.
3) Infrastructure improvements including Riverside Drive and new bridges
3) Funds to assemble small parcels of land to spur large public develeopment, which would otherwise occur outside the city limits (Tulsa Landing developer lined up, patiently waiting)

So . . . which one is the one that is a senseless expenditure destined for failure?  If you simply don't trust the municipal government to implement plans, that's one thing.  But at what point are you willing to hand over tax money?  Ever?  Quibble if you will with the details, but where's the massive boondoggle?  This ain't the Channels, brother.  THIS makes sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[;)]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

---

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[;)]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

---

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

---

No, I think really "oil capital" is afraid that Tulsa might do something new to outshine his beloved Oklahoma City.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

You're clearly an intelligent, sensible person.  Do you really think the river plan will turn out to be a boondoggle (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boondoggle_%28project%29%22)?

Far as I can tell, it includes four aspects:
1) River engineering with dreding and dams (signed off on by the Army Corps)
2) Major public parks creation and beautification.
3) Infrastructure improvements including Riverside Drive and new bridges
3) Funds to assemble small parcels of land to spur large public develeopment, which would otherwise occur outside the city limits (Tulsa Landing developer lined up, patiently waiting)

So . . . which one is the one that is a senseless expenditure destined for failure?  If you simply don't trust the municipal government to implement plans, that's one thing.  But at what point are you willing to hand over tax money?  Ever?  Quibble if you will with the details, but where's the massive boondoggle?  This ain't the Channels, brother.  THIS makes sense.

---

Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[;)]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

---

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

---

No, I think really "oil capital" is afraid that Tulsa might do something new to outshine his beloved Oklahoma City.

---

And once again, Swake shows his penchant to go for some ridiculous personal angle rather than to address logical arguments and facts.  Did I mention Oklahoma City?  In fact, I rarely, if ever, bring OKC into a discussion.  Did you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, Swake, or is it time for your Koolaid break?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital



Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

---

So you don't trust Tulsa officials to spend your money.  That's a reasonable ground to vote against new taxation.  I'll suggest, though, that whatever your quarrel with the current political leadership, this vote should transcend that.  It's important that everyone treat this vote as being about the Arkansas River, not the personalities surrounding it.  I think you're absolutely exaggerating the risk of failure in this project.  The broad outline seems very sound and is in keeping with the INCOG Master Plan.  I have a feeling that if it were any more detailed, you would take the time to find fault with all those details.  

Can't tell you about sewer fields.  I can tell you that if you've ever actually used the trails on the West Bank, you wished there were more connections to the East Bank in order to loop around more easily and create connections.  It's one thing to look at a map and not be pleased by the lack of orderly, SimCity style planning.  It's another thing to jog the trail and realize that you're not drowning in stench.  Seriously, it's a nonissue.  

Also, you answered your own question regarding new parks with your quibble about gathering spaces.  We're talking about new public areas.  If you want to say it's still Riverparks and so there's nothing new, fine.  Stick with your semantics.  I'll stick with the fact that it would be a massive injection of capital into the centerpiece of Tulsa's park system.  You can put a question mark behind it but that still doesn't make me see how that's destined to fail.  

I'm not even trying to change your mind, OC.  I read your posts.  I see your biases.  I know where you stand.  This discussion is for the benefit of those who read this forum and get confused by all the political baiting and rhetoric that gets thrown around.  You're going to vote against the plan because you don't trust those who will implement it.  I find this position fallible because while elected officials come and go, the plan itself is sound and the river needs it.  I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

I favor this tax thing. I think fixing up the river front & jogging trails will make Tulsa a more attractive place to attract more investments. I wish Tulsa would build a full trail on the west bank of the River and extend the east side trail farther south. The RiverSide jogging trail from 81st street north needs a rebuild it's crumbling and old & narrow. Tulsa has it's  work cut out, no doubt about that. Here in Columbus, Ohio our mayor wants to add another 60 miles to our current jog/bike trail system & they plan to use alot of federal money to do it. They want to run trails along all our rivers and things like that, They want to extend our current 20 mile long Olentangy Bike/jog trail a few more miles and build some new trails.[:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

---

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[;)]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

---

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

---

DFW, Houston, Atlanta, may not be the "cool" cities like  Austin or Denver, as we see it, but they sure as heck have a lot more cool factor and areas than Tulsa does. Plus Austin and Denver are doing better than Tulsa in a lot of ways, average wages, health, poverty levels, etc. etc.  Houston and Atlanta may be "less cool", and thats very debatable, but they are still waaay more "cool" than Tulsa with a lot more to do, more amenities, more great urban lifestyle areas to live in,...  Most of my friends who have moved from Tulsa have moved to the Dallas FortWorth area. I know people on here complain about their traffic and sprawl, just like we complain about the bad roads here. But again, at least in Dallas there are some great,fun,hip, areas to live in, where there are lots of other young professional types to hang out with. You can find an energy and lifestyle in all of those places you just cant find, to any real extent, here. We are getting there and its precisely because people here have a vision and want to see our city get better and not just coast along as usual. I am proud of Tulsa for that, and am excited and hopeful that we can regain that energy and zeal. This river plan is just one more piece, one important section, in larger picture. On the one hand we look to other cities for inspiration and ideas. But this river plan isnt going to be like Fort Worths, or San Antonio or Austin, or any where else. Its going to take an underutilized assett and make it into something unique and very much a point of interest and identity for Tulsa. If this thing passes, and all the things go as planned, our mental map and picture of what this city is, is going to change a lot. Its almost like we cant see it, because we dont have it and arent used to thinking of the river like we will.  I think its going to add more to, and change the identity of, this city more than I bet most  people can realize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

QuoteOriginally posted by Oil Capital



 I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

---

Well said. I wonder how many others detect a sense of misogyny in many of the remarks being made about trust, leadership and competence.

The only place I see the plan diverging from the master plan is the elimination of the 41st street traffic bridge and it can be added later. But it is a plan and changes to plans are always necessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

QuoteOriginally posted by Oil Capital



 I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

---

Well said. I wonder how many others detect a sense of misogyny in many of the remarks being made about trust, leadership and competence.

The only place I see the plan diverging from the master plan is the elimination of the 41st street traffic bridge and it can be added later. But it is a plan and changes to plans are always necessary.

---

Misogyny?  Give us a freaking break.  FWIW, I think all three of Tulsa's last three mayors have been disasters.  Furthermore, the very worst person on the public scene in Tulsa IMO is Mr. Himmelfarb.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital



Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

---

So you don't trust Tulsa officials to spend your money.  That's a reasonable ground to vote against new taxation.  I'll suggest, though, that whatever your quarrel with the current political leadership, this vote should transcend that.  It's important that everyone treat this vote as being about the Arkansas River, not the personalities surrounding it.  I think you're absolutely exaggerating the risk of failure in this project.  The broad outline seems very sound and is in keeping with the INCOG Master Plan.  I have a feeling that if it were any more detailed, you would take the time to find fault with all those details.  

Can't tell you about sewer fields.  I can tell you that if you've ever actually used the trails on the West Bank, you wished there were more connections to the East Bank in order to loop around more easily and create connections.  It's one thing to look at a map and not be pleased by the lack of orderly, SimCity style planning.  It's another thing to jog the trail and realize that you're not drowning in stench.  Seriously, it's a nonissue.  

Also, you answered your own question regarding new parks with your quibble about gathering spaces.  We're talking about new public areas.  If you want to say it's still Riverparks and so there's nothing new, fine.  Stick with your semantics.  I'll stick with the fact that it would be a massive injection of capital into the centerpiece of Tulsa's park system.  You can put a question mark behind it but that still doesn't make me see how that's destined to fail.  

I'm not even trying to change your mind, OC.  I read your posts.  I see your biases.  I know where you stand.  This discussion is for the benefit of those who read this forum and get confused by all the political baiting and rhetoric that gets thrown around.  You're going to vote against the plan because you don't trust those who will implement it.  I find this position fallible because while elected officials come and go, the plan itself is sound and the river needs it.  I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

---

No, my opposition is NOT just a "no tax" posturing, and it is not just opposing Taylor and Miller.  To say that is to conveniently ignore most of my post.

Look, I think there are a number of "nice-to-have" items in the plan.  IMO, the river parks need a lot of improvement, but I think you are kidding yourselves to think that this plan, even when combined with the new arena, etc is going to have any substantial impact on the number of advanced degreed individuals who want to stay in or move to Tulsa.  

IMO, the money could be much better spent elsewhere.  

We keep taking these scattershot approaches, developing a tiny bit of coolness here in the Brady District, another tiny bit in the Blue Dome District, another tiny bit in the East End (whoops never mind, that's now going to be the antithesis of cool, Wal-Mart), another tiny bit in Brookside, another tiny bit in Cherry Street, another tiny bit in Jenks. We're trying to develop another "cool" area in the Pearl District.  

And now we want to add another tiny bit on the river banks, including housing, etc etc.  There are only so many people in a city like Tulsa that are interested in that "cool" urban lifestyle. None of these new areas are likely to be able to reach a good solid critical mass necessary to succeed if we don't focus our efforts.

We already have a downtown that is mightily struggling to add some residential base and retail base, and to be a gathering place for Tulsans; and now we are being encouraged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create more non-downtown gathering places and encourage more non-downtown urban retail and urban housing.  Really, a lot of the same issues that I had with the Channels (which was, incidentally, promoted primarily by a man AFIK;  So much for Waterboy's ridiculous accusation of mysogyny)

Can we please focus and get one thing done and done well, before running off to attempt another?


Just a footnote:  If history is any guide, this is clearly to much to hope for... Nevertheless, it sure would be refreshing if people on this forum stopped the constant attacks on motives and personal attacks, and focused instead on the information, facts, and arguments presented.

I think the river is but one more piece to an over all picture. Downtowns slow revitalization, including the Brady and Blue Dome Districts. The growth of our new Colleges including TCC Metro and OSU Tulsa downtown and TU's continuing growth. The river itself will have several new attractive features. Hopefully some great development on the west bank. The "cool factor" of the living river with its kayaking and boating, and the piers, enhanced parks, the lakes. And the River District in Jenks with coupled with everything else there is a great addition to Tulsa.  

All of these things are really going to anchor Tulsa. All of these things are going to make a big difference. All of these things are new, growing, and changing the face of Tulsa and will have an effect on the entire area. More opportunities, more possibilities, more life, more things to do. All together, I think its an exciting time to be in Tulsa. The next few years have the potential to see great things happen. THAT energy and growth will indeed entice people to Tulsa and the Tulsa area. for goodness sakes, this isnt a time of doom and gloom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital



Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

---

So you don't trust Tulsa officials to spend your money.  That's a reasonable ground to vote against new taxation.  I'll suggest, though, that whatever your quarrel with the current political leadership, this vote should transcend that.  It's important that everyone treat this vote as being about the Arkansas River, not the personalities surrounding it.  I think you're absolutely exaggerating the risk of failure in this project.  The broad outline seems very sound and is in keeping with the INCOG Master Plan.  I have a feeling that if it were any more detailed, you would take the time to find fault with all those details.  

Can't tell you about sewer fields.  I can tell you that if you've ever actually used the trails on the West Bank, you wished there were more connections to the East Bank in order to loop around more easily and create connections.  It's one thing to look at a map and not be pleased by the lack of orderly, SimCity style planning.  It's another thing to jog the trail and realize that you're not drowning in stench.  Seriously, it's a nonissue.  

Also, you answered your own question regarding new parks with your quibble about gathering spaces.  We're talking about new public areas.  If you want to say it's still Riverparks and so there's nothing new, fine.  Stick with your semantics.  I'll stick with the fact that it would be a massive injection of capital into the centerpiece of Tulsa's park system.  You can put a question mark behind it but that still doesn't make me see how that's destined to fail.  

I'm not even trying to change your mind, OC.  I read your posts.  I see your biases.  I know where you stand.  This discussion is for the benefit of those who read this forum and get confused by all the political baiting and rhetoric that gets thrown around.  You're going to vote against the plan because you don't trust those who will implement it.  I find this position fallible because while elected officials come and go, the plan itself is sound and the river needs it.  I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

---

No, my opposition is NOT just a "no tax" posturing, and it is not just opposing Taylor and Miller.  To say that is to conveniently ignore most of my post.

Look, I think there are a number of "nice-to-have" items in the plan.  IMO, the river parks need a lot of improvement, but I think you are kidding yourselves to think that this plan, even when combined with the new arena, etc is going to have any substantial impact on the number of advanced degreed individuals who want to stay in or move to Tulsa.  

IMO, the money could be much better spent elsewhere.  

We keep taking these scattershot approaches, developing a tiny bit of coolness here in the Brady District, another tiny bit in the Blue Dome District, another tiny bit in the East End (whoops never mind, that's now going to be the antithesis of cool, Wal-Mart), another tiny bit in Brookside, another tiny bit in Cherry Street, another tiny bit in Jenks. We're trying to develop another "cool" area in the Pearl District.  

And now we want to add another tiny bit on the river banks, including housing, etc etc.  There are only so many people in a city like Tulsa that are interested in that "cool" urban lifestyle. None of these new areas are likely to be able to reach a good solid critical mass necessary to succeed if we don't focus our efforts.

We already have a downtown that is mightily struggling to add some residential base and retail base, and to be a gathering place for Tulsans; and now we are being encouraged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create more non-downtown gathering places and encourage more non-downtown urban retail and urban housing.  Really, a lot of the same issues that I had with the Channels (which was, incidentally, promoted primarily by a man AFIK;  So much for Waterboy's ridiculous accusation of mysogyny)

Can we please focus and get one thing done and done well, before running off to attempt another?


Just a footnote:  If history is any guide, this is clearly to much to hope for... Nevertheless, it sure would be refreshing if people on this forum stopped the constant attacks on motives and personal attacks, and focused instead on the information, facts, and arguments presented.

---

Its not ridiculous. Have you not seen the names they call Taylor and Miller? And don't get me started about "Hillary". They are indeed sexist, demeaning and personal. There is still an undercurrent in Oklahoma of macho attitudes that don't respect women in positions of power. If you haven't participated, well good for you and my apologies but that's the crowd your remarks identify you with.

The Channels btw was heavily supported by Miller.

I don't have any respect for women that portray themselves as strong accountable leaders and then play the victim, pass the buck, and point fingers instead of, excuse the expression, manning up to their mistakes. I question the integrity of any self respecting feminist that would co-sign that B.S. and squeal misogyny, quite frankly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

I don't have any respect for women that portray themselves as strong accountable leaders and then play the victim, pass the buck, and point fingers instead of, excuse the expression, manning up to their mistakes. I question the integrity of any self respecting feminist that would co-sign that B.S. and scream misogyny, quite frankly.

---

You've never had a problem with being frank. Your problem is with spouting off without preparation and relying on name calling. You call her Krazy Kathy and Da Mare both with sexist connotations. Manning up?! Case closed.

You say stuff like she is "portraying" herself as having all those manly characteristics like "strong", "accountability' and "leader"  then accuse her of weakness. Stuff right out of the neo-con playbook written by Gingrich. Weakness? Like proposing the first move of city hall since the 60's. Strength? This is a leader who challenged the county leadership on fairgrounds annexation and won. Accountability? This woman faced the TPD and held off its GOB authority even in the face of personal lawsuits. Did she blame someone else for having chosen the wrong man for Police Chief? Not yet. She's taking the heat.

Do I think she made all the right decisions, no. But you can't say the crap you guys are passing off with a straight face unless, you just don't like strong women. Man, if you're a democratic leader then the party has been corrupted.

No, with Kathy Taylor as a "Democratic" Mayor the party has been corrupted.  Please explain how is Krazy is misogynistic? BTW, what were the sexist connotations when I was calling Lafortune Da Mare. She sure seems to be pointing fingers at Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson, blaming them for the fallout from her mistake. BTW, you forgot Kathy "KKKrony" Taylor and Randi "Brain Candy" Miller, add those to your list.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

No, with Kathy Taylor as a "Democratic" Mayor the party has been corrupted.  Please explain how is Krazy is misogynistic? BTW, what were the sexist connotations when I was calling Lafortune Da Mare. She sure seems to be pointing fingers at Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson, blaming them for the fallout from her mistake. BTW, you forgot Kathy "KKKrony" Taylor and Randi "Brain Candy" Miller, add those to your list.

---

Keep digging that hole. You don't have to have a formal education AA to be informed and enlightened. Just open yourself to the thought that you may be wrong. It will free you from dogma.

Da Mare. A mare is a female horse. Horses are the dumbest animals on earth. They are work animals that are prided for their beauty but not their brains.

Krazy Kathy. Yeah, those dumb blondes that drive like crazy people, say the craziest things and well...do crazy stuff on Girls Gone Wild. Crazy: mentally deranged, impractical, foolish, infatuated, intensely enthusiastic.

KKKrony- Are you implying she's a racist? Have you no shame? Based on what two black counselors say? Turner and Henderson went public immediately because they are politicians that have a very well defined, poorly treated constituency that they go to church with on Sunday and meet with everyday, every hour. They aren't the best that community could put forward. If they were so smart, why didn't they meet with the mayor during this long period of deliberation over a new police chief and make their desires known? Let her know what absolutely would not be tolerated? You know, like work as a team? And then they punish her by coming out against the river project? No, they're too busy doing what you're doing. Inflating their own importance and electability at the expense of the public. How do you like the idea of paying these dull swords $40K a year like Henderson proposes?

Randy "brain candy" Miller- How do you not see the sexist, misogyny in those words? Here's how, you are so wrapped up in establishing your own self importance as the banner carrier for the noble impoverished laborer that you haven't analyzed your own motives and behaviors. I have met and talked with Ms. Miller and I assure you though we disagree on many things, she is no air head. Ambitious, party regular, gregarious, yes. Like any politician she has made some bad decisions but has managed her role better than you could have.

You are a pseudo Democrat. At least some of the others around here make clear their misanthropic views without apology. Some are ardent Republicans who can defend their positions. Some make clear they dislike both parties. I have no argument with their choices though I may argue their solutions. But you chose a weak party (in this city anyway) where you could build yourself up at the expense of others who actually are trying to run the city.

Just stop it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

 We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Where's your marketing research support for your claim that young professionals do not find Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, or Atlanta cool?  The fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the country is Las Vegas, I guess Vegas isn't cool either...

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

 We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

---

Where's your marketing research support for your claim that young professionals do not find Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, or Atlanta cool?  The fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the country is Las Vegas, I guess Vegas isn't cool either...

---

That sounds like some report with a liberal slant. The best/coolest cities are the ones in the SunBelt... Las Vegas and Phoenix are the nations fastest growing cities. Cities in Texas cities are booming, Atlanta is booming as are many cities in FL.... Most People like to live in warm mild and sunny climates while cold & cloudy cities like Portland or Boston are not attracting that many people. JMO, thanx.

Sometimes it seems as though we oversimplify these things a bit. Yes we want young professionals to help our growth. But there are other factors involved. I dont think anyone here wants to be like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Growth and sprawl purely for growth and sprawls sake isnt want I want thats for sure. Sure we want growth and opportunity, but we also want a city that has better lifestyle, higher wages,better health, lower crime. Fastest growing cities dont necessarily equate to "best growing".

What kind of jobs do we want to grow in the city? Low wage low tech, high wage high tech?How can we help good companies get good educated people to move or stay here?

What kind of people, and taxpayers, do we want to attract and keep in the city. Poor and uneducated or wealthy, educated, young people? Its hard to do suburban growth inside Tulsa anymore. Do we want urban poor, or urban wealthy? A cities population can still grow with either group.

Again, what type of growth do we want?

Sometimes we use the catch all phrase "cool cities". I think what those specific cities and other cities have to offer above any obvious cool factor is that there are a lot of other young professionals in the area to socialize with. Young people, especially young single people like being around other young people for obvious reasons lol. And they tend to like an urban lifestyle. Do we have an attractive urban lifestyle to offer?

I mean, if we are going to actively persue any growth strategy at all for our city, what changes we want to make. Shouldnt it have some sort of direction? Shouldnt we have some sort of vision for the kind of city we want? The kind of people, jobs, lifestyle, etc. Or are we just going to let whatever happens, happen? Just "grow"... and thats it?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate_slide_2.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Sometimes it seems as though we oversimplify these things a bit. Yes we want young professionals to help our growth. But there are other factors involved. I dont think anyone here wants to be like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Growth and sprawl purely for growth and sprawls sake isnt want I want thats for sure. Sure we want growth and opportunity, but we also want a city that has better lifestyle, higher wages,better health, lower crime. Fastest growing cities dont necessarily equate to "best growing".

What kind of jobs do we want to grow in the city? Low wage low tech, high wage high tech?How can we help good companies get good educated people to move or stay here?

What kind of people, and taxpayers, do we want to attract and keep in the city. Poor and uneducated or wealthy, educated, young people? Its hard to do suburban growth inside Tulsa anymore. Do we want urban poor, or urban wealthy? A cities population can still grow with either group.

Again, what type of growth do we want?

Sometimes we use the catch all phrase "cool cities". I think what those specific cities and other cities have to offer above any obvious cool factor is that there are a lot of other young professionals in the area to socialize with. Young people, especially young single people like being around other young people for obvious reasons lol. And they tend to like an urban lifestyle. Do we have an attractive urban lifestyle to offer?

I mean, if we are going to actively persue any growth strategy at all for our city, what changes we want to make. Shouldnt it have some sort of direction? Shouldnt we have some sort of vision for the kind of city we want? The kind of people, jobs, lifestyle, etc. Or are we just going to let whatever happens, happen? Just "grow"... and thats it?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate_slide_2.html

---

If social engineering for a particular class of people, especially young professionals, were that simple, everyone one would have done it already.

Like any resource, human or otherwise, there generally is a finite amount to that resource. Young professionals are limted in number - with some cities having a higher percentage and some lower. The reason for the disparities is simple: most young professionals go to or remain in cities where the jobs are (otherwise, they would just be young, lol).

But unlike what most of the leadership in Tulsa preaches, the fact is that most good jobs in an area are created there, not attracted there. Look at any city with a high percentage of young professionals and you will find a city with a majority of white collar companies that are home grown.

Tulsa is a blue collar city. It's largest non-government employer is mostly blue collar (American). Tulsa manufactures tons of equipment for the oil/gas industries, aviation industries, schoolbuses, etc.  

As a blue collar town, virtually the only way it is going to grow jobs for young professionals is for those jobs to be created here. The River Tax will do almost nothing for attracting those kinds of jobs. The competition is just too great. Instead, spending even $25M on things like business incubators, etc. would have a greater lasting impact on the city than the River Tax.

---

Interesting you would cull out government employment. Perhaps because it allows you to make your case. Last census figures I saw showed the two largest employers in the area are government and education. Hardly sounds blue collar to me. And I also remember reading that we have a higher than average education level in this city probably due to those two employers' needs. Lots of stat people around here. Can anyone confirm?

I also would like to know the source for some of your assertions. Like "most of the good jobs in an area are created there, not imported." Cities Service moved thousands of high paying jobs here in the late 60's which had a multiplier effect on our economics. When they left it had the same negative multiplier effect. And they were only one of many such employers to have moved wealth to the city then taken it away.

I don't think your base assumptions can be confirmed but they sound good.

^

H2O... What is your opinion on this recent development.?

---

River dams study challenged


By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
9/10/2007

A federal biologist says the Corps of Engineers' report used a faulty assumption.

The Arkansas River might not bring enough water to Tulsa to support additional low-water dams without harming the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say.

---

The complete Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070910_1_A1_hAfed42015%22)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

^

H2O... What is your opinion on this recent development.?

---

River dams study challenged


By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
9/10/2007

A federal biologist says the Corps of Engineers' report used a faulty assumption.

The Arkansas River might not bring enough water to Tulsa to support additional low-water dams without harming the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say.

---

The complete Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070910_1_A1_hAfed42015%22)

---

My  first opinion is that this may make me late to work!

First observations:

This will do tremendous damage to the plan. Probably kill it. Regardless of its factual basis. He asserts, as a federal biologist (are there other federal biologists who may disagree?)that they made a faulty assumption, the Corps (who also employ biologists and manage with input from lots of directions including the USWF) says no but they will work with them to address their concerns. Doubt the public will get that part.

Does this guy represent the official viewpoint of the USWF? He makes some curious remarks. Here's a thought sir. When the water levels fall so that the Jenks lake may have high levels of treated sewage, OPEN THE GATES! DRAIN THE LAKE. No harm, no foul. Another alternative might be to treat the original problem...UPGRADE, MOVE OR REPAIR THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. Something that should have been planned for years ago.

Then lastly, think of the situation as a pedestrian who's just been hit by a car who left the scene. He's seriously injured and a good samaritan law forces you to help him. The general rule is that you should not put him in a worse condition than he is already in. Otherwise he might sue you. You suspect his neck is broken so you don't move him. Call 911, cover him with a blanket and protect him from further harm.

Well, the river kills fish during drought conditions. Those conditions occur whether low water dams are there or not. At least with the dams you have a chance to regulate, aerate, and manage the process. Without them you don't. The drought the man speaks of in 2006 was not exacerbated by the Zink dam. So we did not put the river in worse condition.

If I were to follow his reasoning, then we need to dismantle the dams, bulldoze the levees, close the storm sewers and let the river go natural again. All of these changes have caused the fish to die or suffer.

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

---

Who are these strong interests? And why aren't they pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vote No campaign?

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

No, with Kathy Taylor as a "Democratic" Mayor the party has been corrupted.  Please explain how is Krazy is misogynistic? BTW, what were the sexist connotations when I was calling Lafortune Da Mare. She sure seems to be pointing fingers at Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson, blaming them for the fallout from her mistake. BTW, you forgot Kathy "KKKrony" Taylor and Randi "Brain Candy" Miller, add those to your list.

---

Keep digging that hole. You don't have to have a formal education AA to be informed and enlightened. Just open yourself to the thought that you may be wrong. It will free you from dogma.

---

Waterboy, be nice.  He's basically Aox on Ritalin. [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

---

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

---

Michael, I think this is the "Pandora's Box" of the river proposal.  I'm very spooked about the articles which surfaced a couple of weeks ago in the World talking about mitigating the smell from the sewer treatment plants.  After commercial development, I believe the tennants and patrons are going to complain about the stench.  I see this as becoming a 30 year bottomless tax package and eventually, Tulsa will have a 10% sales tax rate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

Interesting you would cull out government employment. Perhaps because it allows you to make your case. Last census figures I saw showed the two largest employers in the area are government and education. Hardly sounds blue collar to me.


No, it is just that any city has its core government/education/healthcare employment, regardless of it being a blue collar or white collar city. And since those are a constant across most cities, they can be removed from the argument. They generally don't have a over-riding effect on whether a city is blue or white collar.  


I also would like to know the source for some of your assertions. Like "most of the good jobs in an area are created there, not imported." Cities Service moved thousands of high paying jobs here in the late 60's which had a multiplier effect on our economics. When they left it had the same negative multiplier effect. And they were only one of many such employers to have moved wealth to the city then taken it away.

Sure companies move. But it is usually for reasons other than being attracted to an area. JC Penney and American Airlines moved from New York to Dallas. But it was primarily for financial and logistics reasons, not because Dallas was much more attractive.

I am sure Cities Service wanted to be closer to the rest of the oil industry in Tulsa and have easier access to the airport - and not because Bartlesville was not attractive enough. And those were probably the same reasons why Citgo ended up leaving Tulsa.

Look at this list of the ten largest companies based in Minneapolis/St Paul. It's like a who's who and most of it is home grown.

1. Target
2. UnitedHealth Group
3. Best Buy
4. St Paul Travelers
5. 3M
6. Supervalu
7. US Bancorp
8. Northwest Airlines
9. General Mills
10. Medtronic

even the rest of the list has a lot of well known names: http://www.startribune.com/535/v-special/story/453146.html

Go to any other city with a higher percentage of young professionals and you will find the same thing - large numbers of jobs created locally. Not jobs attracted by some publicly financed feature.

---

These are Tulsa's largest companies:

Semgroup
Oneok
Williams
Quik Trip
Bok Financial
Dollar Thrifty
Samson


And then look at the people who are backing the plan and contributing the donations and it's one and the same.

http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/

George Kaiser Family Foundation
SemGroup, L.P.
H.A. and Mary K. Chapman Charitable Trust
Joe and Kathy Craft
Lobeck Taylor Foundation
Muscogee Creek Nation
Nadel & Gussman, L.L.C.
ONEOK, Inc.
QuikTrip Corporation
Samson Investment Company
John Steele Zink Foundation
Bank of Oklahoma
Nancy E. and Peter C. Meinig
Unit Petroleum
Williams Companies
The Stephen E. and Shelley S. Jackson Family Foundation
Hillcrest Healthcare System/Ardent Health Services
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

Yeah, those MN. companies are doing great. The state of MN. is doing very well too, low unemployment, low crime, low cost of living. The twin cities are booming they have it all except warm weather. I had a chance to take a job offer for a major company in the Twin Cities, but I fliped it down back in 1998. The winters there are like the north pole, windy and blizzards hit in October. The summers are cool and short. They can get snow in June. Winter temps can hit -50 below zero. The record low was -60 below in northern MN. They are not much warmer than Alaska. I can't see how anyone can stand to live there. I was born & raised in metro-Detroit and I thought Detroit was cold. Detroit is like FL. compaired to the cold weather in MN. Anyone who lives in MN has to be able to take severe cold. In January exposed skin can freeze in a few seconds. IMO no amount of money is worth living in that deep freeze.

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cks511

Well, the world just pulled this morning's article quoting state wildlife folks.  hmmmmm, surely it's just a glitch

http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/pagenotfound.htm?aspxerrorpath=/news/article.aspx

---

Nothing's linking from their web page when I was just there.

At least the World is publishing some of the articles which might detract from the votes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

---

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

---

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

---

Not mean spirited, cities are not funded by property taxes except by GO bonds, so the increase in taxes to the plant would be marginal.

A TIFF diverts a portion of the increase in property taxes paid, due to increased value from the expansion in this case.

Property taxes most go to the county and schools, but the county and schools would not lose any money as a TIFF is only on the new property taxes from expansion, they would just not gain from it.

The increase to the plant would be marginal, and the city would gain some needed control over the plant as well. And the river plan could easily be funded by the property taxes on a billion dollar expansion. If fact, if the county did it it could likely pay for the entire river plan, but I don't know that counties can assess a TIFF.

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

---

If river devlopment is so vital, then why didn't they insure it happens by putting their money into the core development that matters (the low water dams and channelizing) instead of gathering areas, etc. That way developing the river begins to occur with or without the general public.

$155M needed for core development
-$117M pledged in private funds
-$  6M from Vision 2025
=$ 32M needed from other sources - possibly Vision 2025 overages or other donations

Only $32M away from guaranteeing the start of river development.

---

Because when you give money it's good to leverage that amount into more so that more good can be done. That's how the charitable matching fund drives work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

---

Who are these strong interests? And why aren't they pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vote No campaign?

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

---

I think your question is tongue in cheek. You know these interests. They go way back to Hewgley and the city commissioners. They are also people who don't want their nearby neighborhoods bothered with tourists and undesirables. They are people who left the city but still work here and purchase here and they don't want to pay for progress here. They don't want change of any type and they don't want any taxes raised.

You explained yourself why they don't mount a huge money intensive vote no campaign. First off they don't have to. Default vote in Tulsa is No. Then, convince me otherwise. All they have to do is yell that the river stinks, the roads are bad and insiders will profit as many times as they can on blogs, forums and in public meetings. Cheap and easy.

I'm not hinting anything. If this fails we will do nothing for roads and infrastructure which includes aging and out of date sewage treatment plants. If any of these people had a better plan, as you have suggested, to improve roads and infrastructure in Tulsa where is it? We lose twice if this fails.

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

QuoteOriginally posted by swake


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

---

---

Plus this is philanthropy, not charity. Although I am not sure what philanthropy with multiple conditions is called.

---

Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy




Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

---

Then let's call it the Kaiser River and be done with it. [8D]

Frequently, the philanthropist is the one who makes the largest donation and without whom the project would fail or have a much harder time being completed (as in Mr. Reynolds large gift to the actual construction of the Reynolds Center). This River Tax situation is the opposite. The taxpayer is paying 70% for the essential core development + additional development. The private donors are paying 30% for non-essential enhancements. However, the private donors had a big say in determining the essential core development + additional development.

Question: Since the largest donation would be coming from the taxpayers; and the project would fail if the taxpayers don't approve it; does that make the taxpayers philanthropists?

Where's our multiple conditions?

---

Taxpayer: $282M
Donations: $117M+
Private development: $500M+ (Branson Landing, etc)
Total:     $899M

Total taxpayer share, around 31%

quote:

---

Originally posted by twizzler

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy




Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

---

Then let's call it the Kaiser River and be done with it. [8D]

Frequently, the philanthropist is the one who makes the largest donation and without whom the project would fail or have a much harder time being completed (as in Mr. Reynolds large gift to the actual construction of the Reynolds Center). This River Tax situation is the opposite. The taxpayer is paying 70% for the essential core development + additional development. The private donors are paying 30% for non-essential enhancements. However, the private donors had a big say in determining the essential core development + additional development.

Question: Since the largest donation would be coming from the taxpayers; and the project would fail if the taxpayers don't approve it; does that make the taxpayers philanthropists?

Where's our multiple conditions?

---

Funny you should mention a name change. OKC changed their river name to the Oklahoma River. If the taxpayers approve this maybe we should copy cat and call ours the Tulsa River.

Reynolds donated towards the construction? You would have had him pay for street widening, curbing, storm sewers, water service and street light improvements. Would he then put his name on those?

Where's our multiple conditions? Have you followed this process? INCOG has been defining those multiple conditions for many years using input from local organizations, associations, nearby cities, fishermen, kayakers, etc. Those conditions are in the form of a master plan that each of these proposals from the Channels to this one have to mesh into.

Taxpayers are not philanthropists in that we don't give willingly.[:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

"What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)"

^
Suppose you could post a copy of the "amended resolution"........?

---

Originally posted by Conan71.
"A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?"

---

^
The answer to this would go quite a ways to define the approximate "time limit" for the proposed tax.

---

The Kaiser River Tax is another BLANK CHECK to the County.

Despite the bandying about of various numbers such as $282 million etc., the ballot simply reads:

It's a County Tax

It's $0.004.

It's for 7 years.

There is no cap.

The Vision 2025 sales tax likewise has no cap.  That is why with ZERO escalation built into Dirty Bob Dick's "conservative" sales tax projections, the sales tax will OVERCOLLECT at the present growth rate at least $200 million.

That's nearly enough to fully fund most of the projects associated with the Our River Yes proposals.

However, they apparently want to use that money for something else......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

---

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

---

I agree with your fine reversal by all means.  The good news is that RPA is putting the funds to very good use.  Thursday's agenda has an action item for contract award for debris removal from the river between 11th and the Creek Turnpike!

I can see as part of this expansion Sinclair taking to becomming a much better corporate citizen to the community.

So many River vote threads, don't know which one to post in, and don't want to create yet another one...

Looks like now, at least the media and QT's spokesman, want us to believe that the QT park improvements are solely reliant on the passage of the river tax.  We'd heard from other posters who allegedly heard that QT plans to go through with this even if the vote fails.

The story tonight:

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=136341

Ok, so if the vote fails, and QT still goes through with this gift, can we hold accountable everyone involved with spreading this false story?

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

---

What fact, has this come directly from the developers?  

I ask, because what I have heard came from a representative who repeatedly stated that they need the City, or someone else, to assemble and clear and land necessary for this development.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

---

I remember them stating that they needed public funding to proceed, likely for the land acquisition, and that if this vote fails, the city will have to come up with other ways to pay for it (TIF, bond, etc)

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

---

Here's another fly in the ointment:  the Tulsa Landing people tell us that "the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition."  But the current proposed river project does not provide for that, at least that's not how they are selling it to us.  The land acquisition money in the river tax is to be used to acquire land that will be re-sold to developers, with the money then going back into the hand of the river authority.  If they need help with either land acquisition or infrastructure, they won't be getting it out of this tax plan... Look for a TIF at the very least in our future if we expect to ever see Tulsa Landing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

---

I remember them stating that they needed public funding to proceed, likely for the land acquisition, and that if this vote fails, the city will have to come up with other ways to pay for it (TIF, bond, etc)

---

It seems you can't buy land for development with a TIFF, you need cash

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

---

The Branson Landing people are going to want to be GIVEN the land, not buy, given. And then a TIFF on top of that for infrastructure. That's why there's no deal signed, the city is hoping a better deal comes along, but if one does not, it is doable, IF the river tax passes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

---

The Branson Landing people are going to want to be GIVEN the land, not buy, given. And then a TIFF on top of that for infrastructure. That's why there's no deal signed, the city is hoping a better deal comes along, but if one does not, it is doable, IF the river tax passes.

---

If that is the case, then if the land acquisition portion of the river tax is implemented as it is being advertised, the river tax will do absolutely nothing for the Tulsa Landing and it will only be doable if we add a TIF AND another source of funding for acquiring the land and GIVING it to them.

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

AA should like this one:

quote:

---

Labor groups endorse river development tax proposal


By Staff Reports
9/26/2007

The Northeastern Oklahoma Central Labor Council and the Oklahoma State Building and Trades Council announced their support for an Arkansas River development proposal in a joint statement issued Tuesday.

The proposal hinges on a 0.4 percent sales tax that Tulsa County voters will consider Oct. 9.

"After long discussions with our members on this issue, we understand that not building on the momentum of Vision 2025 would be unwise," the statement said.

"We, the working men and women of Oklahoma, can see that in supporting river development, we will be not only supporting jobs today but will be supporting the long term growth of Tulsa and all the surrounding communities."

John Gaines, president of the Northeastern Oklahoma Central Labor Council, said the decision came after a long and sometimes difficult meeting.

"It wasn't an easy decision," he said.

"We had both written and verbal communications on the subject. This was one of the longest meetings we've ever had."

In the end, Gaines said, "the vote was not unanimous, but it was close to it."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

---

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

Sounds like another unknown detail.

So basically, Branson Landing wants $52 to $57mm (the figure seems to move around depending on which story you read) in corporate welfare.

If they are planning on a $400mm- plus development, I'd think a company with that kind of stroke wouldn't have a problem paying $50 or so mil for a prime piece of dirt to build that development.

And those of you who are planning to vote yes still don't understand why this package is not ready to go to the voters?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

---

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

---

Yes, the city wants to sell the land, and that would be why there is no agreement with the Branson Landing people. The city wants a better deal for the city than Branson Landing is offering at this time.

I for one would like something better than Branson Landing and something with less public money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

---

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

---

Yes, the city wants to sell the land, and that would be why there is no agreement with the Branson Landing people. The city wants a better deal for the city than Branson Landing is offering at this time.

I for one would like something better than Branson Landing and something with less public money.

---

This is the problem with this whole river tax and the campaign for its passage.  The tax is being promoted on the basis that it will give us river development, when it will in fact do no such thing.  The Jenks riverfront is developing quite nicely, and, according to the developers, will continue to do so without the river tax.

As to the Tulsa Landing development, they are seemingly purposefully allowing people to believe that the land acquisition is the Tulsa Landing property and that it will therefore lead inexorably to the development of Tulsa Landing.  But if you read the "fine print" the property to be purchased is totally undetermined, AND if we read more fine print along with the comments of the Tulsa Landing developers, we learn that even if they do purchase the Tulsa Landing property with this money, more public money will be required before we ever see the Tulsa Landing development.

This, more than anything, is why I will be voting no on October 9.  For a proposal being marketed as river development, it does strikingly little to actually develop any riverfront.  It will leave us with some prettier river banks and some water in the river south of 31st street (possibly causing environmental harm) and wondering why there is no development along the Tulsa portion of the river.

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

---

After speaking with people who should know the right answers, I don't believe there's been enough conclusions on the micro-planning to date to be able to present something which sounds more like a bill of materials rather than a bill of goods.

I understand the point of not wanting to be painted into a corner on a vote then having to change significant details, but I don't believe that's what the problem is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

---

Nice.  Thanks for your contribution to civil discussion.  Why is it that one cannot have presentation of differing viewpoints on this board without it immediately turning into personal attacks, attacks on motives and other bilge?

Now, to address your "point."  If you'll read my post again, I'm not really talking about micro-planning level of detail.  

I'm talking about the fundamental dishonesty of the whole enterprise.  It's really quite simple.

They are marketing the entire plan as one of river development.  The ONLY thing in the plan that is even remotely directly related to river development is the property acquisition money.  However, that money is to be used to assemble property and then sell it to a developer.  The developer we have in mind has told us that he needs to have the property given to him.  Voila!  No river development in Tulsa from this tax.  Furthermore, as anyone can see, river development is proceeding quite nicely in Jenks without this tax.

I am in favor of development along the river.  This proposal does not accomplish anything in that regard.

Sorry, OC, if I wasn't civil enough for you.  I wasn't trying to cast motives, I was just suggesting that I find the lack of hand-tying details  to be an obvious advantage.

Purchasing the land, clearing the land, and presenting it as a single package goes a fair way towards the goal of commercial development on the river.

We know the developers are out there, with their "mixed use," "lifestyle center" plans.  We've seen them building in Dallas and KC, and lately annoucning plans for Edmond and Jenks.  We've also seen that their motives are not altruistic--they go where the land is suitable, convenient and cheap.  Such parcels don't exist on the Tulsa part of the river, currently.  This plan will enable the city to remedy that, without tying its hands with details.  

Conan's point is valid, though--presumably there needs to be someone on the leadership side already in communication with prospective developer(s).  After the East End fiasco, I've learned not to put too much faith in the ability of the city leaders to orchestrate development flawlessly.  Still, in this case, I see less cause for worry, given statements by plan supporters and Tulsa Landing folks regarding the site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Sorry, OC, if I wasn't civil enough for you.  I wasn't trying to cast motives, I was just suggesting that I find the lack of hand-tying details  to be an obvious advantage.

Purchasing the land, clearing the land, and presenting it as a single package goes a fair way towards the goal of commercial development on the river.

We know the developers are out there, with their "mixed use," "lifestyle center" plans.  We've seen them building in Dallas and KC, and lately annoucning plans for Edmond and Jenks.  We've also seen that their motives are not altruistic--they go where the land is suitable, convenient and cheap.  Such parcels don't exist on the Tulsa part of the river, currently.  This plan will enable the city to remedy that, without tying its hands with details.  

Conan's point is valid, though--presumably there needs to be someone on the leadership side already in communication with prospective developer(s).  After the East End fiasco, I've learned not to put too much faith in the ability of the city leaders to orchestrate development flawlessly.  Still, in this case, I see less cause for worry, given statements by plan supporters and Tulsa Landing folks regarding the site.

---

But it's the cheap part that is not making sense.  (and it's exactly the developer's statements that should cause you worry... they have said they will need public funding for site acquisition and infrastructure development, neither of which this plan provides)  

We are being told that the money spent to acquire the land will returned to the pot, so to speak, when the land is sold to a developer.  So there is no "cheap" land being provided to developers in this plan.  Just someone else doing the dirty work of assembling the parcel, with the developer then repaying the city/county for the trouble.  The demand of developers for cheap land is exactly the problem for which this plan has no answer.  

That's why I'm saying after this plan is put in place, we'll all be standing around wondering "where are the Tulsa river developments?"  (unless of course our city hall steamrolls ahead with further tax-funded incentives for development)

  Here is yet another classic example of things not being as they seem in this plan............

"Private monies will be used by the donors to open City Park Swimming pools and fix up existing City Park Recreation Centers...."

 They say "this portion of the plan was not revealed as it had nothing to do with River Development.."

Very true..... But it may fool some into thinking that they will continue doing this even after the Tax passes........

(on a side note:) Heller Park... Home to Heller Theater.. Is a Park/Theater without a home.... The building in it's current condition will be condemned...
The hope of the Parks Department is that someway..?  somehow...? they will find the money to build a new facility at Johnson Park (61st Street and Riverside)

I just wonder where they think that little bit of Good Fortune is going to come from...???


This portion of the philanthropic gifts would appear to be something of a "Conflict of Interest".... For the CEO of the City.. that is...

Just might make a Campaign promise of "water in every public pool" a reality...

Kathy really did not say how she was going to do a lot of things in her agenda... did she?

The Article

---

Private pledge to river includes money for parks, pools in low-income areas


$5 million in private funds will be used for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.


By World Staff
9/26/2007  2:16 PM
Last Modified: 9/26/2007  3:12 PM


Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday the $117 million in private funds pledged for the Arkansas River development plan includes $5 million for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.

"That will allow us to do some things the city of Tulsa could not have done," Taylor said during the opening of the north Tulsa Our River Yes campaign office.

Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, said providing $5 million for parks and pools has always been the intent of the private donors but hasn't been discussed much because it isn't directly related to the river.

"The intention is to work with the parks department and mayor's office to find the best way to utilize those funds," Levit said.

River development is not JUST private development in that area around 21st. There are areas in Sand Springs for private development as well. But regardless, the largest part of this plan is for public river development, dams, parks, shoreline improvements and clean up, living river area, etc. Which are not currently happening in Jenks.

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulsa4Life

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

---

With all that help, why is the bond indebtedness being paid off on the Aquarium with this river tax? If the Aquarium needs help, Jenks should be shouldering that burden instead of conning the rest of the County pick up the tab and build them a low water dam. The multitudes of unanswered questions in this tax package shouldn't matter because it's your opinion we have the right people in place? Good luck with that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

  Here is yet another classic example of things not being as they seem in this plan............

"Private monies will be used by the donors to open City Park Swimming pools and fix up existing City Park Recreation Centers...."

 They say "this portion of the plan was not revealed as it had nothing to do with River Development.."

Very true..... But it may fool some into thinking that they will continue doing this even after the Tax passes........

(on a side note:) Heller Park... Home to Heller Theater.. Is a Park/Theater without a home.... The building in it's current condition will be condemned...
The hope of the Parks Department is that someway..?  somehow...? they will find the money to build a new facility at Johnson Park (61st Street and Riverside)

I just wonder where they think that little bit of Good Fortune is going to come from...???


This portion of the philanthropic gifts would appear to be something of a "Conflict of Interest".... For the CEO of the City.. that is...

Just might make a Campaign promise of "water in every public pool" a reality...

Kathy really did not say how she was going to do a lot of things in her agenda... did she?

The Article

---

Private pledge to river includes money for parks, pools in low-income areas


$5 million in private funds will be used for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.


By World Staff
9/26/2007  2:16 PM
Last Modified: 9/26/2007  3:12 PM


Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday the $117 million in private funds pledged for the Arkansas River development plan includes $5 million for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.

"That will allow us to do some things the city of Tulsa could not have done," Taylor said during the opening of the north Tulsa Our River Yes campaign office.

Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, said providing $5 million for parks and pools has always been the intent of the private donors but hasn't been discussed much because it isn't directly related to the river.

"The intention is to work with the parks department and mayor's office to find the best way to utilize those funds," Levit said.

---

Just because Kathy Taylor got elected by buying votes in North Tulsa, she thinks she can buy votes on the Northside for the river tax. Vastly different dynamics exist today. The broken promises of candidate Kathy Taylor permeate North Tulsa in a thick fog, like a stagnant smog cloud on an ozone alert day, but North Tulsa should trust her to keep her word on this? Kathy Taylor's credibility gap is bigger than her bank account. Make life bitter.

Man, they're getting desperate now, aren't they?

Oh, by the way, it also fills the pools...sure.

This River Tax has already become "the first step in a road improvement program".

By next week, it's going to reduce your utility bills and mow your lawn.

So, if I understand this latest development correctly:

If the tax passes, we were to get an additional $117M added to the river package in private donations.  Now, we will get $112M added, plus $5M for parks and pools in North Tulsa.  

Am I allowed to ask what parks and pools in North Tulsa have to do with river development?

And isn't that just blatantly buying votes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Man, they're getting desperate now, aren't they?

Oh, by the way, it also fills the pools...sure.

This River Tax has already become "the first step in a road improvement program".

By next week, it's going to reduce your utility bills and mow your lawn.

---

Gold coins and naked ladies will rain down from the sky, too...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54409

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

So, if I understand this latest development correctly:

If the tax passes, we were to get an additional $117M added to the river package in private donations.  Now, we will get $112M added, plus $5M for parks and pools in North Tulsa.  

Am I allowed to ask what parks and pools in North Tulsa have to do with river development?

And isn't that just blatantly buying votes?

---

When the Creeks don't pony up the 5 million that has been pledged, the pool money will be used elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

Man, they're getting desperate now, aren't they?

Oh, by the way, it also fills the pools...sure.

This River Tax has already become "the first step in a road improvement program".

By next week, it's going to reduce your utility bills and mow your lawn.

---

Gold coins and naked ladies will rain down from the sky, too...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54409

---

Will virgins be made available?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulsa4Life

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

---

With all that help, why is the bond indebtedness being paid off on the Aquarium with this river tax? If the Aquarium needs help, Jenks should be shouldering that burden instead of conning the rest of the County pick up the tab and build them a low water dam. The multitudes of unanswered questions in this tax package shouldn't matter because it's your opinion we have the right people in place? Good luck with that.

---

Whoa.  Hold the phone a minute!  I thought there was a provision in V-2025 funding which was supposed to help the aquarium pay off it's bond indebtedness.  Don't tell me this is another bait & switch from V-2025, or did I misunderstand your statement?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulsa4Life


The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

---

I was involved with the aquarium the first year it was open. They went to Jenks because Jenks gave them 65 acres. Tulsa was only offering somewhere around 4. Riverwalk was a similar situation. Tulsa has to spend money to amass the land before an aquarium or a riverwalk can be built. Keep in mind the Aquarium is a non-profit, and pays little in taxes anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

So, if I understand this latest development correctly:

If the tax passes, we were to get an additional $117M added to the river package in private donations.  Now, we will get $112M added, plus $5M for parks and pools in North Tulsa.  

Am I allowed to ask what parks and pools in North Tulsa have to do with river development?

And isn't that just blatantly buying votes?

---

When the Creeks don't pony up the 5 million that has been pledged, the pool money will be used elsewhere.

---

As stated by Mr. Levit at a recent debate with Mr. Bates, the total pledge amounts announced (currently $117 million) is guaranteed by the donor group.  Speciffically, should the $5 million Creek Nation pledge not be approved the remaining donors will make up those missing funds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulsa4Life

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

---

With all that help, why is the bond indebtedness being paid off on the Aquarium with this river tax? If the Aquarium needs help, Jenks should be shouldering that burden instead of conning the rest of the County pick up the tab and build them a low water dam. The multitudes of unanswered questions in this tax package shouldn't matter because it's your opinion we have the right people in place? Good luck with that.

---

There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.

Originally posted by Vision 2025.
There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.

---

Well of course there are no funds in the "River Proposal" for the Aquarium....

It's not a swimming pool in North Tulsa...