I'm in favor of the River Development Plan and will probably vote for the tax because I like the plan and can afford the tax; however, I know that there are many who are dubious and may not vote for the plan because they don't think the County is using tax money wisely. In this regard, while I don't want to tread old ground (see Recycle Michael's Development post and 9 pages of response), I'm not sure that I've seen answers to the following questions, the answers to which may (or may not) address some of the doubt:
(1) If the River Development Plan passes, how will the County allocate funds for land acquisition? Will they be block grants to the Cities, or something else? However the money is allocated, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure transparency and accountability for spending the funds? Will accounts be posted on the Internet?
(2) If the River Tax passes, will any of the Vision 2025 money be used to pay for any of the River Development Plan? If so, under what circumstances, and how will it affect the collection of the new tax? Again, what information will be publicly posted so that citizens know this is going on and (more broadly) to give citizens the assurance that money they approve to be collected as taxes is being used wisely and in the best interests of the County (or City, as the case may be)?
Anyone else have outstanding questions?
I have a couple of questions:
$52 million is slated for land acquisition, land which will subsequently be sold. When it is sold, who will get the resulting money? Will it be funneled back into the newly formed board? The city? The RPA? Will it shorten the length of the tax?
Who will choose among the RFPs? I don't like to sound negative, but what happens if none of the RFPs are satisfactory to the city?
What specifically will be done with respect to Zink lake, and how is that different from other efforts for which we have already approved taxes (as I recall, both Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix had money for Zink lake)?
Online accountability would be fantastic. I'd think that'd at least put alot of our minds at ease.
Is there too much bureaucracy
for this to happen?
#1. I believe the intent on the land purchase is pretty straight forward. A public authority will be created to implement the projects. As for the land purchases, I would anticipate that the local municipality asking for development lands to be assembled would come to the authority with a proposed purchase for consideration by the Authority that would include identification of the land, potential purchase price, and likely duration that the lands would need to be held before a developing. If approved, the purchase would follow the applicable law for the public purchase of land which is a step by step process.
The site most often discussed is for properties on the West Bank in Tulsa which are primarily for the purchase of the Concrete Plant (and not the Westport Apartments) so that these lands could be assembled with other already public land in the area (public works and the existing west bank festival area) and be advertised for redevelopment by an RFP (request for proposals) by the Authority with a review process where the best for the area would win. Parts of such an RFP typically include the amount of and purchase date of the property or lease payback to the public and an evaluation of which developer is proposing the most quality bang for the community's buck.
#2. If the River proposal passes, all of the Vision 2025 monies programmed for the River will be utilized. These funds are included in the overall estimates for the projects.
Despite what some say, Tulsa County goes farther than any other governmental agency that I know of in providing transparency on sales tax projects. Vision 2025 has an independent Sales Tax Overview Committee who is provided timely detailed reports identifying all expenditures and the revenue received. They convene regularly in public meetings to discuss, ask questions, visit projects, and receive special presentations such as for bond funding reports and they in turn deliver timely reports and requests for additional information to the County Commissioners each and every month. At this recent months Vision STOC meeting, members asked if the County would have a River STOC and encouraged the officials to create one. The most important thing to note about the STOC is that the individuals who volunteer their time take the assignment very seriously and are quite diligent.
Projects for Vision are reported on the web and the detailed monthly reports are provided to all project sponsors and are on file at the Central Library and each year a newsletter style report is delivered by direct mail and multiple distribution points to the voters of Tulsa County. In addition, information concerning Vision 2025 and 4 to Fix the County is readily available at a large Tulsa State Fair booth staffed by individuals (largely volunteers) who are knowledgeable of the projects to take questions.
The example is set and I believe will be expanded upon with even more Web reporting of the River proposal projects and perhaps periodic public project briefings, something we have recently identified and are considering for Vision 2025.
Then there is the media who is constant in their looking at Vision 2025 and I can only believe they will be at least equally diligent in looking to the River.
$52 million is slated for land acquisition, land which will subsequently be sold. When it is sold, who will get the resulting money? Will it be funneled back into the newly formed board? The city? The RPA? Will it shorten the length of the tax?
Who will choose among the RFPs? I don't like to sound negative, but what happens if none of the RFPs are satisfactory to the city?
What specifically will be done with respect to Zink lake, and how is that different from other efforts for which we have already approved taxes (as I recall, both Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix had money for Zink lake)?
[/quote]Funds raised from the sale of land acquired by the trust would have to be returned to the trust for use. I assume the same would be true for funds from land owned by a City that was included in a development RFQ in that the city would benefit. The reuse of funds is a good tool for many possibilities including additional development, possibly reducing the tax duration and or for future operation and maintenance needs that the trust would address but since these dollars are not know since the land has not been acquired and the RFQ development process has not yet happened I do not believe that they are specifically counted upon in the short term to make the base project budgets viable.
The depth of Zink Lake will be increased approximately 2 feet by the installation of what is called "flash boards" which are a short gate placed all across the dam and when combined with funds from Vision and 4 to fix2 to address the silt problem by installing additional gates and modifying the overflow portions of the structure so that a dangerous undertow is NOT created this will significantly improve the lake making it both safer and more useable for water sports such as the downstream white water venue which conceptually will pass through a portion of the dam.
Thanks vision man...it is great to have you as part of this forum.
I do like the new improvements planned for Zink Lake.
Deeper water will be better for the fish and the improved gates will actually add oxygen to the water and improve all the aquatic life in the river.
I also like the Zink dam improvements, specifically the one that would allow pass through for small craft and the elimination of undertow.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
The example is set and I believe will be expanded upon with even more Web reporting of the River proposal projects and perhaps periodic public project briefings, something we have recently identified and are considering for Vision 2025.
Kirby, this would go a long way in bringing a lot more people into the fold and gaining public trust. If they don't see a lot of communication, to them it's the government or a trust not being fully transparent. I hate to use something which has rapidly become cliche' in describing gov't these days, but that is the image it brings.
Personally, I'm surprised that with David Arnett as your pubic info guy that the V-2025 web site isn't updated more frequently and seems to be lacking in details.
Not busting your chops, just making some suggestions which might make Tulsans feel a little better about where tax money is going.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
Despite what some say, Tulsa County goes farther than any other governmental agency that I know of in providing transparency on sales tax projects. Vision 2025 has an independent Sales Tax Overview Committee who is provided timely detailed reports identifying all expenditures and the revenue received....
Projects for Vision are reported on the web and the detailed monthly reports are provided to all project sponsors and are on file at the Central Library and each year a newsletter style report is delivered by direct mail and multiple distribution points to the voters of Tulsa County.
The monthly Vision 2025 reports are quite thorough and fairly straightforward. Do you think they could be posted on the vision2025.info site?
Anyone looking for them at Central Library should be aware that there are now five binders containing the reports, but (as of a couple of weeks ago) only two are on the local government shelf. The most recent three are in the reference workroom, and you have to ask at the 4th Floor reference desk to see them.
One thing the reports don't contain is the financial plan to which John Piercey, financial contractor on Tulsa County bond issues, has referred in recent public statements.
This plan would include sales tax revenue projections and expected expenditures -- debt service, pay-as-you-go projects (e.g. Oklahoma Aquarium), projects that have yet to be funded (e.g. American Indian Cultural Center), and anticipated administrative fees (e.g., payments to PMg and attorneys).
In other words -- how much money you have on hand, what you expect to come in, and what you're already committed to spend it on, as well as when you expect the money to come in and when you expect to spend it.
Piercey's revenue projections from August 16, 2006, were included in a spreadsheet in the end-of-June Vision 2025 report that PMg prepared. Piercey's projections plus actual receipts through June 2006 come to a grand total of $750,274,016.33. What the Vision 2025 monthly report lacked, something Piercey's plan apparently has, are the details of bond repayment schedules and other anticipated expenses.
I asked Kirby Crowe by phone if he had a copy of this plan. I'm not sure if I made my meaning clear, but I came away from the conversation with the impression that he did not have a copy of Piercey's financial plan.
I called Jim Smith, the County's fiscal officer, and asked if he had a copy of the financial plan. I thought he might, since his name is on the monthly memo in the Vision 2025 report listing tax receipts, the monthly wire transfer from the sales tax fund to the trustee, and the interest earnings on the sales tax trust account.
Smith said he didn't have the financial plan, but suggested I call John Piercey. Mr. Smith could tell me what the payment to the trustee would be for the next six months, at which point it would be recalculated, but couldn't tell me anything more about future expenses.
I called Capital West, and they gave me John Piercey's number. I called John, and he was very gracious. He said he'd e-mail it to me that evening or the following morning. He said something about recalculating based on more recent tax receipts. I'd really be happy seeing the most recent version, whatever he's been using as the basis for his statements about Vision 2025 surpluses.
That was a week ago Monday, the 20th. I gave him a reminder call on the 28th -- got his voicemail and left a message. Haven't heard back yet. I'm sure he's quite busy.
Can anyone suggest somewhere else I could find this information?
Just keep digging, you'll find where the skeletons are buried.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Just keep digging, you'll find where the skeletons are buried.
Man, that's just not helpful.
I was watching the excellent investigative report on the Bells debacle again from KOTV.
At the end Terry Hood reported that Tulsa County said that the fact that Bells wasn't already back in business is proof that their business plan wasn't viable.
Ok then. If you use that rationale it follows that the same argument be can be made about the River Development.
Is the fact that there has yet been no development on the river proof that River Development is not viable? My contention is that if it was truly viable, private people would have snapped it up years ago. Please Prove me wrong.
Are people wanting to develop the river for some romantic reason that has no beneficial use or limited attraction?
What about the politicians? What are their reasons? Are they motivated by their constituency, or is it all about the kickbacks, and siphoning more money from my wallet for the benefit of people who don't need any more money?
http://boundrationality.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-is-bad-year-for-famous-amusment.html#links (//%22Read%20This%20about%20Coney%20Island%20Development%22)
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$[}:)]
Watch for the big Citizens for Tulsa vote yes propaganda media blitzkrieg to invade airwaves this weekend. Local radio stations are already running commercials for the Chamber Youth Reich the River concert on the 13th. TYPros uber alles! (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/their_river_no.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$
[}:)]
You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.
let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.
So it begins: Dear Friend,
Please join me next Wednesday, September 5th at 5:30 p.m. as we kickoff the opening of the river vote campaign office!
Tulsa County Commission Chair Randi Miller and I will present information on how you can help get out the vote and distribute yard signs.
The kickoff will be held at campaign headquarters, 2121 S. Columbia in the Parkland Plaza building, west of Borders (map).
Be sure to visit www.OurRiverYes.com for details about the campaign, or call 749-RIVER.
Its Our River and Our Future. Vote YES October 9th!
Kathy Taylor
Mayor
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
So it begins: Dear Friend,
Please join me next Wednesday, September 5th at 5:30 p.m. as we kickoff the opening of the river vote campaign office!
Tulsa County Commission Chair Randi Miller and I will present information on how you can help get out the vote and distribute yard signs.
The kickoff will be held at campaign headquarters, 2121 S. Columbia in the Parkland Plaza building, west of Borders (map).
Be sure to visit www.OurRiverYes.com for details about the campaign, or call 749-RIVER.
Its Our River and Our Future. Vote YES October 9th!
Kathy Taylor
Mayor
2121 S. Columbia?
Say, isn't that the building owned by 21st Properties? Isn't 21st Properties the Schusterman Financial Interests?
Isn't this location the same one used repeatedly by the Metro Tulsa Chamber Front organization:
Citizens for Tulsa?/Flacking for
EVERY Sales tax increase and sales tax renewal, flacking for street bond issues, flacking for TPS Bond issues, etc.??
Oh yeah, I'll definitely be THERE. Wouldn't miss it for the WORLD!
There has been plenty of "anti" coverage on TV, newprint and internet. Surely you don't begrudge your opposition the chance to state their case and promote it do you? Are you afraid they may make a better case than you have?
And surprise, one of its supporters lends the use of their building.
I don't care how pretty they make the Artist's renderings of planned development, it's always a good idea to put the "Best Laid Plans" in perspective.
The left photo is where you go to see what National Geographic Explorer Magazine featured a couple of weeks ago (BTW, the Explorer Mag is NOT National Geographic Magazine, should not confuse the two magazines).
The right photo is where you go to get drunk and lose all your money.
These photos were made tonight about a half mile from each other from opposite directions.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/1307749909_a84975aa59.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$
[}:)]
You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.
let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.
Who said anything about illegal profits...
I just think the hurry up and go approach this project has taken... leaves an awful lot to the trust you have in Randi Miller and a purse full of Tax Money.....$
Oh yes... Can you tell me absolutely... according to the ballot you will be using to vote.. exactly what all this money will be spent on.?
Zink lake has always had a predictable problem with sand buildup. What is going to be done this time to prevent this ongoing problem?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$
[}:)]
You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.
let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.
Who said anything about illegal profits...
I just think the hurry up and go approach this project has taken... leaves an awful lot to the trust you have in Randi Miller and a purse full of Tax Money.....$
Oh yes... Can you tell me absolutely... according to the ballot you will be using to vote.. exactly what all this money will be spent on.?
I don't trust Randi at all, she's past time to go.
But, she will be only one vote. The city had it's third vote restored.
quote:
Originally posted by citizen72
Zink lake has always had a predictable problem with sand buildup. What is going to be done this time to prevent this ongoing problem?
There are a couple of things they will be doing to help with the current sand buildup problem.
There is a bit about that in here.
http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/TVA%20Arkansas%20River%20Report%20Revised%205-17-07.pdf
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$
[}:)]
You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.
let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.
Who said anything about illegal profits...
I just think the hurry up and go approach this project has taken... leaves an awful lot to the trust you have in Randi Miller and a purse full of Tax Money.....$
Oh yes... Can you tell me absolutely... according to the ballot you will be using to vote.. exactly what all this money will be spent on.?
I have a Question:
I see
Our River Yes yard signs INSIDE of 12' of the curb.
Are they fair game for public-minded citizens to
vacumn from yards?
Along with
For Sale by Realtor signs inside of 12' of the curb? There's a recent sighting of a stinkweed driving a Keller-Williams vehicle picking up
Vote No signs.
Also,
House Painting by Jose Morales signs?
Let the games begin!
Personally, I'm in favor of letting the bad guys do the petty stuff and staying away from the sign pulling. If you let just the bad guys do it, then you know who you are dealing with.
Otherwise, how do we know who the bad guys are?
Take the high road. I would rather lose with my good conscience than win. But we're going to win too!
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
It's all about.....this$
and a little bit of that$
and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$
[}:)]
You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.
let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.
Who said anything about illegal profits...
I just think the hurry up and go approach this project has taken... leaves an awful lot to the trust you have in Randi Miller and a purse full of Tax Money.....$
Oh yes... Can you tell me absolutely... according to the ballot you will be using to vote.. exactly what all this money will be spent on.?
I don't trust Randi at all, she's past time to go.
But, she will be only one vote. The city had it's third vote restored.
True.. she will only be one vote.
All the representation given Tulsa on the "Arena" didn't get what the original concept looked like... Which... I thought was going to at least look like it was of another hemisphere.. The end result, IMO, will look something like you would find in "Road Warrior"..."Viva Heavy Metal"
I guess my main complaint about all this is that it seems like a TIF being called something else.
Rather than the sales tax and growth moving the River forward.... You will have all the "Leggo" pieces put together at once.
The result would be ,IMHO, like taking the Blue Dome District and landing all of the components at once... Rather than a transformation that has evolved with time... I like what it is becoming...
It is a slow process, granted, however.... To quote someone or another...
"practice makes perfect".
Correction: Da Mare had her third vote restored. I trust her about the same as Rico trusts Randi Miller. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/RIVER-sm.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by citizen72
Zink lake has always had a predictable problem with sand buildup. What is going to be done this time to prevent this ongoing problem?
In accordance with the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, the proposed dams will have a different design that incorporates sand/silt management and passage features plus a significantly safer hydraulic design.
Interestingly, had there be sufficient funds for the construction of Zink Dam it would have included a center set of gates (as proposed by the engineers at the time) that would have greatly helped with sand passage during high flow conditions. Looking at current aerial photos of Zink is evident that this would have worked.
I would like to see the Crow Creek corridor developed from Riverside to Peoria.....And the purchase of the property at the South East corner of 31st and Peoria all the way back to Zink Park......
I agreed burner of bread.
A Crow Creek green corridor would be very nice. I don't know how much the land acqusition would cost nor how long it would take.
I am sure that some of the affected property owners could tie this thing up in court for years, and will, just for the sport of it.
Theres about $15 million worth of homes there and many of them are pretty new construction. Doubt that would fly. Just that one property on the corner is very large, and perhaps a lot could be done there but yes it would make more sense to have the whole area between Peoria and the Park turned into something. I say 31st and Peoria is fine how it is. Midtown's generally better flowing traffic than the rest of town has a lot to do with the numerous major intersections with residential on all sides, no commercial developments clogging up the streets.
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
One of the reasons I will be voting no.....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
Just to be clear, the 41st Street combination vehicular and pedestrian bridge is in the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan and the Major Street and Highway Plan, but NOT in the current tax plan on the table. And as you note, the current tax plan would eliminate a 41st Street combination vehicular and pedestrian bridge for most of our lifetimes. No one would dare plow up the QT "gathering place" to build a four-lane road.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
Just to be clear, the 41st Street combination vehicular and pedestrian bridge is in the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan and the Major Street and Highway Plan, but NOT in the current tax plan on the table. And as you note, the current tax plan would eliminate a 41st Street combination vehicular and pedestrian bridge for most of our lifetimes. No one would dare plow up the QT "gathering place" to build a four-lane road.
I was complaining about that earlier, then someone said the pedestrian bridge and 41st gathering place would be offset to the north so that a 41st bridge could eventually go in.
Anyone have a definitive answer on this question?
I'm hearing only %45 support this gift/tax scenario...and the Whirled will not go to print with the survey for fear the information will snowball into a big defeat....
Back to the drawing board.
A wise sage, and a name dropper to boot, told me the municipalities should have put together seperate bond issues for Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jinx, and Bigsbe.
Next time....unless GK takes his ball and goes home. Nah. He's not like those other dreamers...
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
One of the reasons I will be voting no.....
Not that I am in the know on this, but I have heard that a limited access vehicular bridge is planned at that location. Just because it is not in this package doesn't mean it won't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Think of the benefits of a 41st Street Auto Bridge.
Not in the plan. However, 'gathering places' and a COUNTY pedestrian bridge meant to preclude the possibility.
One of the reasons I will be voting no.....
Not that I am in the know on this, but I have heard that a limited access vehicular bridge is planned at that location. Just because it is not in this package doesn't mean it won't happen.
The way this scam is set up, even if it's in the package, it doesn't mean we'll see the progress as promised, just like V2025.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I agreed burner of bread.
A Crow Creek green corridor would be very nice. I don't know how much the land acqusition would cost nor how long it would take.
I am sure that some of the affected property owners could tie this thing up in court for years, and will, just for the sport of it.
Wow, I think the three of us might actually all agree on this idea.
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Ok. Let's say this beast passes (unlikely, I know). How much is it going to cost to maintain this development?
Is there a long term water management program to address the ever changing nature of the river? What I mean is that rivers assist in erosion. How expensive is it going to be in 25 years to upgrade the facilities?
What about the cost of graffiti, trash removal, public safety and other basic necessities?
Doesn't this plan add to the cost of maintaining our infrastructure? Something we as a city have trouble maintaining already?
More Questions:
How much has been spent on the Pedestrian Bridge since 1976?
Didn't we just get a big donation from one of our generous citizens to fix up the river parks area - for something the city couldn't afford to do?
Don't forget to vote, whichever way you are leaning.
Does this vote require a majority or a super majority to pass?
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does this vote require a majority or a super majority to pass?
Majority
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
Does this vote require a majority or a super majority to pass?
Majority
Thanks
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
However The Plan does fund "development" - the "growth" part is debateable, and unmeasurable.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.
And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.
And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.
Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County? Roads definitely impact property values. They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here. We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.
A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.
And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.
Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County? Roads definitely impact property values. They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here. We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.
A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.
A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.
And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.
Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.
To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.
And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.
I saw a news report on KJRH last evening which closed with the statement, "if passed, work may be able to begin in a matter of a couple of weeks".
While on the face, this is a true statement, the work which can begin that quickly is related to the banks and the donated monies, not the river work itself, which would remain at least a year, perhaps two away due to Corps authorizations, etc.
That lead me to wonder if the County actually intended to bond these projects at all, opting instead to fund all projects out of cash flow.
It appears the tax would be collected for that one or two year period prior to anything requiring that funding being able to be done.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.
And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.
Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County? Roads definitely impact property values. They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here. We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.
A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.
A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.
And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.
Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.
To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.
And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.
We should be spending our money on something businesses and working people can use. Those things happen to be roads. Businesses use roads. Working people use roads.
Wealth is built by working.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.
And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.
Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County? Roads definitely impact property values. They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here. We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.
A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.
A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.
And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.
Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.
To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.
And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.
We should be spending our money on something businesses and working people can use. Those things happen to be roads. Businesses use roads. Working people use roads.
Wealth is built by working.
Businesses and the working man can't use our roads? Why not, is it illegal? Seriously, a large part of our poor ranking on roads is our miserable highways. And those are not funded or maintained by the city.
A number of city streets need help, no doubt, but better maintained, even better improved streets have nothing to do with growth. (Neither do sales taxes by the way). I just drove through South and North Dakota and all the roads were all absolutely perfect, the concrete was like glass and there was no traffic. Neither state has added any population in a half century. I also spent some time in the Dallas area, and while their roads were in good shape, they are simply and completely non-functional and worthless. And Dallas is one of the fastest growing metros in the nation.
Please, come up with a relevant argument, something better than "Working people use roads".
Tell me, if Taylor proposed a new property tax for roads, are in favor or against?
Really I'm not on here to fight.
I would be in favor of an extra tax for roads and infrastructure. I would even be in favor of a tax that helped us attract businesses, that didn't focus on entertainment or liesure activities.
Great cities have built the infrastructure. We are at a disadvantage at attracting businesses because we don't have the infrastructure.
That is one of the reasons for the controversial toll bridge. The residents don't want it, but face it a bridge over there is critical. And it's not just the big roads, it's the small roads.
I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.
When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low. It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.
But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria. No trucks, No commerce.
That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.
I would venture to guess that business executives trying to determine where they want to put their company prioritize their wants and needs based upon what is in the best interest of the Shareholder. Putting a company in a place that has a cool river is not going to impact their bottom line.
Executives that are interested in improving their market share are going to worry about the cost of doing business. Infrastructure impacts the cost of doing business. If we wait until a business expresses a desire to move here to start doing the real development work, it will never happen.
I wouldn't invest in a company that did anything less, would you?
If you were making a business decision for a Fortune 500 company, what would be your considerations? Would they be romantic ones or based on business principles and shareholder value?
We can't afford to be romantic. We have to be realistic. People are only going to come to Oklahoma because it is a good business decision. Its all about the PROFIT and shareholder equity.
No self respecting East Coast or West Coast or Middle Coast business person would venture here because we have a bridge over a smelly river. c'mon.
It's not that simple at all.
If cost were the only factor, we would be the fastest growing city in the nation. The advantage we have in our cost of doing business is hurt by the difficulty of attracting workers, especially people in high demand positions. This plan directly addresses that by making a huge improvement to the Tulsa metro's attractiveness, amenities and quality of life. Because it's these factors where Tulsa is left lacking when compared to fast growing cities, not roads.
And you can complain about roads all you want, but do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do. That's real infrastructure. It may need better maintenance, but it's actually functionality is second to none. Most of the fastest growing cities have infrastructure that is badly overwhelmed. Atlanta, Dallas, LA, The Bay Area, Austin, Las Vegas, these cities all have something in common, and it's the fact that their roads infrastructure are completely insufficient and overwhelmed.
Try again.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.
When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low. It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.
But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria. No trucks, No commerce.
That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.
And, no, you don't have an example.
Rail bridges aren't city infrastructure. The city doesn't fund them and has no say, the bridge is owned by the rail line.
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
I voted against the library tax and was against the channels.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.
When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low. It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.
But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria. No trucks, No commerce.
That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.
And, no, you don't have an example.
Rail bridges aren't city infrastructure. The city doesn't fund them and has no say, the bridge is owned by the rail line.
Maybe you're right. Nothing we can do here about railroad bridges. I suppose the route down North Peoria is locked out in perpetuity because of that one bridge.
I'd imagine with all the power the railroad company has their phone number is unlisted.
You may proceed with the building the low water dams.
As far as the other big cities being overwhelmed with traffic, maybe I was wrong. Maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that they have businesses and industries that we don't have.
Build your river.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
I voted against the library tax and was against the channels.
You got somethin' against books?
I just got finished reading a very good book by Joe Andoe called Jubilee City. I recommend it if you were born and raised in Tulsa. Joe Andoe is a world famous artist who left Tulsa to seek his fortunes and finally found them. He is an OU Graduate with a MFA. He also happened to go to the same crappy North Side elementary school I went to - Lowell. It's been gone for quite awhile now.
One of the things Mr. Andoe talked about was about when he got to New York City and would talk to all the snobby artists that couldn't make a living because their studio was too small, or the light didn't shine through the window right, or that they hadn't met the right people. It was always something they didn't have, that was keeping them from being famous or appreciated.
Then Joe Andoe said: All I knew how to do was work. I had to paint. I had to make sure that the next painting was better than the last painting. If I focused on all the things I didn't have, I would never get anything done.
I try to take his lesson to heart in my own life. If I focus all my money and energies on something I don't have instead of working with what I do have, I will never accomplish anything.
Development fever can never be sated.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Really I'm not on here to fight.
I would be in favor of an extra tax for roads and infrastructure. I would even be in favor of a tax that helped us attract businesses, that didn't focus on entertainment or liesure activities.
Great cities have built the infrastructure. We are at a disadvantage at attracting businesses because we don't have the infrastructure.
That is one of the reasons for the controversial toll bridge. The residents don't want it, but face it a bridge over there is critical. And it's not just the big roads, it's the small roads.
I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.
When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low. It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.
But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria. No trucks, No commerce.
That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.
I would venture to guess that business executives trying to determine where they want to put their company prioritize their wants and needs based upon what is in the best interest of the Shareholder. Putting a company in a place that has a cool river is not going to impact their bottom line.
Executives that are interested in improving their market share are going to worry about the cost of doing business. Infrastructure impacts the cost of doing business. If we wait until a business expresses a desire to move here to start doing the real development work, it will never happen.
I wouldn't invest in a company that did anything less, would you?
If you were making a business decision for a Fortune 500 company, what would be your considerations? Would they be romantic ones or based on business principles and shareholder value?
We can't afford to be romantic. We have to be realistic. People are only going to come to Oklahoma because it is a good business decision. Its all about the PROFIT and shareholder equity.
No self respecting East Coast or West Coast or Middle Coast business person would venture here because we have a bridge over a smelly river. c'mon.
Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
I voted for all of v2025 but the Boeing bribe. I voted against Tulsa Time or whatever slick name it had.
What's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Really I'm not on here to fight.
I would be in favor of an extra tax for roads and infrastructure. I would even be in favor of a tax that helped us attract businesses, that didn't focus on entertainment or liesure activities.
Great cities have built the infrastructure. We are at a disadvantage at attracting businesses because we don't have the infrastructure.
That is one of the reasons for the controversial toll bridge. The residents don't want it, but face it a bridge over there is critical. And it's not just the big roads, it's the small roads.
I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.
When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low. It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.
But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria. No trucks, No commerce.
That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.
I would venture to guess that business executives trying to determine where they want to put their company prioritize their wants and needs based upon what is in the best interest of the Shareholder. Putting a company in a place that has a cool river is not going to impact their bottom line.
Executives that are interested in improving their market share are going to worry about the cost of doing business. Infrastructure impacts the cost of doing business. If we wait until a business expresses a desire to move here to start doing the real development work, it will never happen.
I wouldn't invest in a company that did anything less, would you?
If you were making a business decision for a Fortune 500 company, what would be your considerations? Would they be romantic ones or based on business principles and shareholder value?
We can't afford to be romantic. We have to be realistic. People are only going to come to Oklahoma because it is a good business decision. Its all about the PROFIT and shareholder equity.
No self respecting East Coast or West Coast or Middle Coast business person would venture here because we have a bridge over a smelly river. c'mon.
Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.
Then would GE be up for a 281 million dollar bribe? Let's just give it to them, if they don't need a river project. I'd vote for that.
Let's just take the money to these guys in sacks. That's not an argument at all.
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
I voted against the library tax and was against the channels.
You got somethin' against books?
I think we have an excellent library system, and I'm not against a new central library. However, I was against the location of the proposed new central library. It was completely disconnected from the locations where we are seeing growth inside the IDL and disconnected from where the 2025 money is being spent. It also was mostly oriented to just be next to a highway. There also was no plan for the existing central library facility.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?
How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?
I voted for all of v2025 but the Boeing bribe. I voted against Tulsa Time or whatever slick name it had.
What's your point?
Just curious.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements? Everything is negotiable.
Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones. Specicially.
Try to stay on point. Which problem will the river build-out fix? Which one?
Name one that is not speculative.I know what happens when you fix a road.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements and rights of way?
Everything is negotiable.
Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones. Specifically.
Try to stay on point. Which problem will the river build-out fix? Which one?
Name one that is not speculative.I know what happens when you fix a road.
Maybe Tulsa needs to hire some state lobbyists.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements? Everything is negotiable.
Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones. Specicially. Try to stay on point. Which problem will the river build-out fix? Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.
I do to, you have a nice road, and little else.
Can you name a single business that didn't move to Tulsa because of the maintenance condition of streets.
Because, I have worked for and with a number of high-tech companies here, and there are entire departments of those companies that have left Tulsa because of the difficulty in recruiting engineers and the like to move here. I was on a tour of a large industrial facility recently and the HR person giving the tour said that they would love to have more of their IT people here but have a very hard time getting people to move to Tulsa.
But if that isn't tangible enough for you, than there's this: City of Tulsa tax revenue:
Tulsa Landing needs the tax to pass, this is a quote from Rick Huffman, the developer:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
And, here is the impact his Branson Landing development had on tax revenues in Branson
Branson city officials have credited the Landing with producing record-setting tax revenues for the city. The 1.5 percent sales tax revenue increased 7.2 percent over fiscal 2005 from October through September, with tourism tax up 6.3 percent. In September, sales tax revenue jumped almost 36 percent over September 2005.
http://blogs.branson.com/news/2006/11/
When our Tulsa forefathers started building this city, they started with infrastructure.
There is a very good Urban Tulsa Article a couple of weeks ago by Kent Moreland that speaks to this. If you want businesses to thrive downtown, you have to have fiber optics in the buildings buildings. It's sitting underground for Christ's Sake! River schmiver.
Infrastructure! That is what we need to be focusing on. Go read that article. Very instructive.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements? Everything is negotiable.
Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones. Specicially. Try to stay on point. Which problem will the river build-out fix? Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.
I do to, you have a nice road, and little else.
Can you name a single business that didn't move to Tulsa because of the maintenance condition of streets.
Because, I have worked for and with a number of high-tech companies here, and there are entire departments of those companies that have left Tulsa because of the difficulty in recruiting engineers and the like to move here. I was on a tour of a large industrial facility recently and the HR person giving the tour said that they would love to have more of their IT people here but have a very hard time getting people to move to Tulsa.
But if that isn't tangible enough for you, than there's this: City of Tulsa tax revenue:
Tulsa Landing needs the tax to pass, this is a quote from Rick Huffman, the developer:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
And, here is the impact his Branson Landing development had on tax revenues in Branson
Branson city officials have credited the Landing with producing record-setting tax revenues for the city. The 1.5 percent sales tax revenue increased 7.2 percent over fiscal 2005 from October through September, with tourism tax up 6.3 percent. In September, sales tax revenue jumped almost 36 percent over September 2005.
http://blogs.branson.com/news/2006/11/
Why wouldn't the engineers move here? Is it because of the river?
Everything you cited is speculative. Can you put a qualifier on the reason why they wouldn't move here? Honestly It's probably something like "Why would I move to Tulsa, If I can move to Dallas?"
Point me to something that is not hearsay or speculative.
And if you are talking about ONE road, there is little difference one road would make. If you want to fix a hundred roads, that's where you will see a difference. $281 million dollars on roads is a good start. I bet there are a lot of businesses that would like to hear we are putting money into our roads.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
When our Tulsa forefathers started building this city, they started with infrastructure.
There is a very good Urban Tulsa Article a couple of weeks ago by Kent Moreland that speaks to this. If you want businesses to thrive downtown, you have to have fiber optics in the buildings buildings. It's sitting underground for Christ's Sake! River schmiver.
Infrastructure! That is what we need to be focusing on. Go read that article. Very instructive.
I know something about lighting buildings with fiber downtown and he's just plain wrong. the real decision on if a building gets lit is a cost/benefit equation for the telco.
And a big part of the reason for the poor condition of the streets downtown is due to all the fiber that has been run under the streets. I have heard that we actually have some aerial fiber down there that would require a simple drop.
And lest we forget, this is the same Kent Moreland that thought downtown didn't have enough parking.
There is a difference between fundamental infrastructure and quality of life improvements.
The roads are here, they have enough lanes, and they get the traffic where it needs to go. Swake is right about that. The roads in most places do not STOP people from going somewhere. What most people seem to want is the pavement to be smooth. That is a quality of life issue. Most of the people who say "Fix our streets!!" are complaining because of some potholes or crumbling pavement on the street by their house. The roads havent yet become an infrastructure impedement.
Adding a 41st street bridge would be infrastructure. Smoothing out and widening the lanes on Lewis between 31st and 21st would be a quality of life issue. People still drive the road, they just get shunted and tossed around a bit :D
Adding a bridge at 121st and Yale is infrastructure. Repaving Riverside from I-44 to 31st street would be a quality of life issue.
The actual infrastructure issues are what nags me about seeing gone undone. Bridges across the river connect communities and increase productivity of business in general, not to mention the fact that they would open up development frontiers. The south bridge seems to be a foregone conclusion, but Tulsa will still need to widen Riverside (Delaware technically), 121st Street, and Yale down to there if a bridge goes in.
I would gladly FIRST vote for actual infrastructure, THEN vote for amenities. But for the smoothness of our roads, we need some sort of costly catch-the-hell-up along with redoing some of the costly to maintain stuff we currently have. We could easily use a billion dollars for smoothing the roads out. But that is just a quality of life issue.
Another thing. About Branson
Branson is not comparable in any way to Tulsa. It is a tourist attraction and Nothing Else. We don't have 100 shows a night and 50,000 old people spending all the money they have before they die and another 20,000 rednecks using their credit cards. [:)] The jobs they have there are low rent.
The Branson Landing numbers bare no relevance to Tulsa. Tulsa may be more, but that it SPECULATION.
And I'll have to stick up for Kent Moreland. He's a bright guy.
But at least you're dissing him in public.
So if the roads were better would people vote for this?
I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.
I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.
The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.
Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.
Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.
I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it? Same thing with highways?
I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.
The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.
We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.
The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs. They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.
The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.
Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements? Everything is negotiable.
Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones. Specicially. Try to stay on point. Which problem will the river build-out fix? Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.
I do to, you have a nice road, and little else.
Can you name a single business that didn't move to Tulsa because of the maintenance condition of streets.
Because, I have worked for and with a number of high-tech companies here, and there are entire departments of those companies that have left Tulsa because of the difficulty in recruiting engineers and the like to move here. I was on a tour of a large industrial facility recently and the HR person giving the tour said that they would love to have more of their IT people here but have a very hard time getting people to move to Tulsa.
But if that isn't tangible enough for you, than there's this: City of Tulsa tax revenue:
Tulsa Landing needs the tax to pass, this is a quote from Rick Huffman, the developer:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
And, here is the impact his Branson Landing development had on tax revenues in Branson
Branson city officials have credited the Landing with producing record-setting tax revenues for the city. The 1.5 percent sales tax revenue increased 7.2 percent over fiscal 2005 from October through September, with tourism tax up 6.3 percent. In September, sales tax revenue jumped almost 36 percent over September 2005.
http://blogs.branson.com/news/2006/11/
Why wouldn't the engineers move here? Is it because of the river?
Everything you cited is speculative. Can you put a qualifier on the reason why they wouldn't move here? Honestly It's probably something like "Why would I move to Tulsa, If I can move to Dallas?"
Point me to something that is not hearsay or speculative.
And if you are talking about ONE road, there is little difference one road would make. If you want to fix a hundred roads, that's where you will see a difference. $281 million dollars on roads is a good start. I bet there are a lot of businesses that would like to hear we are putting money into our roads.
Name one.
And, anyway, we have an excellent road and highway system, see our commute time. It's just in poor repair. Functionally it's the best there is.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it.
When you take a friend from out of town around Tulsa, do you always make sure to plot a clever route through town so all they see is nice stuff and none of the stuff that looks like Bosnia? :D
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it.
When you take a friend from out of town around Tulsa, do you always make sure to plot a clever route through town so all they see is nice stuff and none of the stuff that looks like Bosnia? :D
I never take them any place I don't normally go. Yet I have been to OKC and shown around there and Dallas and KC and have seen some places and roads that look like C R A P. And of the places I dont go myself, its not because of the roads, its because of whats along side the roads. I do remember this one street in Tucson now that you jog my memory. That had hooorrible roads. It was lined with all kinds of neat art galleries and such and you parked in crappy little gravely, weed infested places. I only remember thinking about how neat the place was. Very "bohemian". The buildings were covered in quirky decorations and colors etc. It was really neat. Nobody cared that the roads were crap. They were all having a good time and living. Us artists can be a strange bunch with odd priorities though. Frankly I would drive over gravel if I were going some place worth going to.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Really I'm not on here to fight.
Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.
Then would GE be up for a 281 million dollar bribe? Let's just give it to them, if they don't need a river project. I'd vote for that.
Let's just take the money to these guys in sacks. That's not an argument at all.
Are you sure you're not here to fight?[:D]
I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.
And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So if the roads were better would people vote for this?
I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.
I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.
The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.
Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.
Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.
I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.
I could do 600mm for roads/infrastructure in conjunction with 280mm for the river.
On the roads. The roads aren't something people
would notice. Its an infrastructure thing. Its' like the base coat on a canvas (I think). If you don't have that, you aint got nuttin.
Bringing friends here is different than bringing potential businesses here. Potential Businesses need to know ON PAPER before they even get here that the city can handle their needs. They're not coming here if you don't meet that threshold requirement. A River walk does not assure them of that.
If I'm an artist, I'm not gonna waste my time in Chandler, Oklahoma showing my work if I know there is no one there that can handle a 1000 bucks for a painting. A starving artists' infrastructure is a market that can keep him/her fed. You go to the place that can handle your business.
But at the same time I ask you, the first thing you notice when you drive into Kansas or Texas?
The beautiful roads.
Do you notice all of the industry in North Texas. In Sherman and Dennison? They don't have a river, but they got business, you can see it everywhere. They have a highly educated workforce. They are doing it without a pretty river. What are they doing to get so many businesses?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Really I'm not on here to fight.
Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.
Then would GE be up for a 281 million dollar bribe? Let's just give it to them, if they don't need a river project. I'd vote for that.
Let's just take the money to these guys in sacks. That's not an argument at all.
Are you sure you're not here to fight?[:D]
I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.
And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.
If companies want to be corrupt and dishonest, I'm not going to live in that world. I have to operate on the assumption that everyone is honest, and business people go to school to be business people, not crooks.
I believe people when they say they make business decisions based on sound business principles.
Call me a fool if you want.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So if the roads were better would people vote for this?
I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.
I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.
The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.
Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.
Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.
I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.
Honestly, Artist, I absolutely agree. Its a good plan with something for everyone. Perfect? No. Too long in coming? Yes. But it will attract business and tourism and improve quality of life.
The anti-forces are choking the life out of this city. I cannot fathom going through this process again and would consider moving should it fail. Tulsa will be doomed to ever deepening mediocrity. If there is one other person besides YT on these forums that says he would vote for a huge road tax issue he is lying.
This isn't infrastructure vs river development. Know this: There will be no movement to fund infrastructure if this project fails. Instead the anti's will whine "we already have the money if we didn't waste so much, spend our taxes on frivolous things" etc. ad nauseum.
Its easy to be against something. That pool of energy is huge and inviting. Its tough to realize that we have to spend money to get growth but that's the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Really I'm not on here to fight.
Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.
Then would GE be up for a 281 million dollar bribe? Let's just give it to them, if they don't need a river project. I'd vote for that.
Let's just take the money to these guys in sacks. That's not an argument at all.
Are you sure you're not here to fight?[:D]
I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.
And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.
If companies want to be corrupt and dishonest, I'm not going to live in that world. I have to operate on the assumption that everyone is honest, and business people go to school to be business people, not crooks.
I believe people when they say they make business decisions based on sound business principles.
Call me a fool if you want.
I won't call you a fool. You're actively trying to find truth. But you're headed down the wrong path. You can fight for truth and justice or you can fight for truth and justice with a sense of pragmatism. In other words assume that businessmen are honest and go to business school to use sound business priciples and practices (I did), but read the fine print and check the ingredients just to be safe.
When I cross the state line to Kansas, the first thing I notice is the smooth road...for about 20 seconds. Then I notice the hard to read black road signs, then the interminable flat, boring never ending landscape that ends somewhere near the Minnesota border. Other than Kansas City I don't see much growth. I don't remember telling folks how smooth the road was, just how boring the drive was. Hey, business is the same way.
The north Texas towns you mention show no signs of having grown because of excellent infrastructure. More likely communities that had nothing to offer but cheap labor, cheap real estate and some large cities nearby.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So if the roads were better would people vote for this?
I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.
I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.
The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.
Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.
Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.
I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.
Honestly, Artist, I absolutely agree. Its a good plan with something for everyone. Perfect? No. Too long in coming? Yes. But it will attract business and tourism and improve quality of life.
The anti-forces are choking the life out of this city. I cannot fathom going through this process again and would consider moving should it fail. Tulsa will be doomed to ever deepening mediocrity. If there is one other person besides YT on these forums that says he would vote for a huge road tax issue he is lying.
This isn't infrastructure vs river development. Know this: There will be no movement to fund infrastructure if this project fails. Instead the anti's will whine "we already have the money if we didn't waste so much, spend our taxes on frivolous things" etc. ad nauseum.
Its easy to be against something. That pool of energy is huge and inviting. Its tough to realize that we have to spend money to get growth but that's the truth.
Well, we all love Tulsa, that we can agree on. We just have differing viewpoints. That doesn't make anyone bad or good. I certainly don't think SWAKE is a moron for disagreeing with me so vehemently. It would be really boring if everyone was a YES man.
Let's be real: The sky is not going to fall if this thing passes, nor will pennies from heaven rain down on Tulsa because we build out the river. Most of this is crap is political. Who can put what on their resume.
There is no need to move. I strive against mediocrity on a daily basis.
Let's work on something that most people can agree with. We can start and re-start a hundred times on something. It happens all the time. If the people think it is beneficial, it will pass.
If the people don't think it will help it wont pass. I'm not going to lose sleep over this thing. I encourage everyone to argue their point.
OK.... H2O.. Name the States that the taxpayers paid for a stroll towards the sewer curing fields....
Dams that keep water in the river...(the same river just with playgrounds and a kayak park...)
It isn't the tax money it is we will have No Guarantee of what it is being spent on...
it isn't the tax money who are these people that told the City what that much money should be spent on...?
it isn't the tax money this proposal involves many communities and many citizens... is it so naive to want public hearings..? not four years ago now..
Lot has changed in four years... even the most current desirable dam that money can buy. [;)]
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Tax_.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/RMiller.jpg)
It is really,.... really.... not about the tax money. It is about Rodeo Drive and my retirement.
[}:)]
The first plans for damming the river surfaced back in the forties? That's nearly 60 years of ..."no, not that plan...no, thats too much....no, wrong people....no, no, no." After awhile you get the idea that the community stopped progressing after WWII. We retired early.
I have invested most of my life in Tulsa. Born here in the fifties, educated here and in Norman, raised my family, bought my homes, started and ended my businesses, and was looking forward to retiring here. I'm a homer. I want OU to win in a couple of weeks but I'll be proud if TU shows up.
During the last decade I decided that my lifelong love of rivers and lakes could be used on the Arkansas River. A river that visitors always seemed surprised was left undone. I know this river about as well as anyone here. Having passed 50yrs old, no employers have expressed interest in my wisdom, preferring the inexpensive outlay for youth. So yes, I have a horse in this race. I want to run a canoe/kayak tour and river taxi business complete with a floating restaurant/bar. Have some fun on the river as well as provide a service. But there have been no promises made for jobs or river taxis to me. Simply a chance to compete should the project pass. Hell, I may be too old to do that by the time a plan is approved and built.
Rico, I don't know what other states' returns have been on large public investments. We seem to have reaped some benefit from v2025 even though it doesn't do what I wanted. My wife points to her home of Minneapolis and how they utilize the Mississipi. Phoenix has made progress. Ft.Worth has an interesting plan. Hell, even OKC's laughable public project is enviable. One of those cities may be my new home. The last kid goes to college in less than 4 yrs.
I know this. There are Randi Miller's, Mayor Taylor's, Bate's and Friendly Bear's in every city. All cities deal with this process. But we can't get past the infighting. Tulsa hasn't changed for the better during my lifetime. Change here is something you give to bums. Failing to pass a 1/2cent tax that is bolstered by private contributions and is the result of a half century of planning is just one more slow step to retirement.
Didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The first plans for damming the river surfaced back in the forties? That's nearly 60 years of ..."no, not that plan...no, thats too much....no, wrong people....no, no, no." After awhile you get the idea that the community stopped progressing after WWII. We retired early.
I have invested most of my life in Tulsa. Born here in the fifties, educated here and in Norman, raised my family, bought my homes, started and ended my businesses, and was looking forward to retiring here. I'm a homer. I want OU to win in a couple of weeks but I'll be proud if TU shows up.
During the last decade I decided that my lifelong love of rivers and lakes could be used on the Arkansas River. A river that visitors always seemed surprised was left undone. I know this river about as well as anyone here. Having passed 50yrs old, no employers have expressed interest in my wisdom, preferring the inexpensive outlay for youth. So yes, I have a horse in this race. I want to run a canoe/kayak tour and river taxi business complete with a floating restaurant/bar. Have some fun on the river as well as provide a service. But there have been no promises made for jobs or river taxis to me. Simply a chance to compete should the project pass. Hell, I may be too old to do that by the time a plan is approved and built.
Rico, I don't know what other states' returns have been on large public investments. We seem to have reaped some benefit from v2025 even though it doesn't do what I wanted. My wife points to her home of Minneapolis and how they utilize the Mississipi. Phoenix has made progress. Ft.Worth has an interesting plan. Hell, even OKC's laughable public project is enviable. One of those cities may be my new home. The last kid goes to college in less than 4 yrs.
I know this. There are Randi Miller's, Mayor Taylor's, Bate's and Friendly Bear's in every city. All cities deal with this process. But we can't get past the infighting. Tulsa hasn't changed for the better during my lifetime. Change here is something you give to bums. Failing to pass a 1/2cent tax that is bolstered by private contributions and is the result of a half century of planning is just one more slow step to retirement.
Didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.
For what its worth, I don't know you, but if this thing passes, I'd go to bat for you and your business. You've been quite active and your insight is valuable.
For your sake, I hope Miller or Taylor don't have friends in the business you want to pursue.
^
Your reply is very much appreciated waterboy.
Had this been done as an "Obligation Bond" or something with some guarantee.... I might feel differently.
I can not get past the fact that all of this was known about by the involved parties long before the public was made aware..
Why so hush... hush.
Had someone put together a panel, comprised of someone such as yourself, RM, and others that have proven to be trustworthy, my vote would be a no brainer..
Politicians (in Tulsa) need to understand they have a severe credibility problem...
Having this dumped on us just does not feel right.
I could care less about the tax increase.
as I have said before.. Plans are like concrete... Very easy to pour and extremely hard to change when they are in place.(i.e. Main Street Downtown)
Cheer up H2O... Kaiser will have to spend the money on something... maybe he will see he was done a disservice by Ms. Miller and Company.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
For what its worth, I don't know you, but if this thing passes, I'd go to bat for you and your business. You've been quite active and your insight is valuable.
For your sake, I hope Miller or Taylor don't have friends in the business you want to pursue.
Thanks for your remarks. They may have friends in low places but more likely the river taxi company in OKC will be contacting them should it pass.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So if the roads were better would people vote for this?
I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.
I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.
The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.
Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.
I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.
Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.
I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.
I could do 600mm for roads/infrastructure in conjunction with 280mm for the river.
On the roads. The roads aren't something people would notice. Its an infrastructure thing. Its' like the base coat on a canvas (I think). If you don't have that, you aint got nuttin.
Bringing friends here is different than bringing potential businesses here. Potential Businesses need to know ON PAPER before they even get here that the city can handle their needs. They're not coming here if you don't meet that threshold requirement. A River walk does not assure them of that.
If I'm an artist, I'm not gonna waste my time in Chandler, Oklahoma showing my work if I know there is no one there that can handle a 1000 bucks for a painting. A starving artists' infrastructure is a market that can keep him/her fed. You go to the place that can handle your business.
But at the same time I ask you, the first thing you notice when you drive into Kansas or Texas?
The beautiful roads.
Do you notice all of the industry in North Texas. In Sherman and Dennison? They don't have a river, but they got business, you can see it everywhere. They have a highly educated workforce. They are doing it without a pretty river. What are they doing to get so many businesses?
Jeff, your whole roads issue is a Red Herring.
North Texas certainly ISN'T doing well because of roads. They have some of the worst roads in the nation. They are terrible, they simply don't function. They may be smooth, but for many hours a day they simply don't work, at all. The roads here work just fine.
And again, find me a single business that didn't locate here because of roads.
You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
^
Your reply is very much appreciated waterboy.
Had this been done as an "Obligation Bond" or something with some guarantee.... I might feel differently.
I can not get past the fact that all of this was known about by the involved parties long before the public was made aware..
Why so hush... hush.
Had someone put together a panel, comprised of someone such as yourself, RM, and others that have proven to be trustworthy, my vote would be a no brainer..
Politicians (in Tulsa) need to understand they have a severe credibility problem...
Having this dumped on us just does not feel right.
I could care less about the tax increase.
as I have said before.. Plans are like concrete... Very easy to pour and extremely hard to change when they are in place.(i.e. Main Street Downtown)
Cheer up H2O... Kaiser will have to spend the money on something... maybe he will see he was done a disservice by Ms. Miller and Company.
There isn't a thing you posted here that I disagree with. In fact have said as much myself in earlier posts. I think one can make an argument against this plan, but they can against any plan. The secrecy thing comes from having a low level of respect for the voters (some of that is earned). However, thus has it ever been so. We keep electing professionals who are somewhat dissociated from their constituents then wonder why they don't keep us involved! Our fault, not theirs.
I prefer to frame this vote as one for a process of development with broad guidelines. Yes, the type of dam is not even specified but you either have faith in engineers or you don't.
Its like a corporation putting out bids for a fleet of cars. They may specify price, mpg, size and purpose but don't care about color, manufacturer or style. They trust their employees to decide on details.
A hard time to put trust in people who have ignored us for the most part, but timing, insight and vision are important. These officials will come and go, the river like you say is more permanent.
We need to get started.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim
That's exactly what a Red Herring is. You are attempting to change the argument from the merits of the plan and to confuse the issue. Your argument that we need to spend more money on roads instead of the river because that's why we can't get business to move here is a red herring. Roads are irrelevant to the river and your premise about the negative the impact of our roads on business is completely and blatantly false.
You can't name one single business that didn't locate in Tulsa because of roads Jeff. Not even one.
The maintenance condition of our roads has exactly zero impact on the local economy. The operational revenue issues that the city of Tulsa faces does, as does our ability to attract new highly skilled residents. This plan does help address both of these issues.
If you want examples, I have them. While I don't care to name companies that I have worked for and with, I do know of positions and departments that have moved in large part due to recruiting to Atlanta, Denver, LA, and Houston, just to name a few. Recruiting and the lack of direct air service are our two big downfalls when it comes to getting companies to locate jobs here from my experience.
I would say that your mention of North Texas is very relevant. That is an area that has abundant recreational and entertainment possibilities that makes it an attractive place for young college educated people to move to, despite the deplorable functional condition of the roadway system.
We are lacking in entertainment and recreational venues and it can be very challenging to recruit people to move here, this plan addresses that. I don't think surface streets have any impact on that at all, in fact, outside of expressways, I don't think the vast majority of our streets are bad at all.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim
Swake is right. The notaxnik road issue is a red herring.
The real argument you should be making should concern whether this plan is worth your $0.002 on every dollar spent. It should concern whether river development is viable and whether the plan makes sense. Shaking the roads stick is a great example of bounded rationality. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
When our Tulsa forefathers started building this city, they started with infrastructure.
There is a very good Urban Tulsa Article a couple of weeks ago by Kent Moreland that speaks to this. If you want businesses to thrive downtown, you have to have fiber optics in the buildings buildings. It's sitting underground for Christ's Sake! River schmiver.
Infrastructure! That is what we need to be focusing on. Go read that article. Very instructive.
I know something about lighting buildings with fiber downtown and he's just plain wrong. the real decision on if a building gets lit is a cost/benefit equation for the telco.
And a big part of the reason for the poor condition of the streets downtown is due to all the fiber that has been run under the streets. I have heard that we actually have some aerial fiber down there that would require a simple drop.
I'm confused. Wasn't Krazy Kathy recently talking about the need to build a fiber optic loop downtown to make downtown more competitive with the 21st century world. If that's already been done, what was she talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
As of 2002, we were second to last in time of commute, in front of Wichita.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm
Didn't bother looking for a more recent one. Maybe something's changed in five years. Doubt it.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
US Census
Here are 2002's numbers, we are actually second after Wichita for that year.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm
As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.
Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
US Census
Here are 2002's numbers, we are actually second after Wichita for that year.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm
As of 2003, we are no. 66 out of 68. FWIW, those are "city" rankings, not "metro" rankings. Furthermore, almost every single city that ranks above Tulsa (meaning a longer average commute) is either a larger city or a component of a much larger metro area. Tulsa's having one of the very shortest commute times in that ranking is simply a function of Tulsa's size (and the lack thereof). News flash: smaller cities have shorter commute times. ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.
Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.
Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:
Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070708_1_A21_hThem73577%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.
Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.
Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:
Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070708_1_A21_hThem73577%22)
Ah, I had not read this but I have heard about it.
This is to install a conduit for fiber to be run in so that streets don't have to ripped apart for fiber to be run. Look at some of the (remaining) downtown streets and you will see lots of strips of non-matching asphalt running across streets. Many, if not most, of those strips were created to run fiber. A pre-placed and public conduit for fiber would keep all those not yet new streets downtown from suffering that fate once they are done. Let's say you have fiber on one side of the street and a building across the street wants to get lit. This will keep you from having to cut a trench in the street to get there.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by naifioni
What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one
I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.
Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?
Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.
However The Plan does fund "development" - the "growth" part is debateable, and unmeasurable.
Just so this doesn't get lost. I didn't bring the roads up. I made a statement which was in context with the response that I replied to. The acutal statement is irrefutable. Roads add value to property. Otherwise, there would be no use for the terms "unimproved" and "improved." It follows then, that a well maintained road adds value to property more than a poorly maintained road.
So if there is a red herring, I didn't introduce it, and it was aggravated by you Swake, when you started drawing minute distinctions in a somewhat minor point to a very broad subject "roads" that I made about someone else's theory.
Great cities from the beginning of time are built on their transportation and infrastructure. There are thousands of years of precedent on that. There is little comparative precendent for betting the farm on liesure pork projects, unless you are talking about Vegas, and Branson. We are neither.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.
What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim? Just curious.
As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.
Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.
Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:
Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070708_1_A21_hThem73577%22)
Ah, I had not read this but I have heard about it.
This is to install a conduit for fiber to be run in so that streets don't have to ripped apart for fiber to be run. Look at some of the (remaining) downtown streets and you will see lots of strips of non-matching asphalt running across streets. Many, if not most, of those strips were created to run fiber. A pre-placed and public conduit for fiber would keep all those not yet new streets downtown from suffering that fate once they are done. Let's say you have fiber on one side of the street and a building across the street wants to get lit. This will keep you from having to cut a trench in the street to get there.
We wouldn't want to rip the streets up.[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Just so this doesn't get lost. I didn't bring the roads up. I made a statement which was in context with the response that I replied to. The acutal statement is irrefutable. Roads add value to property. Otherwise, there would be no use for the terms "unimproved" and "improved." It follows then, that a well maintained road adds value to property more than a poorly maintained road.
No it does not follow, please provide an example of when property values have been impacted by the quality of the maintenance of a road.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
So if there is a red herring, I didn't introduce it, and it was aggravated by you Swake, when you started drawing minute distinctions in a somewhat minor point to a very broad subject "roads" that I made about someone else's theory.
Maybe you need to reread your own blog then
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Great cities from the beginning of time are built on their transportation and infrastructure. There are thousands of years of precedent on that. There is little comparative precendent for betting the farm on liesure pork projects, unless you are talking about Vegas, and Branson. We are neither.
Again, our infrastructure is outstanding. We have an excellent and simple roadway system that moves traffic better than almost any other city in the world. What exactly other than moving people is the purpose of roads? The purpose is not to be smooth, that is simply a desired feature. We do very well in other elements of infrastructure as well: We have good and plentiful water, cheap electricity and natural gas. The majority of the schools and school districts in the area are good. You are complaining about the actual physical maintenance of the roadway system, not the actual build, design or functionality of that roadway system. And the part of that system that is in the worst repair is completely outside of local control or budgeting.
I would also put to you that a big part of the reason for the insufficient maintenance for the part that is under city controlled is due to the lack of real growth in Tulsa in nearly a decade which has led to a tight operational budget, which would be positively impacted by this plan.
I would further put to you that most of the great cities of the world have absolutely miserable roadway systems that are completely overwhelmed. London, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington are all completely gridlocked. A strong case can be made that great cities are due at least in part to the density that is driven by their lack of a functioning road system.
1. When a road is made from a dirt road to a paved road; When a road is widened to handle more traffic; When a bridge is raised so that a truck can go under it. Those all add value. That's how they make suburbs.
2. My blog is independent from this thread.
3. Whether or not we have traffic jams may be somewhat relevant. But you again are changing the point.
The big cities have traffic jams because they have business and population, neither of which we have. But the people in the cities built all the fun and modern stuff after all the people were already there.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
1. When a road is made from a dirt road to a paved road; When a road is widened to handle more traffic; When a bridge is raised so that a truck can go under it. Those all add value. That's how they make suburbs.
2. My blog is independent from this thread.
3. Whether or not we have traffic jams may be somewhat relevant. But you again are changing the point.
The big cities have traffic jams because they have business and population, neither of which we have. But the people in the cities built all the fun and modern stuff after all the people were already there.
No, you are confusing the point because you just don't like my argument and you have no facts to dispute it.
You want to say we need to improve infrastructure. Fine. Where are we lacking?
Tulsa does not have a big backlog of needed improvements on any type of physical infrastructure. It doesn't exist. Are there places we would like to improve roads, certainly, but we have zero large scale traffic problems, what exactly else are you wanting from our roads system that would require large amounts of money? Again, the purpose of a road system is to move people, and ours does an outstanding job.
What we have is a backlog of needed maintenance, but that is a very different beast than some massive list of needed road improvements. We certainly should perform the needed repairs, but, doing these repairs will NOT do anything to improve Tulsa's economy. It will not improve traffic flow or access; it will not improve property values. And again, I would say that outside of our state and federal highway system our repair needs are not dire for the most part either.
I have asked you over and over to provide a single example where our roads, or any other lacking in physical infrastructure have cost the location of a single job, and you have been unable to do so. My own brother left because he thought it was boring here and took his advanced degree with him
I can provide a LONG list of people that left because of that.
I can add to that list quite a few people I know as well. They would have made great taxpayers to help pay for the roads too. When Tulsa was losing population, they werent all moving to the suburbs.
Can someone please clarify if the River Tax includes a ped bridge at 41st?
And by, "includes a ped bridge," I mean an actual bridge - not a study about a bridge, not partial funding for a bridge to await future matching funds - but an actual, real, walkable bridge?
If so - has a decision been made regarding its location, i.e., where will this bridge sit in relation to 41st st. proper?
While I desperately want to vote in favor of the plan, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of obstructing a future vehicular connection to the west bank - a connection already recognized in Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
Interesting bridge examples:
(http://www.walkhere.org/wordpress/wp-content/myfotos/railway-overpass/AcconciBridge_4_AerialView%20copy.jpg)
(http://www.walkhere.org/wordpress/wp-content/myfotos/railway-overpass/Wangfujing_LightBridgePano.jpg)
(http://www.gkdmetalfabrics.com/assets/2004/October/35a.jpg)
(http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/argentina/680120-buenos-aires-pedestrian-bridge-large.jpg)
(http://www.pps.org/graphics/gpp/pedestrian_bridge_london_architecture_fk_03_8_large)
(http://www1.moe.edu.sg/learn@/singaporerivertrail/pri/G218_Loyang_Pri/CavenaghPix1.jpg)
(http://www.austincycling.org/art/aerial_med.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
Can someone please clarify if the River Tax includes a ped bridge at 41st?
And by, "includes a ped bridge," I mean an actual bridge - not a study about a bridge, not partial funding for a bridge to await future matching funds - but an actual, real, walkable bridge?
If so - has a decision been made regarding its location, i.e., where will this bridge sit in relation to 41st st. proper?
While I desperately want to vote in favor of the plan, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of obstructing a future vehicular connection to the west bank - a connection already recognized in Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
Yes the proposal includes an actual pedestrian bridge and sufficient funds to do something special, likely not as special as some of the interesting designs you show given the spans required for our river but definitely much better than a box. I believe the renderings show the actual bridge alignment to be offset to the South from the 41st street alignment.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
I believe the renderings show the actual bridge alignment to be offset to the South from the 41st street alignment.
That would still allow for a future vehicle bridge, I hope...
I read that QT is designing and putting some of their money into 41st St and plan on doing it quickly.
That's another good question--if a pedestrian bridge is done at 41st, will an automobile bridge still be possible in the future? I have heard two answers. One is that it is something that can be done at some point in the future. The other, the redesign of the park/gathering space at 41st will preclude an automobile bridge at anytime, that some didn't want an automobile bridge cutting through the park, and that was the reason it was dropped from the plan. Can anyone shed any light on that?
Hello Pro proponents -this is ANTI typing -- The Arkansas Thru Tulsa is a braided Prairie river -- its not the upper Canadian (in OKC) its not the Mississippi, Missouri etc. It is what it is -- why are we not celebrating what our river is? Why are we trying to make it over into something it is not nor will ever be?
It will be an ecological disaster for our river if current development plans succeed -- its GREAT that in this discourse people are actually talking about our Water Resource through Tulsa - we also have to remember this river is important to ALL OKLAHOMANS and not just the development groups -- please be thorough in you study of the plans for the river, read what has been written about the 230 year History for low head dams, then judge for yourself how you should vote Oct. 9.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Hello Pro proponents -this is ANTI typing -- The Arkansas Thru Tulsa is a braided Prairie river -- its not the upper Canadian (in OKC) its not the Mississippi, Missouri etc. It is what it is -- why are we not celebrating what our river is? Why are we trying to make it over into something it is not nor will ever be?
It will be an ecological disaster for our river if current development plans succeed -- its GREAT that in this discourse people are actually talking about our Water Resource through Tulsa - we also have to remember this river is important to ALL OKLAHOMANS and not just the development groups -- please be thorough in you study of the plans for the river, read what has been written about the 230 year History for low head dams, then judge for yourself how you should vote Oct. 9.
The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built. It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime. No prairie river sees flow daily flow extremes of the magnitude that the Arkansas through Tulsa sees. This is why the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the Arkansas River corridor Master Plan work because they know that by today's standards they screwed up the river environment with the construction of a flood control/power generation/navigation project.
I know the "FACTS"as Vision proponents would LIKE them to be -- kinda like statistics there are statistics then there are damn statistics,
I LISTEN to the SCIENTISTS like US Fish And Wildlife and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife, USACE has screwed up just about every waterway they have ever gotten their hands on -- BILLIONS of US Taxpayer dollars have been spent remediating the ecological damage USACE has done over the years.
With those FACTS who ya gonna TRUST ???
INCOG and the development groups including INCOG, PMg, Kaiser are in bed, USACE is not as impartial as they should be in this proposal, construction keeps the colonel in business.
SO yep that VISION 2025 group --thru "The looking glass" NO is the vote.
What about the Corps of Engineers?
Keep in mind it was "scientists" who signed off on the Channels plan that could've flooded West Tulsa.
--------------
ByVision2025
"The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built. It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime."
--------------------
Please prove your statement that the Arkansas is not a prairie river because the intermittent flow excludes it from that definition. The Arkansas River downstream from Keystone dam, and above it, is a Prairie River Ecosystem. The key word is Ecosystem. Ecosystems are NOT defined by one characteristic, such as intermittent water flow, but are affected by them. Ecosystems are defined by many variables.
The Corps of Engineers never signed off on the Channels plan.
Please Tony...USACE is not as impartial as they should be in this proposal, construction keeps the colonel in business.
Stop making unfounded accusations against federal employees that you have probably never met. You have lost all credibility making statements like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Lorax
--------------
ByVision2025
"The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built. It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime."
--------------------
Please prove your statement that the Arkansas is not a prairie river because the intermittent flow excludes it from that definition. The Arkansas River downstream from Keystone dam, and above it, is a Prairie River Ecosystem. The key word is Ecosystem. Ecosystems are NOT defined by one characteristic, such as intermittent water flow, but are affected by them. Ecosystems are defined by many variables.
The Ecosystem in question is that of a large urbanized city.
Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!
If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.
or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!
If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.
or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.
I do not work for anyone in this game.
But the fish and wildlife people's data is off because the low flow in '06 was not a natural or normal occurrence. The Dam was closed for long stretches for repair work during '06. How "natural" is that? And why are the fish and wildlife people not taking that into account? Were they unaware of that? The Corp certainly is.
Anyone that wants to pretend the river is some wonder of nature can go upstream a few miles to see Keystone... the massive 100 foot tall concrete structure. Or to 31st street and see Zink Lake, the 800 foot wide concrete structure. Both of which significantly alter the natural flow of the river.
Also please note the flood control system in place that alters the flows into the river and the path of the river in high flow. Note the concrete, gravel, and rock walls built to retain the river on its man altered course (river's tend to meander in, out and around their existing banks). Note the bulldozers removing sand from the river bottom. Note the power plants utilizing the water, evaporating large portions, and returning heated water to the flow. Also note the extreme muddiness of the water caused by accelerated erosion upstream.
If it was a natural river, it would have flooded most of West Tulsa and a large portion along Riverside on through Bixby, Jenks, and Broken Arrow during our extremely wet spring/early summer. Last year, during the drought, it would have look as barren as it did when the dam was closed for maintenance. The man made structures temper the flow of the river... reducing both the highest highs and the lowest lows.
I understand the nature of the river as a boom or bust prairie river and appreciate its nuances. However, like most people I too find the prospect of pools of water more appealing than a visible trash laden sand bar interspersed with stagnant cesspool. The notion of having a natural river gently flowing through our fair city expired with the 1920's and was out of memory by the construction of Keystone in the 1960's.
Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Sorry , I WILL stand by that "opinion" just like USACE stands by outmoded flow data to "arrive" at the Q7 stats. flows for the Arkansas. How about a minimum daily flow for the river? That hasn't ever gotten to first base with Dam Operations at Keystone -- Sorry but when USACE shows me they give a hoot about the river I will be happy to change my stance !!!
If you are an employee of USACE and I mashed your toe for that I offer apologies-- doesn't change my opinion of the agency.
or better yet DEMONSTRATE impartiality in these proposals -- US Fish and Wildlife and ODWC have openly presented facts for us all to see -- USACE serves at the pleasure of the US taxpayer, not INCOG, not PMg, not Tulsa county.
7Q2 is not a Corps standard that is THE regulatory standard for all streams in Oklahoma, they do not set it OWRB does. Get real, locally we just came through a worse condition than the dust bowl and there was no reported fish kill on the river here. I know, as I am out on it many times a week for recreation and it did not happen in my stretch of the river.
What facts from ODWC and USFW? Prior to this study there was no compressive environmental inventory of the Arkansas River through Tulsa County and the preliminary data presented from that effort (and the final report is not yet done)is not detremental.
The principal premise for the river plan is "water in the river." NOT to have the big on/off switch that SWAPA controls throws to causes such changes in the river flow. The biologists involved in the Master Plan effort identified that low flow and fish passage are significant issues, no challenges here. Now comes a plan to eliminate the vast majority of low flow events and provides fish passage through any dams constructed that will help with water quality by introducing more oxygen, providing better structure habitat, flow regulation, and oh by the way great recreation and economic development for the community but you sound like doing nothing is better, guess some just find security in a screwed up river. Me I want better!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!
What would it not be pleasant like the Zink lake area? Am I missing something here?
I understand quite well where the standard comes from --
You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design -- which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs? A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.
Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.
Any plans they have to develope the river they need to make sure it passes the "Flood~Test".
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Yeah, screw the fish! Screw the birds! We want a stagnant, polluted, stanky-butt reflecting pool!
As always, you add so much to the conversation
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I understand quite well where the standard comes from --
You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design -- which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs? A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.
Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.
Dude. Easy on the caffeine. You're tilting at windmills.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I understand quite well where the standard comes from --
You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design -- which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs? A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.
Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.
Dude. Easy on the caffeine. You're tilting at windmills.
Agreed.
Tony, try calmer. You might get your point across. My opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Hello Pro proponents -this is ANTI typing -- The Arkansas Thru Tulsa is a braided Prairie river -- its not the upper Canadian (in OKC) its not the Mississippi, Missouri etc. It is what it is -- why are we not celebrating what our river is? Why are we trying to make it over into something it is not nor will ever be?
It will be an ecological disaster for our river if current development plans succeed -- its GREAT that in this discourse people are actually talking about our Water Resource through Tulsa - we also have to remember this river is important to ALL OKLAHOMANS and not just the development groups -- please be thorough in you study of the plans for the river, read what has been written about the 230 year History for low head dams, then judge for yourself how you should vote Oct. 9.
The Arkansas ceased being a prairie river when Keystone was built. It is a hydro power river as evident by the on/off nature of the generation regime. No prairie river sees flow daily flow extremes of the magnitude that the Arkansas through Tulsa sees. This is why the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in the Arkansas River corridor Master Plan work because they know that by today's standards they screwed up the river environment with the construction of a flood control/power generation/navigation project.
Doesn't this mean we will be tinkering with the river for the rest of all time? This is probably a corp of engineer question, to get an accurate answer.
I remember My mom telling me when I was a kid, "Jeff quit playing with that hole in your shirt! you're going to make it bigger"
No I am tilting at INCOG who hides behind we are a friend of the river when they actually are NOT --
Causing a net loss in wildlife is not being a friend to the river -- this is WHY INCOG would not put a biologist on THEIR team -- they already knew what the results would be of a biologists PROFESSIONAL opinion.
Or maybe I am tilting at the wind -- its hard to hit a dodging target !!!!
Now where did I put that cup of coffee[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I understand quite well where the standard comes from --
You have a lot of suppositions YOUR design will help the river -- SHOW me past models where plans like yours worked as designed? This is NEW ground you are trodding on -- but an OLD dam design -- which design is LIMITED by what USACE will permit - so get off your high horse holier than thou CRAP. I RECALL (been around a long time) that the PROMISES of Zink were never met either -- in fact Zink is the big demise of fish populations right now -- YOUR design is a drop gate CONTROLLED FLOW based on FLAWED river flow data. Just the facts -- you build me an uncontrolled rapid dam and I could see a way to side with you -- but that isn't happening, your design is BAD during medium or low flow periods for the fish --BTW what CFS constitues the point where water will top your designs? A series of smaller pools and lower elevation rises would accomplish what you PRETEND to do all without a huge cost tag. We will contunue to differ on the how -- the IDEA of a clean,living corridor is long past due.
Who is the biologist on your planning team ? HMMM the SILENCE is deafening.
Dude. Easy on the caffeine. You're tilting at windmills.
Agreed.
Tony, try calmer. You might get your point across. My opinion.
Exactly. I am about to start hating fish and not giving a dang about them. May purposely push for any dams to not have any consideration for the stupid things. He is starting to sound like the Randi Miller of fish proponents. No matter what he says whether it is true or not, I will go against it because he is so hateful and unyielding. No compromise, no consideration, no reaching out, just harsh words.
Well I am too old to care about being PC -- I calls em as I sees em --- I am not on any team except FOR the river -
What is it you kids say "Bite Me?"[8D]
I don't like compromise that satisfies NO ONE --
I don't get down in the mud to wrestle a pig, the pig likes it and I just get muddy.
Most folks made up their minds about these proposals without really investigating the issues, financial, environmental, and political motivations -- kind like how we vote people in office now -- a new wind comes along and blows the sand and leaves with it. The rocks remain.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Well I am too old to care about being PC -- I calls em as I sees em --- I am not on any team except FOR the river -
What is it you kids say "Bite Me?"[8D]
I don't like compromise that satisfies NO ONE --
I don't get down in the mud to wrestle a pig, the pig likes it and I just get muddy.
Most folks made up their minds about these proposals without really investigating the issues, financial, environmental, and political motivations -- kind like how we vote people in office now -- a new wind comes along and blows the sand and leaves with it. The rocks remain.
I investigated this issue and many before it. This has been going for 40-odd years. I was one of the large chunk of the city's population who grew up not knowing there was a river in Tulsa. Every single analyst, expert, and person who stayed at Holiday Inn Express has said we need to develop the river yesterday.
No plan is going to satisfy everyone, but I'd rather my children grow up enjoying the river than campaigning 30yrs from now to develop it.
If you want to learn more or air some grievances, show up Tuesday Night at OSU-Tulsa for the TulsaNow River Development Tax forum. Both sides will be weighed equally.
The Facts:
The river plan provides for:
1. a new low water dam at SandSprings which is intended to pool water release by Keystone and then regulate the flow to Tulsa and down stream and mitigate the ON/OFF condition we see now when Keystone is generating for peak/off peak electricity usage/ This dam will have a pedestrian feature and a possible kiosk or restaurant.
2. Alterations to the Zink lake dam to minimize silt deposits and make it easier for fish to navigate.
3. A bike trail on top of the existing pedestrian bridge
4. A new pedestrian bridge at 41st St
5. A channel in the river (41st to 71st?)to capture water in one place during drought or low water conditions
6. A low water dam at Jenks south of the Creek Turnpike, also with a walking feature.
7. Land Acquisition: The MidContinent Cement plant west of the river at 21st is one of the parcels of interest. The land would be sold to developers after RFP approval and the money from the sale would be set aside for maintenance.
What we don't pay for: The large gifts from Keiser and QuickTrip and others totaling $117 million. Most of these are conditional on the tax proposal passing. QuickTrip will build their gathering area and interactive kids water feature regardless.
If I missed anything or mis-stated please chime in.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Any plans they have to develope the river they need to make sure it passes the "Flood~Test".
Pretty simple, the plan addresses it something to the effect of '86 event plus one foot for shore side improvements (one foot above the flood of record, calculated at a 300 year or so event) that is subject to damage if flooded and no rise in the river level to pass the event per the City of Tulsa and Jenks strict flood criteria.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Well I am too old to care about being PC -- I calls em as I sees em --- I am not on any team except FOR the river -
What is it you kids say "Bite Me?"[8D]
I don't like compromise that satisfies NO ONE --
I don't get down in the mud to wrestle a pig, the pig likes it and I just get muddy.
Most folks made up their minds about these proposals without really investigating the issues, financial, environmental, and political motivations -- kind like how we vote people in office now -- a new wind comes along and blows the sand and leaves with it. The rocks remain.
I investigated this issue and many before it. This has been going for 40-odd years. I was one of the large chunk of the city's population who grew up not knowing there was a river in Tulsa. Every single analyst, expert, and person who stayed at Holiday Inn Express has said we need to develop the river yesterday.
No plan is going to satisfy everyone, but I'd rather my children grow up enjoying the river than campaigning 30yrs from now to develop it.
If you want to learn more or air some grievances, show up Tuesday Night at OSU-Tulsa for the TulsaNow River Development Tax forum. Both sides will be weighed equally.
The fact that it's been going on for 40 years is a good indication of its viability.
It seems to me that if the city of Tulsa doesn`t improve the quality of life issue in the area, Our roads and infrastructure will diminish anyway. Tulsans are going to have to pass a tax package to repairs streets regardless of the river tax. Just wait, the mayor is set to announce this pretty soon. If we don`t start getting taxes from people visiting our city, we are gonna face the same issues (raising our taxes) every spring and fall. I would like to believe that the overall goal is to draw people into our area that don`t usually visit Tulsa to spend their money here. Give them plenty to do while they`re here and they spend more money, They spend more money, our taxes should go down.Then we should have money to fix and maintain our roads. The benefits of voting YES are long term benfits. We vote no, I just think they re-introduce it another way.
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
Why should we depend on tourists for our well being? There are so many way to go. Tourism is one of them, but not the only one.
Why are we so bent on tourism and recreation to be our savior. The only people that are going to come here for recreation are people from Beggs and Leonard. No, people from Leonard stop in Bixby.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
Why should we depend on tourists for our well being? There are so many way to go. Tourism is one of them, but not the only one.
Why are we so bent on tourism and recreation to be our savior. The only people that are going to come here for recreation are people from Beggs and Leonard. No, people from Leonard stop in Bixby.
Name a better one please.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
Why should we depend on tourists for our well being? There are so many way to go. Tourism is one of them, but not the only one.
Why are we so bent on tourism and recreation to be our savior. The only people that are going to come here for recreation are people from Beggs and Leonard. No, people from Leonard stop in Bixby.
Name a better one please.
Here are some (//%22http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/siccodes.htm%22)
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
Gee, let's see Tulsa built a low water dam, a pedestrian bridge, and gathering places(i.e. amphitheater, etc.) along the Arkansas River in Tulsa and it sure has become a magnet for tourists worldwide because of that, hasn't it?(sarcasm off) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This is not a transformation, it is a mutation, like a metastasizing cancer.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
A question for you, then: How far out of your way would you drive to experience river development similar to what is proposed in this plan? 20 miles? 200? 2000?
I see this as potentially a nice county-wide amenity, but not a place people will plan vacations around. As many lakes as we already have in the region, I don't even think this will draw significant regional traffic. It will be a nice place to visit if you already happen to be in Tulsa.
(And what's that about QuikTrip building their proposed "gathering place" regardless of whether the tax passes? First I've heard of it.)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
A question for you, then: How far out of your way would you drive to experience river development similar to what is proposed in this plan? 20 miles? 200? 2000?
I see this as potentially a nice county-wide amenity, but not a place people will plan vacations around. As many lakes as we already have in the region, I don't even think this will draw significant regional traffic. It will be a nice place to visit if you already happen to be in Tulsa.
(And what's that about QuikTrip building their proposed "gathering place" regardless of whether the tax passes? First I've heard of it.)
They'll drive at least a hundred miles. Not for vacations, but for weekenders. I had many passengers who came from the OKC area to see how we were progressing on our river development just 3 years ago. There are large groups of Discover Oklahoma junkies who go everywhere that is featured on that travel show.
More importantly, I watched as people who were visiting Tulsa for business, weddings, re-unions etc. frantically looking for something to do away from their hotel rooms. They went downtown and to the river (with money in their pockets).
We're not building Disneyland but that doesn't mean no one outside of Tulsa region will come. In fact as I have often stated, probably 80% of my business was from outside the area. Tulsans prefer to watch TV or shop.[;)]
I wonder what Gwen Freeman would think about this? She tells it like it is.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
You want to say we need to improve infrastructure. Fine. Where are we lacking?
Tulsa does not have a big backlog of needed improvements on any type of physical infrastructure. It doesn't exist.
I do not know anything, and I mean zippo about all this stuff but the Mayor and City have formed a panel to look at backlogged street work (T.World's words] (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070914_1_A1_spanc52386%22).
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
You want to say we need to improve infrastructure. Fine. Where are we lacking?
Tulsa does not have a big backlog of needed improvements on any type of physical infrastructure. It doesn't exist.
I do not know anything, and I mean zippo about all this stuff but the Mayor and City have formed a panel to look at backlogged street work (T.World's words] (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070914_1_A1_spanc52386%22).
Me too. Tim, we're kindof just the idiots in all of these charades.
I think its really a billion dollar problem AT THIS POINT in TIME, not a $600mm problem, but then again, the river development is supposed to take care of this....
....after the concept is developed and the land has been secured, and the environmental issues are worked out, and the tennants are found, and we can open a Quik-Trip on the Turkey Mountain side of the river so the fatboys can buy their Big Bubba Mountain Dew Slurpies, and a pack of Marlbura reds in box. [:D]
This may be the Mayor's little diversion and fig leaf to the people opposed to the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by swake
You want to say we need to improve infrastructure. Fine. Where are we lacking?
Tulsa does not have a big backlog of needed improvements on any type of physical infrastructure. It doesn't exist.
I do not know anything, and I mean zippo about all this stuff but the Mayor and City have formed a panel to look at backlogged street work (T.World's words] (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070914_1_A1_spanc52386%22).
Way to not pay attention to what my point was. Of course, your shtick is always sensationalism over substance.
The discussion was about what would do more for the local economy, fixing/improving streets or the river plan.
Again, there is no big backlog of street improvements. We have no major traffic issues, our street and highway systems move people quickly and efficiently. What we do have are maintenance needs. But fixing streets, while the right thing to do, will do nothing for the local economy. We have areas where we desire improvements, or where we can improve while completing maintenance but overall, our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Is this an example of substance of schtick?
Oswald you are one wierd dude. You say there is no backlog, our streets are fine, while the City says Tulsans have close to ONE BILLION $ in street repairs we will need. The commercial is outrageous in suggesting the river tax is a street improvement issue.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Oswald you are one wierd dude. You say there is no backlog, our streets are fine, while the City says Tulsans have close to ONE BILLION $ in street repairs we will need. The commercial is outrageous in suggesting the river tax is a street improvement issue.
Repairs and improvements are two different things, again, try reading what I have posted.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
And if you need more evidence, try watching our so called "traffic" reports on the morning news.
I'm done here for today, which I know will make a lot of people happy, but Mr. or Ms, SWAKE, (if thats your REAL Name) commute times have just a little to do with the quality of the roads.
It's easy when you are talking about going back and forth from work; to hop on the BA and for 15 minutes be stuck in traffic. That's a short commute time.
I don't have to deal with that personally, because I ride the bus to and from work. (I'm sure you'll have something smart-*** to say about that.)
They have the highways and 71st and Memorial fixed up just nice. If all you do is go to work and go home and play video games, fine.
But try going to 51st and Harvard, or 61st and Peoria or numerous other places. Have you ever sat at 51st and Harvard going South? They need work. not just cosmetically, an engineer needs to work on getting those areas modernized.
The Tulsa World reported our roads rated a "D" if that is passing for you, You're probably on a football scholarship.
Your are somewhat good at misdirection, but lousy playing it off.
The river development can't fix this soon enough.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
I'm done here for today, which I know will make a lot of people happy, but Mr. or Ms, SWAKE, (if thats your REAL Name) commute times have just a little to do with the quality of the roads.
It's easy when you are talking about going back and forth from work; to hop on the BA and for 15 minutes be stuck in traffic. That's a short commute time.
I don't have to deal with that personally, because I ride the bus to and from work. (I'm sure you'll have something smart-*** to say about that.)
They have the highways and 71st and Memorial fixed up just nice. If all you do is go to work and go home and play video games, fine.
But try going to 51st and Harvard, or 61st and Peoria or numerous other places. Have you ever sat at 51st and Harvard going South? They need work. not just cosmetically, an engineer needs to work on getting those areas modernized.
The Tulsa World reported our roads rated a "D" if that is passing for you, You're probably on a football scholarship.
Your are somewhat good at misdirection, but lousy playing it off.
The river development can't fix this soon enough.
Commute time is an excellent measure; it measures the relative ability of the street system to move traffic during times when the most traffic is present.
Are there bottlenecks, certainly. But relative to other cities, ours are rare and minor.
The grade of "D" was addressing the condition of the roads, not the quality of the design and the flow or traffic. Again, the goal of a roads system is to move traffic.
I do not dispute that we need to spend more on repairs. But I also do say, again, that the roads in the area that are in the worst condition are the highways, which are not maintained by local government and that the condition of roads has little or no economic impact.
In the commercial for the tax the geezer at the beginning says this is the first step in improving our roads. How is that?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Why cant we attract tourists to pay our taxes for us and improve our roads? I bet our river could do that.
A question for you, then: How far out of your way would you drive to experience river development similar to what is proposed in this plan? 20 miles? 200? 2000?
I see this as potentially a nice county-wide amenity, but not a place people will plan vacations around. As many lakes as we already have in the region, I don't even think this will draw significant regional traffic. It will be a nice place to visit if you already happen to be in Tulsa.
(And what's that about QuikTrip building their proposed "gathering place" regardless of whether the tax passes? First I've heard of it.)
I guess I should say "out of town dollars" instead of "tourists".
Yesterday there was large group (150) of petroleum people in town from Houston that had a function at McBirney. They were looking for places to go after that were in proximity but chose to drive to Jenks instead.
I see this happen quite a bit; visitors book in a downtown hotel but then can't find anything to do.
I could be wrong about QT, but the impression I got from the TW and from the speaker at our neighborhood meeting is that QT is moving forward at 41st St.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
169 gets people to the shopping malls. The BA comes close enough to the fairgrounds (31st and Yale) without having an offramp emptying directly into Expo Square. When the BA was built, downtown was a major activity center AND place of employment.
Where would YOU put the highways?
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I guess I should say "out of town dollars" instead of "tourists".
Yesterday there was large group (150) of petroleum people in town from Houston that had a function at McBirney. They were looking for places to go after that were in proximity but chose to drive to Jenks instead.
I see this happen quite a bit; visitors book in a downtown hotel but then can't find anything to do.
I could be wrong about QT, but the impression I got from the TW and from the speaker at our neighborhood meeting is that QT is moving forward at 41st St.
I started telling people not to book downtown because of the complaints. I do my best to keep them in the city and eating downtown during the day though.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
169 gets people to the shopping malls. The BA comes close enough to the fairgrounds (31st and Yale) without having an offramp emptying directly into Expo Square. When the BA was built, downtown was a major activity center AND place of employment.
Where would YOU put the highways?
NEXT to the shopping malls, NEXT to the fairgrounds. (Or perhaps the shopping malls should have been built NEXT to the freeways; either way, what we have is bad planning) The closest 169 gets to a shopping mall is Woodland Hills and it's a mile from that. It's over a mile from 31st and Harvard to the nearest fairgrounds entrance.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
169 gets people to the shopping malls. The BA comes close enough to the fairgrounds (31st and Yale) without having an offramp emptying directly into Expo Square. When the BA was built, downtown was a major activity center AND place of employment.
Where would YOU put the highways?
NEXT to the shopping malls, NEXT to the fairgrounds. (Or perhaps the shopping malls should have been built NEXT to the freeways; either way, what we have is bad planning) The closest 169 gets to a shopping mall is Woodland Hills and it's a mile from that. It's over a mile from 31st and Harvard to the nearest fairgrounds entrance.
While Woodland Hills is the only technical "mall" there, there is nothing but shopping as far as the eye can see from 71st and 169.
Again, where would you put the highways? Perhaps the BA would go straight across town just north of 15th? A freeway down Memorial and a freeway across the 71st corridor? (from a mere hindsight planning perspective, not talking about what would be destroyed if we did it today)
Swake you are kind of dancing around the issue and parsing between improvements and repairs. Fine and good, we need about $1 bln in repairs. Happy now? [;)]
We do need improvements still for 81st street and south and between roughly the river and at least Memorial. Nice wide intersections, two lane roads in between. Don't we still have a 3rd penny tax which will eventually pay for those improvements and has paid for many others?
Still not a basis for my opposition to the river plan presently on the table. Two separate issues. However, if we need a sales tax proposal to catch up with the back log on street repairs, it's going to be a harder sell to tax payers after they've okayed the river tax.
We just need to figure out what our true priorities are. Streets? Public safety? River?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake you are kind of dancing around the issue and parsing between improvements and repairs. Fine and good, we need about $1 bln in repairs. Happy now? [;)]
We do need improvements still for 81st street and south and between roughly the river and at least Memorial. Nice wide intersections, two lane roads in between. Don't we still have a 3rd penny tax which will eventually pay for those improvements and has paid for many others?
Still not a basis for my opposition to the river plan presently on the table. Two separate issues. However, if we need a sales tax proposal to catch up with the back log on street repairs, it's going to be a harder sell to tax payers after they've okayed the river tax.
We just need to figure out what our true priorities are. Streets? Public safety? River?
Now are you are asking the right questions
The argument being made is "do streets first". But, streets and the river are two different issues. The questions that need to be asked is what do we need more, economic development or infrastructure maintenance. And, is it possible to afford both at the same time.
The river plan provides a big return on the amount of tax revenue collected. Something in the range of a billion dollars in the city alone on less than half a cent of sales tax. From an economic development perspective, that's a really good deal and the cost is minor enough is should not preclude the city's ability to ask for some amount of GO bond for streets. In addition, new economic development of this magnitude will go a long way to helping the city with it's operational budget crunch and may well alleviate some of the need to for a GO bond. Though I would argue the backlog of repairs is great enough that both are needed.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake you are kind of dancing around the issue and parsing between improvements and repairs. Fine and good, we need about $1 bln in repairs. Happy now? [;)]
We do need improvements still for 81st street and south and between roughly the river and at least Memorial. Nice wide intersections, two lane roads in between. Don't we still have a 3rd penny tax which will eventually pay for those improvements and has paid for many others?
Still not a basis for my opposition to the river plan presently on the table. Two separate issues. However, if we need a sales tax proposal to catch up with the back log on street repairs, it's going to be a harder sell to tax payers after they've okayed the river tax.
We just need to figure out what our true priorities are. Streets? Public safety? River?
Now are you are asking the right questions
The argument being made is "do streets first". But, streets and the river are two different issues. The questions that need to be asked is what do we need more, economic development or infrastructure maintenance. And, is it possible to afford both at the same time.
The river plan provides a big return on the amount of tax revenue collected. Something in the range of a billion dollars in the city alone on less than half a cent of sales tax. From an economic development perspective, that's a really good deal and the cost is minor enough is should not preclude the city's ability to ask for some amount of GO bond for streets. In addition, new economic development of this magnitude will go a long way to helping the city with it's operational budget crunch and may well alleviate some of the need to for a GO bond. Though I would argue the backlog of repairs is great enough that both are needed.
Swake, I've been disputing these tax revenue numbers long before Michael Bates went after it in his editorial this week. If you are talking about additional private commercial investment spurred by the tax and private donations, okay. However, it's really not a "necessity" for someone to purchase the concrete plant and start developing. That can happen with or with out LWD's at Jenks and Sand Springs.
If you are talking about the estimates of all the new sales tax revenue generated by construction along the river, I suspect sales tax will be waived on construction materials, so any benefit from construction investment in the tax pool is nixed. Secondly, $284mm of that is recycled tax money, it's not all new infusion. Granted, we might see a rise in sales tax collections if people might need to relocate here for a couple of years to work on projects along the river. After that, if we don't have more work for those people, they move on and we are back to our original sales tax base.
Let's get on to tax collected at commercial development after it's opened. This generates new sales tax revenue only when it comes in from visitors to Tulsa. Otherwise all you are doing is shifting the income tax collection points from other geographic areas of Tulsa.
We can argue all we want that an improved river will cause companies to relocate here by the droves, but that's fairy tale talk.
Not really,
It is not just recycled tax money. There are about 950,000 people in the metro, and about 390,000 people in the city, it's about encouraging more of the 560,000 people that live outside the city (along with visitors to the metro) to spend more money in the city.
And you can call the new job numbers "fairy tales", but my company has three director level jobs in technical departments that have been open for months and likely all three pay well into the six digits. And my guess is if they aren't filled before too long, those jobs will go to another office. We need to make Tulsa a more desirable place to live
quote:
Originally posted by swake
...but my company has three director level jobs in technical departments that have been open for months and likely all three pay well into the six digits. And my guess is if they aren't filled before too long, those jobs will go to another office...
Dang...if only I had some of them things they call "skills". I could sure use one of them six digit jobs.
My job also pays six digits, but there is a decimal involved.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
and how many of those 21 smaller cities are components of larger metropolitan areas? Kind of overlooked that part, didn't you? Here are a few of those "smaller cities" that, amazingly, have longer commutes than Tulsa: Minneapolis, St. Louis, Arlington TX, Anaheim CA, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Newark...
And, Tucson?? Tucson Arizona, Population 518,000, metro population 946,000, is that the Tucson you are referring to as being smaller than Tulsa? You've been kind of lax on the fact-checking here recently, Swake.
Bottom line, Tulsa's commute time is nothing extraordinary or even noteworthy, for a city of its size.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
and how many of those 21 smaller cities are components of larger metropolitan areas? Kind of overlooked that part, didn't you? Here are a few of those "smaller cities" that, amazingly, have longer commutes than Tulsa: Minneapolis, St. Louis, Arlington TX, Anaheim CA, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Newark...
And, Tucson?? Tucson Arizona, Population 518,000, metro population 946,000, is that the Tucson you are referring to as being smaller than Tulsa? You've been kind of lax on the fact-checking here recently, Swake.
Bottom line, Tulsa's commute time is nothing extraordinary or even noteworthy, for a city of its size.
Metro Tulsa 946,993, Tucson 946,362, 2006, USCensus.
It's not much smaller, but it IS smaller.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
and how many of those 21 smaller cities are components of larger metropolitan areas? Kind of overlooked that part, didn't you? Here are a few of those "smaller cities" that, amazingly, have longer commutes than Tulsa: Minneapolis, St. Louis, Arlington TX, Anaheim CA, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Newark...
And, Tucson?? Tucson Arizona, Population 518,000, metro population 946,000, is that the Tucson you are referring to as being smaller than Tulsa? You've been kind of lax on the fact-checking here recently, Swake.
Bottom line, Tulsa's commute time is nothing extraordinary or even noteworthy, for a city of its size.
Metro Tulsa 946,993, Tucson 946,362, 2006, USCensus.
It's not much smaller, but it IS smaller.
Yes, Swake, I figured you'd be pulling out the Tulsa COMBINED metro number, rather than the Metro number. Nice try.
(For those who don't know, the Combined Metro area includes Bartlesville... the reason Washington County (Bartlesville) is not in the standard metro area is lack of economic connection, i.e. commuting, between Bartlesville and Tulsa)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And you can call the new job numbers "fairy tales", but my company has three director level jobs in technical departments that have been open for months and likely all three pay well into the six digits. And my guess is if they aren't filled before too long, those jobs will go to another office. We need to make Tulsa a more desirable place to live
What reasons have candidates given for turning the jobs down?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
and how many of those 21 smaller cities are components of larger metropolitan areas? Kind of overlooked that part, didn't you? Here are a few of those "smaller cities" that, amazingly, have longer commutes than Tulsa: Minneapolis, St. Louis, Arlington TX, Anaheim CA, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Newark...
And, Tucson?? Tucson Arizona, Population 518,000, metro population 946,000, is that the Tucson you are referring to as being smaller than Tulsa? You've been kind of lax on the fact-checking here recently, Swake.
Bottom line, Tulsa's commute time is nothing extraordinary or even noteworthy, for a city of its size.
Metro Tulsa 946,993, Tucson 946,362, 2006, USCensus.
It's not much smaller, but it IS smaller.
Yes, Swake, I figured you'd be pulling out the Tulsa COMBINED metro number, rather than the Metro number. Nice try.
(For those who don't know, the Combined Metro area includes Bartlesville... the reason Washington County (Bartlesville) is not in the standard metro area is lack of economic connection, i.e. commuting, between Bartlesville and Tulsa)
Still valid as Tucson does not have a CSA.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by swake
...our surface transportation system is worlds better than cities that grow many times faster than us.
I'm sure you have some way of qualifying this?
Of course I do, I'm not some blogger
Fourth lowest commute time for metro areas with more than 250,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/004489.html
Quote:
In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)
Data is 2005
Oh, puhlease. You're playing that one again? That ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is smaller than almost every other city in those rankings. (Almost every city with longer commutes is either a larger city or is a component of a much larger metro area than Tulsa.)
Personally, I cannot think of a city with a more seemingly random freeway layout, or where the freeway "system" fails to directly serve major activity centers (ie, fairgrounds, shopping malls...) At times, it seems that Tulsa plans streets, highways, and intersections to create congestion.
It's a list of the 68 largest cities, and Tulsa is the 45th largest city in national and was 66th on the list. So there are 21 cities smaller than Tulsa on the list with a worse commute. Lexington, KY, Colorado Springs, Tucson are examples that would be in conflict with your statement. And, Tulsa county is in the bottom ten counties in commute time out of 233 counties.
Also, while it is true that larger cities have longer commutes, they have become larger cities due to stronger growth, which goes to my point that road infrastructure is a poor way to drive growth, because most big and fast growing cities have miserable road transportation systems.
and how many of those 21 smaller cities are components of larger metropolitan areas? Kind of overlooked that part, didn't you? Here are a few of those "smaller cities" that, amazingly, have longer commutes than Tulsa: Minneapolis, St. Louis, Arlington TX, Anaheim CA, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Newark...
And, Tucson?? Tucson Arizona, Population 518,000, metro population 946,000, is that the Tucson you are referring to as being smaller than Tulsa? You've been kind of lax on the fact-checking here recently, Swake.
Bottom line, Tulsa's commute time is nothing extraordinary or even noteworthy, for a city of its size.
Metro Tulsa 946,993, Tucson 946,362, 2006, USCensus.
It's not much smaller, but it IS smaller.
Yes, Swake, I figured you'd be pulling out the Tulsa COMBINED metro number, rather than the Metro number. Nice try.
(For those who don't know, the Combined Metro area includes Bartlesville... the reason Washington County (Bartlesville) is not in the standard metro area is lack of economic connection, i.e. commuting, between Bartlesville and Tulsa)
Still valid as Tucson does not have a CSA.
Whatever you need to be able to hang on to your delusions, Swake. However you want to rank
Tucson compared to Tulsa, the simple fact remains that this commute ranking tells us little more than that Tulsa is one of the smaller metropolitan areas in the list of cities.
Give the list a careful look and you'll find that the 65 cities only represent 55 metropolitan areas. If you factor in the Combined Metro areas, I believe Tulsa is the 52nd largest metro area in the country. In the commute time rankings, when you consolidate the cities into their metro areas (e.g. NYC and Newark are both on the list, both are obviously the NYC metro), Tulsa ranks 53rd out of 55, almost exactly the same relative ranking as its population. When you look over the list, it is not particularly impressive for Tulsa to be right where it is. It is, in fact, right where one would expect it to be. (In fact, dare I say it... OKC's relative ranking is really more impressive than Tulsa's... OKC's metro population ranks it at about 42nd in population and is no. 50 in this commuter time.)
Yes, we have shorter commute times than larger cities. That's one of the charms of living in a smaller city, isn't it?
The concrete plant slated for purchase is directly across from a slum - and that's being generous.
Can someone exlain if there are plans to remove that apartment complex?
If not, I cannot see any developer locating any - ANY - commercial development across the street from a crime incubator.
If history is any indicator, look at the current state of the empty Albertson's building at Pine & Peoria. All the other Albertson's are still in use - except this one - despite the monumental effort to redevelop the surrounding area.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue gives me pause after a recent visit to River West. In fact, I would venture to guess that removal of the apartment complex - by itself - would do more for river development in this area than purchasing the concrete facility.
(by the way, for those who care to visit, the TPD crime overlay for this area suggests this concern is not merely fanciful, but real and progressive).
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
The concrete plant slated for purchase is directly across from a slum - and that's being generous.
Can someone exlain if there are plans to remove that apartment complex?
If not, I cannot see any developer locating any - ANY - commercial development across the street from a crime incubator.
If history is any indicator, look at the current state of the empty Albertson's building at Pine & Peoria. All the other Albertson's are still in use - except this one - despite the monumental effort to redevelop the surrounding area.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue gives me pause after a recent visit to River West. In fact, I would venture to guess that removal of the apartment complex - by itself - would do more for river development in this area than purchasing the concrete facility.
(by the way, for those who care to visit, the TPD crime overlay for this area suggests this concern is not merely fanciful, but real and progressive).
The developer of Branson Landing has said he wants to spend half a billion dollars on a development on that site.
And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.
No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.
Quote:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.
No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.
Quote:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
As you full well know, this land can be acquired by various means. It is not dependent upon the River Tax.
And, he was prepared to proceed with his project prior to the River Tax proposal but his ovations were not reciprocated by the City.
The City visa-vi County collusion put him on ice, which makes it impossible for him to proceed until it is decided.
What would you expect him to be saying at this point?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The developer of Branson Landing has said he wants to spend half a billion dollars on a development on that site.
The developer wants to spend half a billon dollars on the slum or the concrete plant? If he wants to spend .5 billion on the concrete plant, who or what is stopping him?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.
No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.
Quote:
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.
"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
If you get a substantially large development over there it will wipe out the slum. Property values will rise. People will consider moving there who otherwise didnt even know the area existed. Other developers will seek to buy up the property around this development. etc. Its not exactly Beverly Hills right next to the Riverwalk either.
However I have asked this in another thread. How come that property is so expensive if it is so undesirable compared to the cheap property in a desirable demographic area in Jenks? It just doesnt add up to me. Either one property was way to cheap or the other is way to expensive.
As for competing developments. Whatever is done should have a substantial amount of living space included. Its projected that the US population is to grow by more than 60 million over the next 20 years (and that smaller 1 and 2 person households will become the majority during that time). Its obviously going to be hard for Tulsa to grow suburban type development and needs to grow with more urban development and urban living.
Its estimated that it requires between 1,500 to 3000 housing units, within a 1/2 mile or 10 minute walk, to support a block of "main street" shops, cafes, restaurants, etc.
This type of development is more expensive than suburban development, hence why more urban development may actually begin to happen in the suburbs where land is cheaper and demographics stronger. I bet that once we get a "critical mass" of it in an area of Tulsa, it will then be able to grow on its own without us having to "incentivise" it. Especially in downtown. This river development, if done properly and including a large amount of living could spur more urban type living in that area.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
There are lots of different ways to do a TIF. You can capture only property tax, only sales tax, or both. I think you can even set it up to capture only a portion of the tax. The time is limited. All of this gets negotiated between taxing authorities in the process of developing a TIF.
A city could do a TIF capturing property tax only and still reap the increased sales tax. I can't verify this at the moment -- someone from Urban Development Department would know -- but I believe most of Tulsa's TIF districts capture only property tax.
Given the way cities are financed, sacrificing property tax for a development that will generate sales tax is a good deal.
And if you're comparing a TIF to sales tax to pay for infrastructure to encourage development, you have to account for how long it will take until the incremental new development (less cannibalization) to generate an equivalent amount of sales tax to what was spent on the project.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
There are lots of different ways to do a TIF. You can capture only property tax, only sales tax, or both. I think you can even set it up to capture only a portion of the tax. The time is limited. All of this gets negotiated between taxing authorities in the process of developing a TIF.
A city could do a TIF capturing property tax only and still reap the increased sales tax. I can't verify this at the moment -- someone from Urban Development Department would know -- but I believe most of Tulsa's TIF districts capture only property tax.
Given the way cities are financed, sacrificing property tax for a development that will generate sales tax is a good deal.
And if you're comparing a TIF to sales tax to pay for infrastructure to encourage development, you have to account for how long it will take until the incremental new development (less cannibalization) to generate an equivalent amount of sales tax to what was spent on the project.
I think the Home Depot TIFF downtown is sales tax driven.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Not really,
It is not just recycled tax money. There are about 950,000 people in the metro, and about 390,000 people in the city, it's about encouraging more of the 560,000 people that live outside the city (along with visitors to the metro) to spend more money in the city.
And you can call the new job numbers "fairy tales", but my company has three director level jobs in technical departments that have been open for months and likely all three pay well into the six digits. And my guess is if they aren't filled before too long, those jobs will go to another office. We need to make Tulsa a more desirable place to live
It's hard to realistically predict the recreational, dining, and shopping habits of people say, in Bartlesville or Muskogee.
I'm not much of a believer that people will drive 50 miles or so to take their kids to a park, or to jog, ride a bike, or rollerblade. Sure, an evening spent having a nice dinner and window shopping might be in the offing for some of these people, but they can do the same thing closer to home.
I have serious doubts that three six-figure jobs in your office are going un-claimed due to a lack of low water dams and commercial development along the river. Tulsa is a liveable place, other than our carpet-bombed streets and other areas of neglected existing infrastructure. The last thing on my mind when selecting a city to take a job offer would be what they've done along a river.
For six+ figures, I'd
almost agree to live in Joplin, Elgin, Ill., or Boise City, Oklahoma.
Why is it so many young people, or others, when they visit Tulsa find it boring? Not much to do. Not as many people like themselves to hang out with or date? Why arent there any people downtown? Why havent you done anything with the river? Why do things close so early? etc. etc.
This river plan is in no way a panacea but it is definitely full of potential benefits in many ways.
As for 6 figures and living in those other places. Thats your priorities. I was laid off here at UPS about 12 years ago and the company offered a 6 figure job in OKC. I said heck no, I would rather live in hell than live in that nasty, ugly, city. I couldnt do it, there is not enough money to make up for having to drive through such ugly day after day. I dont know how they do it. You would mentally become depressed and beaten down by it. Apparently more money is more important to you. The city is our shared home, our shared place, our public living room. I would rather do without, have one nice thing, than a room full of cheap, ugly, junk. Once you have something thats beautiful, of quality, it lasts forever, is of use for ages. Each builds and adds to the other. Cheap things, insignificant things of poor quality, are never worth anything, they become lost and broken. They were never assets. Philbrook, Gilcrease, Philtower, Boston Avenue Church, Rose Garden, Woodward Park, IPE/QT center, and many more, are all valuable assets. Things that help the city, help make it more beautiful or liveable, make life richer, and bring those values for generations. Things we point to with pride and that people admire. Average does not do that. Doing something like this with the river will definitely begin to make it more of an asset, versus a mostly ignored and underutilized afterthought. Again it wont fix everything, but it will be yet one more item of value, of above average quality, that will add to our shared quality of life. Each thing adds up. More same o same o isnt going to do anything. I think its all the more important to do things well, to scrimp and save to have something nice, when you dont have a lot of money.
When I was younger I watched friends who would go and fill up their whole place with cheap junk. At one time my living room suite consisted of 1 chair and a few other items. But that was a niiice quality chair. I could have used the money to buy a chair and a couch an a coffe table, but I went with one quality item. Friends thought I was blowing my money on something so expensive when I "needed" so many other things. A year later I bought a couch, a year or so later a table, one day I was able to afford a bed and not just a mattress lol. etc. During that time my friends cheap stuff broke, went out of style, wore out. They bought a whole other set of things. That too wore out, etc. We all went through hard times where we scrimped for food, and ran late on the bills. But I still have that first chair and many other things. What do they have? The fabric is still perfect. Its quality, its beautiful and it will always be that way. I have spent less time, money and trouble doing things my way than they did. I was patient, did without, It may have looked ridiculous having that stuff in some of the little places I have lived in. lol. But with my budged I think I did the right thing. I could probably sell it for just as much or more than I bought it for back then. I wish that people could see that doing something well with the river will be something like that. One more valuable item that will add up to create a complete and quality city in time.
And then we actually agree William pay as you can afford and get the best quality --
Do you not see parallels with this shoot, ready, aim proposal? I am NOT against development and spending tax dolllars where there is a good plan -- (not proposal) in place.
I want to see a mixed use green corridor in green country -- there needs be some balance [8]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
In my opinion, TIF districts are a good tool for investing in public infrastructure but I understand they cannot easily be utilized for land acquisition for redevelopment.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
TIF districts are a good tool for investing in public infrastructure but they cannot be utilized for land acquisition.
So there is really is no readily available funding mechanism for the land for Tulsa Hills other than the river tax?
What a shock.
I am totally against the whole river thing! Why raise the tax to build something on a river that smells like the sewer? Instead of only the "rich" benefiting from this development, why can't they use the money businesses are offering to donate to fix our lousy bridges? Everybody complains about the bridges and how they are falling apart, but the city doesn't have the money to repair them. Instead of building the smelly river up, why don't we try fixing the bridges that are hazardous to drive on? I have read the reports online about the Tulsa bridges and that most of them need to be repaired or replaced. Why not take care of that instead? I just really don't understand how we benefit from building something on the river that usually stinks and is usually down? If we are going to do a tax increase, do it on something that will benefit everybody.
quote:
Originally posted by corky25
I am totally against the whole river thing! Why raise the tax to build something on a river that smells like the sewer? Instead of only the "rich" benefiting from this development, why can't they use the money businesses are offering to donate to fix our lousy bridges? Everybody complains about the bridges and how they are falling apart, but the city doesn't have the money to repair them. Instead of building the smelly river up, why don't we try fixing the bridges that are hazardous to drive on? I have read the reports online about the Tulsa bridges and that most of them need to be repaired or replaced. Why not take care of that instead? I just really don't understand how we benefit from building something on the river that usually stinks and is usually down? If we are going to do a tax increase, do it on something that will benefit everybody.
You said smelly three times. Where do you smell the river? And what do you smell? I spend a lot of time over there and other than the lift station at 51st and the I-44 bridge when the wind is blowing do I smell anything objectionable. Of course when it rains and the wind blows out of the west I smell the refinery. Are those smells what you refer to? Cause I also smell sewer stink around Haikey creek, off the Creek expressway on the Yale exit, at odd places around town. I smell extreme putrid smells when they dump fertilizer on the grounds of SouthCrest and even when my neighbor had fertilizer dumped on her yard to have green fall grass. I smell tons of grease in the air anywhere near a KFC, Brookside on a Friday nite and Cherry Street as well. I smell alcohol emanating from bars at 18th and Boston on a Saturday nite. The bushes I planted last spring are flowering...and they stink like ammonia and dog feces!
Maybe you could be a bit more specific. Truth is, life stinks unless the wind is blowing it on by.
So what's your point? We should drop everything and build bridges, repave streets and pretty it all up so suburbanites won't have to suffer when they come to town to make their money and then take it back to the burbs where taxes are lower, crime is hidden and attractive developments make more sense? If you use roads/infrastructure versus development, nothing new, exciting, revenue producing will ever be built.
edit: Oh, BTW, welcome Corky.[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The bushes I planted last spring are flowering...and they stink like ammonia and dog feces!
Man did you buy the wrong bushes.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?
I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.
TIF districts are a good tool for investing in public infrastructure but they cannot be utilized for land acquisition.
So there is really is no readily available funding mechanism for the land for Tulsa Hills other than the river tax?
What a shock.
I suppose you mean the west bank site when you typed "Tulsa Hills" (71st and hwy 75). I don't know of any other funding that coud be made avalable to aquire that property.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The bushes I planted last spring are flowering...and they stink like ammonia and dog feces!
Man did you buy the wrong bushes.
No wonder Home Depot won't take them back. Even the bugs won't mess with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The bushes I planted last spring are flowering...and they stink like ammonia and dog feces!
Man did you buy the wrong bushes.
What were those things called kennel bush
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The bushes I planted last spring are flowering...and they stink like ammonia and dog feces!
Man did you buy the wrong bushes.
What were those things called kennel bush
Turns out the smell dissipated. I'm now thinking that its my neighbor's front yard. They spread what looked like compost all over it then sprinkled grass seed. The smell is like a baby's diaper who just started cow milk.
The bush lives another year.
Saturday SEPTEMBER 13 2008
Aloha and Lawzee:
many years ago a niece of mine who grew up in Glenpool used to refer to the Arkansas River as the poo poo river
The Arkansas River is the poo poo river for more than one reason Tulsans stop, look, listen, & think our priorities our all out of wack concerning the river. we have more important and pressing concerns in tulsa than recreating, dinning, or shopping by the river. yes we need to develop the river but now is the wrong time Tulsa has too many other more important problems that need to be addressed asap.
There however is one thing that needs to be dune to the river asap all the flood control work finished, the dredging work finished, & the rest of the other maintenance work finished & maintained. even if Tulsa had all of it other problems taken care of & a unlimited budget; develop the river your kidding me your not developing a river your developing a sedimentary, boggy, & flooding sewage pond
we need a grand jury to look into why the important maintenance work hasn't already been done on the river. I currently care more about
the health, safety, & appearance of the river & the city in general than the rivers yuppie usability How will the people who are considering moving to Tulsa or who are thinking of starting a business in Tulsa going to perceive the river Oh don't move to Tulsa they have a wonderful river area but their streets are so bad that you"ll destroy your car getting there
once there you'll either be raped or mugged and I wouldn't take my kids there there are too many perverts there or how about move to Tulsa Tulsa is ok but there is nothing there, its too redneck, & that gross Arkansas River or move to Tulsa its got a low cost of living but it doesn't have any jobs
Hey yuppies do you want to do something cool with the river thats cheep and good for the city well bring back the KRMG Great raft race except this time do it safer & better &
broadcast it on tv make it a real cool event
alas I know deep down that if the great raft did come back that Tulsa would just Okieyuppieneckify it well lawzee
Okieyuppieneckify = a little Oklahoman a little bit Redneck & a lot of Yuppie
Aloha And Lawzee
quote:
Originally posted by 1956packard
Saturday SEPTEMBER 13 2008
Aloha and Lawzee:
many years ago a niece of mine who grew up in Glenpool used to refer to the Arkansas River as the poo poo river
The Arkansas River is the poo poo river for more than one reason Tulsans stop, look, listen, & think our priorities our all out of wack concerning the river. we have more important and pressing concerns in tulsa than recreating, dinning, or shopping by the river. yes we need to develop the river but now is the wrong time Tulsa has too many other more important problems that need to be addressed asap.
There however is one thing that needs to be dune to the river asap all the flood control work finished, the dredging work finished, & the rest of the other maintenance work finished & maintained. even if Tulsa had all of it other problems taken care of & a unlimited budget; develop the river your kidding me your not developing a river your developing a sedimentary, boggy, & flooding sewage pond
we need a grand jury to look into why the important maintenance work hasn't already been done on the river. I currently care more about
the health, safety, & appearance of the river & the city in general than the rivers yuppie usability How will the people who are considering moving to Tulsa or who are thinking of starting a business in Tulsa going to perceive the river Oh don't move to Tulsa they have a wonderful river area but their streets are so bad that you"ll destroy your car getting there
once there you'll either be raped or mugged and I wouldn't take my kids there there are too many perverts there or how about move to Tulsa Tulsa is ok but there is nothing there, its too redneck, & that gross Arkansas River or move to Tulsa its got a low cost of living but it doesn't have any jobs
Hey yuppies do you want to do something cool with the river thats cheep and good for the city well bring back the KRMG Great raft race except this time do it safer & better &
broadcast it on tv make it a real cool event
alas I know deep down that if the great raft did come back that Tulsa would just Okieyuppieneckify it well lawzee
Okieyuppieneckify = a little Oklahoman a little bit Redneck & a lot of Yuppie
Aloha And Lawzee
Dude, you're a year late on this. The vote failed though, so you should be happy.
Shadows, I think I found an old classmate of yours.
Or someone else who has been breating carbon monoxide w/ Paul Tay.
Wow, someone needs to make sure that person gets back on their meds. And quick lol.
quote:
Originally posted by 1956packard
Saturday SEPTEMBER 13 2008
well lawzee
Okieyuppieneckify = a little Oklahoman a little bit Redneck & a lot of Yuppie
Aloha And Lawzee
TAY...IS THAT YOU????? YOU A TAY CLONE?
Meeting to discuss grant to clean up River West Festival Park
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120207_11_0_Thecit710154 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120207_11_0_Thecit710154)
QuoteThe city of Tulsa is hosting a meeting this evening to discuss its application to the Environmental Protection Agency for a brownfields grant to clean up River West Festival Park.
The meeting is 5:30 p.m. at Eugene Field Elementary School, 2249 S. Phoenix Ave.
Tulsa is competing with cities in other states for the $400,000 grant, which would include $200,000 for assessment and $200,000 for cleanup.
Brownfields are properties whose expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant.
In 2008, preliminary assessments concluded that possible contamination exists on the River West Festival Park site, and further assessments were recommended.
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120207_11_0_Thecit710154
So it seems they're having a meeting for a grant we won't get?
Quote from: Townsend on February 07, 2012, 01:10:08 PM
Meeting to discuss grant to clean up River West Festival Park
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120207_11_0_Thecit710154 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20120207_11_0_Thecit710154)
So it seems they're having a meeting for a grant we won't get?
It keeps some low to mid-level bureaucrats in a job.
As far as waste, what sort of waste are they thinking is there? Like old refinery chemicals?