The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Mentioned on
KTUL:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/456606.html

FOX23:
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=21983@video.fox23.com&navCatId=5


Plenty of forum favorites there (you know who you are). I think DoubleA submitted about half of the questions. Apparently one of the "pro" speakers couldn't make it and her replacement wasn't exactly the best public speaker. Over 100 people were in attendance with more than one who didn't know the current vote had nothing to do with the channels.

Anyone else have any opinions?

It amazes me that people still think this is the Channels.  But, then, more than half the population still believes that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.  I think it should be a law that everyone has to read a newspaper at least once a week.

^

There are some numerical similarities... As well as a few of the Players are the same.

Posted in regards to the "Channels".

---

Warren said The Channels is seeking only the four-tenths of a penny from the voter-approved Vision 2025 sales-tax package that would have gone to Boeing but didn't because Boeing didn't relocate to Tulsa."

Yep, that 4/10ths is just burning a hole in some people's pockets. The sense of entitlement over what some consider money left on the table is just appalling. Nevermind that it would raise our sales tax to nearly 9% for decades.

- Good 'ol Randi Miller is staking her county career on this deal. She basically told INCOG they needed to get on board and support this, even though she acknowledged many of the cities involved wouldn't benefit directly.

---

I was there, and one of my questions was answered.  I'm still completely in awe of the in-your-face SCARE tactics used by the opponents of the tax.  I didn't count the number of times words like "danger", "fear" and "collapse" were used, though I now think I should have.  To hear John Eagleton say that this tax would literally cause Tulsa's sales tax base to COLLAPSE made me realize just how uninformed and ridiculous the opponents of the tax are...and it's not just a few of them--early on, some woman was on television claiming that companies were going to terminate employees who are against it.  "This tax will never end, just like the tolls on the Turner Turnpike." "Why don't we have two dams from V2025?" "The County is irresponsible and cannot be trusted since Tulsa is under-represented on the panel" "People will move away from Tulsa to cheaper places" "When the sales tax base collapses, we won't be able to have police, fire and ambulance services." "We need good paying jobs for kids-not river amenities" "Build good roads and sewers, and everyone will flock to Tulsa" "Jenks did development without a cent of public money" (which is a lie.. Hello TIF?)

....Those were Eagleton's arguments, along with comparing sales tax revenue increases between Tulsa and Jenks (26% something at near $140m, compared to Jenks's 170% jump to a whopping $3m collected...well, of COURSE in a town so small, one development like RiverWalk is going to make a larger % gain--it's simple math...$140m x .26=$36.4m increase, compared to a $1.5m increase in Jenks).  When he tried to use New York City as an example of 'just how darned high' Tulsa's sales tax is, it was pointed out to him that NYC also has a 15% income tax and comparatively, Tulsa has a much lower tax burden. His response? Nothing notable.


I agree that the Pro-guy who filled in was an absolute disaster... and by the end of the night, I wished to never hear anything from John Eagleton's mouth again.  This first time was enough for me to last a lifetime.

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

---

Councilor Eagleton has a good business head on his shoulders.

His idea of using the several hundred million dollarss in projected tax collection OVERAGES from Vision 2025 is a sound financial move.

Unfortunately, Tulsa County Financial Advisor John Piercey, the long-time "dear" friend of fellow Tulsa County Ring Unindicted Co-Conspirators Bob Parmele and Dirty Bob Dick, is hiding the financial numbers.

Michael Bates formally asked him for the numbers three weeks ago.  When Mr. Piercey would not comply, Michael Bates reports in his weekly UTW column he even got Commissioner Perry to twist Big John's arm to release the numbers.  

Still, Mr. Piercey is stonewalling providing the Vision 2025 financial projections, and he has NOT complied according to Mr. Bates latest UTW column.

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

But the greedy Swells want MORE.

Promoting a new sales tax that hurts Tulsa's poorest and neediest families the worst.  And the Swells could care less.

And, then they'll be back for more, and more, and more, and more taxes.  They are insatiable.

They'll never stop.  They are insatiable TAX VAMPIRES.

Save your wooden stakes.

[:(!]

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

---

Source?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

---

Councilor Eagleton has a good business head on his shoulders.

His idea of using the several hundred million dollarss in projected tax collection OVERAGES from Vision 2025 is a sound financial move.

Unfortunately, Tulsa County Financial Advisor John Piercey, the long-time "dear" friend of fellow Tulsa County Ring Unindicted Co-Conspirators Bob Parmele and Dirty Bob Dick, is hiding the financial numbers.

Michael Bates formally asked him for the numbers three weeks ago.  When Mr. Piercey would not comply, Michael Bates reports in his weekly UTW column he even got Commissioner Perry to twist Big John's arm to release the numbers.  

Still, Mr. Piercey is stonewalling providing the Vision 2025 financial projections, and he has NOT complied according to Mr. Bates latest UTW column.

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

But the greedy Swells want MORE.

Promoting a new sales tax that hurts Tulsa's poorest and neediest families the worst.  And the Swells could care less.

And, then they'll be back for more, and more, and more, and more taxes.  They are insatiable.

They'll never stop.  They are insatiable TAX VAMPIRES.

Save your wooden stakes.

[:(!]

---

The poorest and neediest get a tax rebate that will offset most of the increased tax.

Eagleton can be over the top, but I didn't notice him make any personal attacks until, I believe it was Gaylon Pinc made a snarky remark about "I don't know where you got your accounting degree...".  You guys are crucifying the messenger and ignoring the messsage.  If your mind is already made up to vote yes and you believe you are fully satisfied you probably aren't going to consider the anti view.

The difference is, Eagleton used hard data, proponents used projections.  John Piercy has been incredibly secretive in his handling of the tax projections and collections.  There are overages.  I had a copy of Piercy's report emailed to me and I have not yet had a chance to digest it all but will comment more when I've read over it and I can compare it to OTC numbers.

I at least tried to learn something from Gaylon Pinc and John Piercy with an open mind.  They were able to soothe a few of my concerns, but there are still many unanswered questions that beg for a longer period of time before we approve this tax.  When Pinc was asked "what is the time frame of completion of plans" he went off on a ramble about "we're going to do this, we're going to do that".  It was a simple question and I believe the answer when he was re-directed was that we are still a year or more off on getting some of these details settled.  Why the rush then?

They don't have the enviro impact study completed as of yet, we have a report due on street repairs and funding mechanisms in December.  There will be a request then for yet more money.  

The pro side still has lots of questions to answer, and I don't think they can do it by Oct. 9.

High sales taxes are a dis-incentive for tourism and convention business.  Has everyone already forgotten that the city annex of the Fairgrounds was put on hold due to the demands of the Arabian horse show people not wanting high sales tax?

If NYC had a 23%+ sales tax instead of a 15% income tax and around a 9% sales tax, it would drastically impact tourism and convention business.  

Politicians and bureaucrats are using the "Oklahoma has one of the lowest tax burdens" to justify fleecing the tax payers at every convenient turn.  Has anyone even begun to consider the administrative costs on this project?

"some woman on tv was claiming that companies were going to terminate employees that were against the tax"...... Friendly Bear was on TV?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

The difference is, Eagleton used hard data, proponents used projections.  

---

No projections? His main argument was using a "projected" Vision2025 overage to pay for work done now.

He also chastised the moderator for the fact Gaylon Pinc wouldn't shut up.

Eagleton made some good points but I know if I told my bank that I projected I will be making a lot more 5 years from now, they probably won't give me a loan on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

---

Source?

---

Eagleton said that last night, but also said Sales Tax was increasing slower than inflation, but somehow Vision2025 is going to collect 33% more than projected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

The difference is, Eagleton used hard data, proponents used projections.  

---

No projections? His main argument was using a "projected" Vision2025 overage to pay for work done now.

He also chastised the moderator for the fact Gaylon Pinc wouldn't shut up.

Eagleton made some good points but I know if I told my bank that I projected I will be making a lot more 5 years from now, they probably won't give me a loan on it.

---

Okay, you got me on that one.  I was referring to his use of historical data and hard facts on many of the questions.

Of course the yes guys whole point is projecting sales tax collections on the new tax and the possibility of federal funding which could end the tax early.  They will be able to get financing with that.  

If we had a more open and less hesitant accounting of the projections on the V-2025 tax we might just be able to do what Councilor Eagleton was suggesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Eagleton can be over the top, but I didn't notice him make any personal attacks until, I believe it was Gaylon Pinc made a snarky remark about "I don't know where you got your accounting degree...".  You guys are crucifying the messenger and ignoring the messsage.  If your mind is already made up to vote yes and you believe you are fully satisfied you probably aren't going to consider the anti view.

The difference is, Eagleton used hard data, proponents used projections.  John Piercy has been incredibly secretive in his handling of the tax projections and collections.  There are overages.  I had a copy of Piercy's report emailed to me and I have not yet had a chance to digest it all but will comment more when I've read over it and I can compare it to OTC numbers.

I at least tried to learn something from Gaylon Pinc and John Piercy with an open mind.  They were able to soothe a few of my concerns, but there are still many unanswered questions that beg for a longer period of time before we approve this tax.  When Pinc was asked "what is the time frame of completion of plans" he went off on a ramble about "we're going to do this, we're going to do that".  It was a simple question and I believe the answer when he was re-directed was that we are still a year or more off on getting some of these details settled.  Why the rush then?

They don't have the enviro impact study completed as of yet, we have a report due on street repairs and funding mechanisms in December.  There will be a request then for yet more money.  

The pro side still has lots of questions to answer, and I don't think they can do it by Oct. 9.

High sales taxes are a dis-incentive for tourism and convention business.  Has everyone already forgotten that the city annex of the Fairgrounds was put on hold due to the demands of the Arabian horse show people not wanting high sales tax?

If NYC had a 23%+ sales tax instead of a 15% income tax and around a 9% sales tax, it would drastically impact tourism and convention business.  

Politicians and bureaucrats are using the "Oklahoma has one of the lowest tax burdens" to justify fleecing the tax payers at every convenient turn.  Has anyone even begun to consider the administrative costs on this project?

---

Much of what you say is also applicable to the con side. Unlike AA, I believe the audience is more undecided than committed. Both sides received applause from the same people. I still believe the project is hampered by not having a blowhard of its own like Eagleton.

I could take your remarks/concerns one by one but I'll address a couple and put my spin on the bottom line.

"High sales taxes are a dis-incentive for tourism and convention business.  Has everyone already forgotten that the city annex of the Fairgrounds was put on hold due to the demands of the Arabian horse show people not wanting high sales tax?"

No proof of that. In fact its counterintuitive. Tourists/convention planners don't consider sales tax when planning their trips. Its a one time expenditure and as tourists they know they pay a premium to be entertained. No one says, "I'd like to ride the cable cars, but those sales taxes are just too damn high!"

And the Horse Show people didn't object to a higher tax, they objected to the tax being raised AFTER they had already committed, budgeted and contracted. Quite different.

"If NYC had a 23%+ sales tax instead of a 15% income tax and around a 9% sales tax, it would drastically impact tourism and convention business.  Politicians and bureaucrats are using the Oklahoma has one of the lowest tax burdens to justify fleecing the tax payers at every convenient turn."

Yes a 23% sales tax would be prohibitive to everyone not just tourists. But to say the tax burden in NYC is lower than Tulsa is simply not true. And your implication is that there are other ways to tax the people that are more palatable. Are you conservative anti-tax or faux conservative anti-tax? At least a sales tax means visitors carry the load, not property owners.

And my analogy of the day. Anyone who has ever built a new home is familiar with the process the county is going through with the river project. You start out with a plan, an estimated budget, a banker to finance you and a builder you trust (or not). If your smart you'll employ an architect but most don't. Thats when the fun begins. Within no time you'll be over budget, adding and subtracting features, hassling over trim, doorknobs, lighting etc. and desperately trying to hold the line on costs. Then you find out the garage is designed over a slab of bedrock, and has to be moved to the other side, the bathroom is too small, the banker is impatient, the builder is too busy to talk, subs aren't being paid and show up drunk, the carpet came in the wrong design, and on..and on. Still you get a home built and its beautiful, the bank closes and is happy, the next buyer has no idea all the trouble you went through but loves your house.

That's life, its no different for public construction either except EVERYONE is watching and critiquing. Mostly those who never built a new house!

Yeah but who are the homeowners and who are the builders? In this instance the builders are the ones driving the process.  When the homeowners put in the order in the Vision2025Tax(.org), they said a couple of dams and bridges.  Next thing we have the Channels and all this.  There is no talking to the builders and that is quite unusual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

---

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

---

Source?

---

Easy.  Michael Bates' Sept. 12 Urban Tulsa Weekly column, entitled "Show Your Work".

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17971 (//%22http://%22)

At the end of the column, he lengthily describes Big John "Stonewall" Piercy financial obfuscation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

---

Councilor Eagleton has a good business head on his shoulders.

His idea of using the several hundred million dollarss in projected tax collection OVERAGES from Vision 2025 is a sound financial move.

Unfortunately, Tulsa County Financial Advisor John Piercey, the long-time "dear" friend of fellow Tulsa County Ring Unindicted Co-Conspirators Bob Parmele and Dirty Bob Dick, is hiding the financial numbers.

Michael Bates formally asked him for the numbers three weeks ago.  When Mr. Piercey would not comply, Michael Bates reports in his weekly UTW column he even got Commissioner Perry to twist Big John's arm to release the numbers.  

Still, Mr. Piercey is stonewalling providing the Vision 2025 financial projections, and he has NOT complied according to Mr. Bates latest UTW column.

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

But the greedy Swells want MORE.

Promoting a new sales tax that hurts Tulsa's poorest and neediest families the worst.  And the Swells could care less.

And, then they'll be back for more, and more, and more, and more taxes.  They are insatiable.

They'll never stop.  They are insatiable TAX VAMPIRES.

Save your wooden stakes.

[:(!]

---

The poorest and neediest get a tax rebate that will offset most of the increased tax.

---

How about let's just not raise their sales tax rates in the FIRST place??

quote:

---

Originally posted by bokworker

"some woman on tv was claiming that companies were going to terminate employees that were against the tax"...... Friendly Bear was on TV?

---

Is your bank AGAIN using the mandatory VOTE YES technique of a campaign sign INVOLUNTARILY placed in employees yards UNLESS they punch the OPT-OUT button??

Like they did in Vision 2025??

Hmmmmmmh??

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

Ugh...KLANG!!!  Back to you Kettle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

---

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

In my opinion, Busby was flustered when Pinc or Piercy would run over and was trying to be polite.  However, he never objected to giving the other two some extra time to respond to a new point.  I felt he was a fair moderator.

When I spoke to him I did mention there were some cynical remarks on here about having vote yes signs in his yard.  He said there's still things he wants to learn and appreciated points made by the anti's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy



And my analogy of the day. Anyone who has ever built a new home is familiar with the process the county is going through with the river project. You start out with a plan, an estimated budget, a banker to finance you and a builder you trust (or not). If your smart you'll employ an architect but most don't. Thats when the fun begins. Within no time you'll be over budget, adding and subtracting features, hassling over trim, doorknobs, lighting etc. and desperately trying to hold the line on costs. Then you find out the garage is designed over a slab of bedrock, and has to be moved to the other side, the bathroom is too small, the banker is impatient, the builder is too busy to talk, subs aren't being paid and show up drunk, the carpet came in the wrong design, and on..and on. Still you get a home built and its beautiful, the bank closes and is happy, the next buyer has no idea all the trouble you went through but loves your house.

That's life, its no different for public construction either except EVERYONE is watching and critiquing. Mostly those who never built a new house!

---

I liked the analogy of issuing a "blank purchase order" to the county.

Every project I have ever done, through a couple of companies I've worked for, the city, county, THA, TAA, etc. ad nauseum has required specific details, itemized pricing, contingencies, and required completion dates.

I don't think it's too much to ask for more details prior to giving our approval, they expect it from suppliers and contractors.

So far we only have a bill of goods.

We need the actual bill of materials- with full details.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

---

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

In my opinion, Busby was flustered when Pinc or Piercy would run over and was trying to be polite.  However, he never objected to giving the other two some extra time to respond to a new point.  I felt he was a fair moderator.

When I spoke to him I did mention there were some cynical remarks on here about having vote yes signs in his yard.  He said there's still things he wants to learn and appreciated points made by the anti's.

---

Mr. Unbiased Busby's got the backbone of a Slug.  

He does what he was told to do.

Were you there last night, FB?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Were you there last night, FB?

---

How could you MISS a trained bear riding a bicycle around the room?  

All for RecycleMichele's bloviating benefit.

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, you got me on that one.  I was referring to his use of historical data and hard facts on many of the questions.

---

I, too, was impressed with the digging...for the most part.  One exception was the mental yoga he and his partner employed to counter the argument that Oklahoma is a low-tax state.  Something to the effect that if Tulsa were a state, it'd have a tax ranking of 20, not 50.  But Tulsa is not a state, it's an urban area.  And there are hundreds of other similar urban areas who offer similar urban services, to a greater or lesser degree.  How do we compare to those directly?  Comparing Tulsa to their state averages is meaningless because their tax rates are mitigated by the rates in their rural areas, too.  In the same way that Eagleton got Tulsa's taxes to "rise", the tax rates for all of those other cities would rise, too.

So, "if Tulsa was a State", is just a flawed attempt to counter the obvious...our taxes are among the lowest in the nation.  That said, I did not think that the pro river guys did a very good job of convincing me this investment, at this time, was the best one.

I don't trust either side entirely.  I think that the no tax guys are simply that, no tax guys.  This notion of using Vision 2025 overages to do things is just something they are saying today in order to defeat the new tax.  I suspect they'll be against it on October 10th, regardless of how the vote turns out.

I also think the pro river side has a package that is not thought through and not ready for prime time.  It shows, and I don't think they can fake their way through it.

And so, the only thing persuading me one way or another is the private leverage (30%), which is what it is supposed to do.  Darn those smart rich people (shakes fist).  [:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, you got me on that one.  I was referring to his use of historical data and hard facts on many of the questions.

---

I, too, was impressed with the digging...for the most part.  One exception was the mental yoga he and his partner employed to counter the argument that Oklahoma is a low-tax state.  Something to the effect that if Tulsa were a state, it'd have a tax ranking of 20, not 50.  But Tulsa is not a state, it's an urban area.  And there are hundreds of other similar urban areas who offer similar urban services, to a greater or lesser degree.  How do we compare to those directly?  Comparing Tulsa to their state averages is meaningless because their tax rates are mitigated by the rates in their rural areas, too.  In the same way that Eagleton got Tulsa's taxes to "rise", the tax rates for all of those other cities would rise, too.

So, "if Tulsa was a State", is just a flawed attempt to counter the obvious...our taxes are among the lowest in the nation.  That said, I did not think that the pro river guys did a very good job of convincing me this investment, at this time, was the best one.

I don't trust either side entirely.  I think that the no tax guys are simply that, no tax guys.  This notion of using Vision 2025 overages to do things is just something they are saying today in order to defeat the new tax.  I suspect they'll be against it on October 10th, regardless of how the vote turns out.

I also think the pro river side has a package that is not thought through and not ready for prime time.  It shows, and I don't think they can fake their way through it.

And so, the only thing persuading me one way or another is the private leverage (30%), which is what it is supposed to do.  Darn those smart rich people (shakes fist).  [:)]

---

I think you gave the fairest assessment of the debate so far.  

The argument was Oklahoma has one of the lowest tax burdens.  That takes into account all rural areas as well as the urban areas.  I believe Eagleton's point was Tulsa's tax liability is not amongst the lowest in the nation.  Essentially, I think his point was that if you compared the tax burden of Tulsans to the tax burden of citizens of states on that list, Tulsa citizens would come out in the upper half of the tax burden pile- nationally.

Tulsa is being asked for more tax money, not the state.  I believe that was the point.

On the "yes" side you have two men who have even more job security if it passes and they were surprisingly not well-prepared considering the depths with which each is involved in the planning and financing.  

On the "no" side there was a "no new taxes, funding streams do exist" and a "no taxation until you give us better details".  Not exactly Dan Hicks kind of stuff.

FB, let me be the first to thank you for the fact the we do NOT have the sign-in-yard opt out decision to make this time. I am so pleased that I did not have to mull over the possible implications of this decision when I am more concerned with writing a thank you letter to "W" thanking him for leaning on fed chairman Bernanke to lower rates by 1/2% so that all of our econimic problems are now solved....

quote:

---

Originally posted by bokworker

FB, let me be the first to thank you for the fact the we do NOT have the sign-in-yard opt out decision to make this time. I am so pleased that I did not have to mull over the possible implications of this decision when I am more concerned with writing a thank you letter to "W" thanking him for leaning on fed chairman Bernanke to lower rates by 1/2% so that all of our econimic problems are now solved....

---

I'll bet there are more than a few employees in your organization that are exceedinlgy glad they do not have to punch the "Opt-Out" of a Vote YES to the Kaiser River Tax option this year, coming as it does right on the heels of a large, bank-wide staffing cut-back publicized recently in the local media.

Glad you may the cut, and are still around too, BOKWerker.

I found it interesting how on the one hand he would complain about Tulsas declining tax base and how horrible taxes were to the economy in one argument and then turn right around in another argument and say that 2025 was getting, and going to have, all these huge extra amounts. If the 2025 tax and others would really destroy the economy like he said, how can there even be overages? Shouldnt the 2025 collections be having a hard time and possibly have a deficit during current collections and future projections? Let alone collection overages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

QuoteI believe Eagleton's point was Tulsa's tax liability is not amongst the lowest in the nation.  Essentially, I think his point was that if you compared the tax burden of Tulsans to the tax burden of citizens of states on that list, Tulsa citizens would come out in the upper half of the tax burden pile- nationally.

---

Oh, vs. national averages...I get it.  Still, I'd like to see how we compare to other major cities with like services before I draw any conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

QuoteI believe Eagleton's point was Tulsa's tax liability is not amongst the lowest in the nation.  Essentially, I think his point was that if you compared the tax burden of Tulsans to the tax burden of citizens of states on that list, Tulsa citizens would come out in the upper half of the tax burden pile- nationally.

---

Oh, vs. national averages...I get it.  Still, I'd like to see how we compare to other major cities with like services before I draw any conclusions.

---

I've got a lot on my plate right now.  I'll see if I can find some facts/figures later on.  I was hoping to have gone over Piercy's report today and have had zero time to do it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I found it interesting how on the one hand he would complain about Tulsas declining tax base and how horrible taxes were to the economy in one argument and then turn right around in another argument and say that 2025 was getting, and going to have, all these huge extra amounts. If the 2025 tax and others would really destroy the economy like he said, how can there even be overages? Shouldnt the 2025 collections be having a hard time and possibly have a deficit during current collections and future projections? Let alone collection overages.

---

I didn't listen to Eagleton speak, but perhaps the confusion is between CITY OF TULSA tax base and COUNTY tax base.  The county allegedly has plenty of money due to NOT factoring in normal inflationary and economic growth in the V2025 collection period - which the county DOES see (The local economy is not shrinking or stagnant)

The CITY of Tulsa has had declining tax revenues in comparison to inflation because of all the money going out to the suburbs.  The county as a whole is growing but City of Tulsa's operations are getting comparatively less to operate on from the 2 cents allocated.

Now the COUNTY, allegedly flush in cash already, needs MORE money, and it will come at the expense of any leverage the City would ever have to possibly raise more operating revenue with a City tax increase.  For some reason our Mayor doesn't seem to mind the County taking over all forseeable opportunities to raise funds that COULD have been for city operations.  If we raise the tax in Tulsa to almost 9%, you can bet your bottom dollar that city taxpayers wouldn't vote for an ADDITIONAL increase beyond that, like say for a police and public services funding initiative.

Now, imagine when the 3rd penny comes up for renewal again.  What happens if this river tax was the last straw and people became so fed up with high sales tax that they voted DOWN the 3rd penny?  Then the City would REALLY be screwed.

I'm still on the fence,  I could see this spurring enough development in the City of Tulsa to actually spark an increase in operating revenue, but it is also possible that development will keep flocking to Jenks Bixby Glenpool Broken Arrow and Owasso.  Having basic services like Police, street repair, public schools and public pools not adequately funded will only encourage that flight to suburbia.

4 to fix (county wide tax) is the tax that is closest to expirey in 2008. If it is not brought for renewal then we would drop 1%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

4 to fix (county wide tax) is the tax that is closest to expirey in 2008. If it is not brought for renewal then we would drop 1%.

---

Hmm, I plum forgot about that.  Too bad that the taxthirsty County has no intentions of letting that go without being renewed, it would be a great selling point in getting people to vote YES for this initiative.

I would be somewhat pleased if the following went down

- River Tax passes
- 4-to-fix expires, fails to be renewed
- City passes .583% tax for police & services

Tax ends up at 8.5% and Tulsa wins

For those of you who missed the debate, a video link will be available on the TulsaNow homepage in a couple days.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

4 to fix (county wide tax) is the tax that is closest to expirey in 2008. If it is not brought for renewal then we would drop 1%.

---

Nope.  More fact checking is in order.

4-to-Fix-the-County is not a 1% tax.  It is 2/12 of a cent.  It was early Re-approved by the voters in December 2005, a year early.  It runs until 2011.

Vision 2025 is 6/10 of a cent.  It runs until 2017.  

Once passed, these taxes are forever, because there is a built-in constituency of connected cronies of construction companies that directly benefit from the increased funding.  

They fund the promotion of the tax renewal, then in turn are awarded the construction contracts.

Nice perfectly-legal swindle. if you're part of the Good-ol-Boys-Favors-Trading-Tulsa County Ring.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

---

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

No Bear. Big E felt that way. I sat behind the time keeper and saw her unsuccessfully try to get everyone on the stage to pay attention. Were you the one snickering and blurting out snarks from behind me? I could almost hear the drool hit the floor....

When you answer in bumper sticker sentences like Big E did, it doesn't take much time but he was consistently offered more time to respond if he asked for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

---

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

No Bear. Big E felt that way. I sat behind the time keeper and saw her unsuccessfully try to get everyone on the stage to pay attention. Were you the one snickering and blurting out snarks from behind me? I could almost hear the drool hit the floor....

When you answer in bumper sticker sentences like Big E did, it doesn't take much time but he was consistently offered more time to respond if he asked for it.

---

Sorry, I'm misidentifed here.

I neither drool, nor suffer from mouth breathing.

Wasn't me.

[:X]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear


So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

He didn't give them more time, he couldn't get the "pro" guy to shut up. Trust me, during times the guy went over, he wasn't saying anything to help his case. Usually the opposite. A true pro-river mole would've kicked him in the shins.

Ah, looks like carlton may have been wrong which nullifies my previous post.

Can someone bust out a chart or bulleted list of the current sales tax breakdown in the City of Tulsa including when they expire?

To my knowledge,
State of Oklahoma - 4.5% (expires when the sun burns out)
City of Tulsa - 2% operating budget
City of Tulsa - 1% 3rd penny streets, infrastructure, and shifty laundering of other projects and cost overruns (expires several years from now, Im posting this without researching :D)

So the county is getting 1.017% in some fashion?

So 4-to-fix is the .017%, and 2025 is 0.6%, what is the other 0.4% and when (or does) it expire?


EDIT - I didn't realize state sales tax was 4.5%...   I thought it was 3% - WAY too high!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear


So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

---

He didn't give them more time, he couldn't get the "pro" guy to shut up. Trust me, during times the guy went over, he wasn't saying anything to help his case. Usually the opposite. A true pro-river mole would've kicked him in the shins.

---

I think that goes along the lines of:

"Don't keep talking for two minutes or more when you have made your point in 30 seconds.  You might just talk yourself out of it."

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Ah, looks like carlton may have been wrong which nullifies my previous post.

Can someone bust out a chart or bulleted list of the current sales tax breakdown in the City of Tulsa including when they expire?

To my knowledge,
State of Oklahoma - 4.5% (expires when the sun burns out)
City of Tulsa - 2% operating budget
City of Tulsa - 1% 3rd penny streets, infrastructure, and shifty laundering of other projects and cost overruns (expires several years from now, Im posting this without researching :D)

So the county is getting 1.017% in some fashion?

So 4-to-fix is the .017%, and 2025 is 0.6%, what is the other 0.4% and when (or does) it expire?


EDIT - I didn't realize state sales tax was 4.5%...   I thought it was 3% - WAY too high!

---

Expires when the sun burns out- that's clever! [}:)]

I personally would trade the state additional personal income tax if they would cede to the city 1 penny of the sales tax they now collect.

THAT could go a long way in infrastructure repair and maintenance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Ah, looks like carlton may have been wrong which nullifies my previous post.

Can someone bust out a chart or bulleted list of the current sales tax breakdown in the City of Tulsa including when they expire?

To my knowledge,
State of Oklahoma - 4.5% (expires when the sun burns out)
City of Tulsa - 2% operating budget
City of Tulsa - 1% 3rd penny streets, infrastructure, and shifty laundering of other projects and cost overruns (expires several years from now, Im posting this without researching :D)

So the county is getting 1.017% in some fashion?

So 4-to-fix is the .017%, and 2025 is 0.6%, what is the other 0.4% and when (or does) it expire?


EDIT - I didn't realize state sales tax was 4.5%...   I thought it was 3% - WAY too high!

---

Expires when the sun burns out- that's clever! [}:)]

I personally would trade the state additional personal income tax if they would cede to the city 1 penny of the sales tax they now collect.

THAT could go a long way in infrastructure repair and maintenance.

---

What gets me is that the state recently passed an income tax cut.  Apparently they have plenty of money now with the energy sector kicking in lots of extra revenue for the state.

The part that befuddles me is that the State thinks it had plenty of money all the while completely neglecting anything outside of Oklahoma City.  They got their pet projects and nice new roads while ours continue to crumble.  I think Tulsa needs to combine forces with the rest of the non-OKC state and demand the State pay attention to them, or quit collecting taxes altogether.  They should have maintained the tax rates and sent the $600 million or however much over to our crumbling infrastructure.

I was against that tax cut and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.  I'm sure a couple of the liberals on here had a stroke when I said it the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I was against that tax cut and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.  I'm sure a couple of the liberals on here had a stroke when I said it the first time.

---

Yeah, I'm kind of wondering about myself when I post things like "they shouldn't have passed that tax cut", but that particular instance just seemed so unneccesary.  We need to pay more attention to who is being sent to State legislature apparently.  They pretty much hoarde everything for OKC despite the fact that OKC is only 1/3rd of the state population-wise.  It's kind of like how Saddam had his nice little area of Baghdad for his supporters while the rest of Iraq was an impoverished hellhole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Ah, looks like carlton may have been wrong which nullifies my previous post.

Can someone bust out a chart or bulleted list of the current sales tax breakdown in the City of Tulsa including when they expire?

To my knowledge,
State of Oklahoma - 4.5% (expires when the sun burns out)
City of Tulsa - 2% operating budget
City of Tulsa - 1% 3rd penny streets, infrastructure, and shifty laundering of other projects and cost overruns (expires several years from now, Im posting this without researching :D)

So the county is getting 1.017% in some fashion?

So 4-to-fix is the .017%, and 2025 is 0.6%, what is the other 0.4% and when (or does) it expire?


EDIT - I didn't realize state sales tax was 4.5%...   I thought it was 3% - WAY too high!

---

Oops, I thought it was a four year tax - hence "4 to fix". V2025 is a 13 year tax that expires 2016?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Mentioned on
KTUL:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/456606.html

FOX23:
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=21983@video.fox23.com&navCatId=5


Plenty of forum favorites there (you know who you are). I think DoubleA submitted about half of the questions. Apparently one of the "pro" speakers couldn't make it and her replacement wasn't exactly the best public speaker. Over 100 people were in attendance with more than one who didn't know the current vote had nothing to do with the channels.

Anyone else have any opinions?

---

I think Piercy hit happy hour before the forum. I was really unimpressed. I submitted five questions, I think. Eagleton and Tawney were outstanding.

I say we secede from Oklahoma and create our own state. [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Mentioned on
KTUL:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/456606.html

FOX23:
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=21983@video.fox23.com&navCatId=5


Plenty of forum favorites there (you know who you are). I think DoubleA submitted about half of the questions. Apparently one of the "pro" speakers couldn't make it and her replacement wasn't exactly the best public speaker. Over 100 people were in attendance with more than one who didn't know the current vote had nothing to do with the channels.

Anyone else have any opinions?

---

I think Piercy hit happy hour before the forum. I was really unimpressed. I submitted five questions, I think. Eagleton and Tawney were outstanding.

---

I submitted like 3-4 and got one answered, you submitted at LEAST 5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I say we secede from Oklahoma and create our own state. [:D]

---

Sign me up!

I remember seeing an old Tulsa World article about "Tulsa, Kansas" and a whole thing about how it could be beneficial for Tulsa to secede into Kansas.  We'd immediately be the largest city :D

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I say we secede from Oklahoma and create our own state. [:D]

---

Sign me up!

I remember seeing an old Tulsa World article about "Tulsa, Kansas" and a whole thing about how it could be beneficial for Tulsa to secede into Kansas.  We'd immediately be the largest city :D

---

Well, if we seceded and created our own state, we'd still be in the same situation funding-wise... Tulsa would be paying for its own stuff solely on its own.  Look at the state of our public universities... the ONLY reason they're expanding at ALL is because of LOCAL initatives like V2025--the Regents and all of OKC could care less whether Tulsa gets any funding, because they know we'll force ourselves to pay for it out of our own pockets...  Tulsa in its early days was an entirely self-sufficient town with big oil money that donated countless dollars to make Tulsa the 'rich little brother' compared to OKC... During the last few decades, though, it's become obvious that Tulsa can't sustain itself the way it used to... and it shouldn't be Expected to do everything by itself.  I've often compared Tulsa to a single mother with four kids, working three jobs, while OKC is the deadbeat dad who's decades behind in child-support.  It's time that changes...

That's a completely different topic, though... [:)]  Point being, if we formed our own state, we'd be in no different a situation, except that maybe we could get our own federal dollars and actually see something done HERE with them  [:P].


I was glad to see that I wasn't the only young person (early 20s) in the group at the forum--there were five to ten of us at one point in the evening...  Many of John Eagleton's remarks were so snide, snarky and condescending (not to mention repetitive, simplistic and fundamentally incorrect) that I can see why people are so easily turned off by these kinds of events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I say we secede from Oklahoma and create our own state. [:D]

---

Sign me up!

I remember seeing an old Tulsa World article about "Tulsa, Kansas" and a whole thing about how it could be beneficial for Tulsa to secede into Kansas.  We'd immediately be the largest city :D

---

Well, if we seceded and created our own state, we'd still be in the same situation funding-wise...

...

Point being, if we formed our own state, we'd be in no different a situation, except that maybe we could get our own federal dollars and actually see something done HERE with them  [:P].

---

No, We would be better off.  Right now, State income, and state sales tax (4.5%) are taken away from Tulsa, and we get very little in return.  We wouldn't be in the same situation, we would have all of that money that currently flows out of town and into corrupt OKC-centric politicians at our disposal to fulfill the needs of Tulsa and surrounding communities.

Ironic topic for secession (sp?) to come up on:

David Arnett, one of the occasional posters here and the chief information and media guy for Vision 2025 had proposed an area of NE and SE Kansas secede and form it's own state: "Sequoyah" I believe was the name he picked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Ironic topic for secession (sp?) to come up on:

David Arnett, one of the occasional posters here and the chief information and media guy for Vision 2025 had proposed an area of NE and SE Kansas secede and form it's own state: "Sequoyah" I believe was the name he picked.

---

Here's the wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Mentioned on
KTUL:
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/456606.html

FOX23:
http://www.fox23.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=21983@video.fox23.com&navCatId=5


Plenty of forum favorites there (you know who you are). I think DoubleA submitted about half of the questions. Apparently one of the "pro" speakers couldn't make it and her replacement wasn't exactly the best public speaker. Over 100 people were in attendance with more than one who didn't know the current vote had nothing to do with the channels.

Anyone else have any opinions?

---

I think Piercy hit happy hour before the forum. I was really unimpressed. I submitted five questions, I think. Eagleton and Tawney were outstanding.

---

I submitted like 3-4 and got one answered, you submitted at LEAST 5.

---

Too bad, I think about 3-4 of my questions got asked. Guess you should have asked better questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I say we secede from Oklahoma and create our own state. [:D]

---

Sign me up!

I remember seeing an old Tulsa World article about "Tulsa, Kansas" and a whole thing about how it could be beneficial for Tulsa to secede into Kansas.  We'd immediately be the largest city :D

---

Well, if we seceded and created our own state, we'd still be in the same situation funding-wise...

...

Point being, if we formed our own state, we'd be in no different a situation, except that maybe we could get our own federal dollars and actually see something done HERE with them  [:P].

---

No, We would be better off.  Right now, State income, and state sales tax (4.5%) are taken away from Tulsa, and we get very little in return.  We wouldn't be in the same situation, we would have all of that money that currently flows out of town and into corrupt OKC-centric politicians at our disposal to fulfill the needs of Tulsa and surrounding communities.

---

Don't forget all the federal funds that the state dictates where the spending happens, like highway funds, medical funds and the like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

Too bad, I think about 3-4 of my questions got asked. Guess you should have asked better questions.

---

I wrote mine early. The best one got asked, although the answer was largely avoided. I was just asking why "do the streets first" is heralded when no-one wants a streets tax either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

Too bad, I think about 3-4 of my questions got asked. Guess you should have asked better questions.

---

I wrote mine early. The best one got asked, although the answer was largely avoided. I was just asking why "do the streets first" is heralded when no-one wants a streets tax either.

---

I would support a tax to fully fund the 4 billion dollar backlog of needed unfunded infrastructure maintenance of not only streets, but for other needed improvements like the city wastewater treatment plant on the west bank- a glaring oversight in the concepts to be voted on in the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax vote. The best one I wrote that got asked (re:utilization of local minority contractors) didn't get answered by anyone, it was completely disregarded by the panel.

It's a darn good thing I don't live in Tulsa, I could not really make up my mind on this issue. I normally would vote down every tax hike but in this case it's really a small tax hike, and since Oklahoma's sales tax is already sky high a little fraction more really won't be noticed much. This is for the river and that's really the only natural resource Tulsa has. Tulsa needs to make the best of the river. The other side has some good points also. I'm leaning on favoring the River Tax, but that's just me...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A


I would support a tax to fully fund the 4 billion dollar backlog of needed unfunded infrastructure maintenance of not only streets, but for other needed improvements like the city wastewater treatment plant on the west bank- a glaring oversight in the concepts to be voted on in the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax vote. The best one I wrote that got asked (re:utilization of local minority contractors) didn't get answered by anyone, it was completely disregarded by the panel.

---

I would likely support an infrastructure tax as well.. I'd support a bill to give everyon in oklahoma free college tuition or a bill to parachute naked ladies and gold dubloons down onto Tulsa. My only point was that no-one was offering up a road bill (just like no-one is going to go for Eagleton's V2025 Second Mortgage idea) so why bring it up?

10yrs ago I toured northpoint when it was being "built by minority-only contractors" and a member of our group asked the guide why he didn't see any hispanics, native americans, or asians. He was asked to leave. When an inclusionary project is itself exclusionary, what is the point?

As an addendum to that I did think I saw a native american plumber later in the day...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

---

Councilor Eagleton has a good business head on his shoulders.

His idea of using the several hundred million dollarss in projected tax collection OVERAGES from Vision 2025 is a sound financial move.

Unfortunately, Tulsa County Financial Advisor John Piercey, the long-time "dear" friend of fellow Tulsa County Ring Unindicted Co-Conspirators Bob Parmele and Dirty Bob Dick, is hiding the financial numbers.

Michael Bates formally asked him for the numbers three weeks ago.  When Mr. Piercey would not comply, Michael Bates reports in his weekly UTW column he even got Commissioner Perry to twist Big John's arm to release the numbers.  

Still, Mr. Piercey is stonewalling providing the Vision 2025 financial projections, and he has NOT complied according to Mr. Bates latest UTW column.

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

But the greedy Swells want MORE.

Promoting a new sales tax that hurts Tulsa's poorest and neediest families the worst.  And the Swells could care less.

And, then they'll be back for more, and more, and more, and more taxes.  They are insatiable.

They'll never stop.  They are insatiable TAX VAMPIRES.

Save your wooden stakes.

[:(!]

---

The poorest and neediest get a tax rebate that will offset most of the increased tax.

---

This is my first time on this board, and I've been reading a lot on both sides and haven't seen anything about the "senior citizen rebate", until now.  The 'Yes' side's ads on TV and Radio add the comment, "And, Seniors get a Rebate", at the end.  But, what they don't say is, that rebate is only for those who are already taking the Earned Income Credit.  Those who haven't taken the credit in the past cannot get the rebate.  And, those already taking the EIC have to choose between that credit or the Rebate...they do not get both.  So, Seniors are not gaining anything monetary by voting 'Yes'.  It is somewhat deceiving, in my opinion.  Lots of senior citizens on fixed incomes who hear that short statement are going to think, "gee, I get money back if I vote "Yes"...but, they do not check any further because they are so "trusting", don't have computer skills, etc., and, the time comes to get the rebate and they are told, "sorry, you can't get that because you have not filed for the EIC", or "you have to choose which one you want, the EIC or the Rebate, you can't have both." Well, they sure can't take back their vote.

I think the "No" side should be doing more to get the truth about this "rebate" out there, because older citizens are going to think they are going to get their tax, or part of it, back at the end of each year, but, this is not the way it works.  No one is going to gain financially with this so-called "Rebate."[:(]

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

---

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  There are seniors who have heard that little ending to the ads and they think they will be getting back most of if not more than they pay out during the year.  This has them thinking it is in their best interest to vote "Yes" whether they are for it or not because they will get back what they spend at the register.  I'm not sure what you meant by that I must have misspoke?  Can you elaborate on that?

Perhaps this speaks to my age a bit, but I noticed some discussions in the Tulsa, OK network on Facebook...

Someone started a discussion about "VOTE NO!!!".  Someone else entered and said they'd heard about the tax but didn't know anything about it... She was directed ONLY to the No campaign's website ("This site below will tell you all about the river tax") and came back from it saying that it can't pass because it will hurt her family and 10 month-old son...

I just couldn't help myself, so I stepped in and  posted links to INCOG, Tulsa World, KTUL, KOTV, the County website, the yes campaign and the graphic showing the proposed projects (you know, all the information she WASN'T shown).

Since the girl in question was most likely concerned by the "this will destroy low income families" argument, I outlined what the projects included (including the $117m donation) and brought up the tax rebate for low-income families and senior citizens.

At this point, I was met with an argument claiming that the tax would cost the average senior citizen $800 per year extra and that the $25 rebate doesn't even touch that... so I did some visual math and showed that for an $800 burden, that senior citizen would have to spend $200,000 on taxable goods, and that the estimated burden of $96 was closer to an actual number.

This is the point that the discussion went from the river to personal attacks against me.  Apparently, I'm an egotistical, elitist outcast, never fitting into a group (is that a bad thing?), trying to get attention by being a prick and proving people wrong... and my profile picture is a basis for making fun of me...

Providing links to information which present both sides apparently made me childish, too.

Anyway, somewhere during this so-called 'discussion', I remembered a quote from Hairspray...

I thought I'd share it all with you here.  I think it's appropriate for this river tax, regardless of whether you're for or against it... Tax votes, or any vote, really, tend to bring out people who refuse to speak with anyone who disagrees with them.

And the quote: "You two better brace yourselves for a whole lotta ugly comin' at you from a neverending parade of stupid."

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604



I just couldn't help myself, so I stepped in and  posted links to INCOG, Tulsa World, KTUL, KOTV, the County website, the yes campaign and the graphic showing the proposed projects

---

Don't you mean concepts? Projects have plans. Please don't insult my intelligence by erroneously citing the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

How ironic. The quote is reaffirmed in merely one post.

Thanks for the quote. Would look good on a bumper sticker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

How ironic. The quote is reaffirmed in merely one post.

Thanks for the quote. Would look good on a bumper sticker.

---

[:P]  Gotta love it.

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

(http://www.ourriveryes.com/images/maps/large/026-41st-St-birdseye-SWA.jpg)

Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeeDub


Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

---

Paddling, sailing, kayaking... all of those are activities that can take place on the river... People just aren't allowed to swim in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeeDub


Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

---

Unless you are on top of the mountain where the stream begins everywhere is downstream of somewhere else.

Sand Springs does not "dump" their sewage into the river, they do however discharge effluent from their waste water treatment plant into the river.  The interesting part is that all effluent into the river is actually required to be cleaner than the water in the river itself.  The river designation is secondary body contact but those discharges are required to meet primary body contact standards.

to prove that level of treatment the bio monitoring requirements for treatment plants along the river require that that specific bugs and fish be able not only live in but reproduce in 100% effluent from the discharge sources with no dilution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

---

On the news it said this development area extends north to the crow creek bridge at 36th.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

(http://www.ourriveryes.com/images/maps/large/026-41st-St-birdseye-SWA.jpg)

---

yeah, but because of who owns the land on the other side, it will never happen... he wont let it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

(http://www.ourriveryes.com/images/maps/large/026-41st-St-birdseye-SWA.jpg)

---

You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

---

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

P.S. QuikTrip is not Quick Trip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

---

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

---

I believe the statement was it would preclude a vehicular bridge.

pre·clude      /prɪˈklud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-klood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing.
1.   to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible: The insufficiency of the evidence precludes a conviction.
2.   to exclude or debar from something: His physical disability precludes an athletic career for him.

I'm sorry, I meant to say QuickTrick.

Smarten up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

---

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

---

I believe the statement was it would preclude a vehicular bridge.

pre·clude      /prɪˈklud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-klood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing.
1.   to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible: The insufficiency of the evidence precludes a conviction.
2.   to exclude or debar from something: His physical disability precludes an athletic career for him.

I'm sorry, I meant to say QuickTrick.

Smarten up.

---

The word was indeed preclude, except there was a  'wouldn't' before 'preclude'.

Wouldn't+preclude= would not preclude.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ladytrader2

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

---

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  There are seniors who have heard that little ending to the ads and they think they will be getting back most of if not more than they pay out during the year.  This has them thinking it is in their best interest to vote "Yes" whether they are for it or not because they will get back what they spend at the register.  I'm not sure what you meant by that I must have misspoke?  Can you elaborate on that?

---

I cant imagine anyone thinking they would be getting a rebate, that is more than they paid in. Has there ever been such a thing? A "rebate" is a "deductuction from an amount paid in, a return from a payment".

I am fairly sure seniors read the paper, often more than the average person actually. There have been plenty of articles in newspapers and on the news that state the amount of the rebate and what the amount of the tax is.

A complete video of the forum is now available at the Tulsa Now (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org%22) home page.

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

---

Right...that's just how I see it, it is just baiting people to vote "Yes" when they will not be eligible when the time comes to get it.  I think it's for Seniors and people in a certain income bracket (I might be wrong about the latter).  But, nevertheless, since there's no way to figure how much a person actually pays in sales taxes, it will be a percentage based on income and number of people in the household?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ladytrader2

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

---

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  There are seniors who have heard that little ending to the ads and they think they will be getting back most of if not more than they pay out during the year.  This has them thinking it is in their best interest to vote "Yes" whether they are for it or not because they will get back what they spend at the register.  I'm not sure what you meant by that I must have misspoke?  Can you elaborate on that?

---

I cant imagine anyone thinking they would be getting a rebate, that is more than they paid in. Has there ever been such a thing? A "rebate" is a "deductuction from an amount paid in, a return from a payment".

I am fairly sure seniors read the paper, often more than the average person actually. There have been plenty of articles in newspapers and on the news that state the amount of the rebate and what the amount of the tax is.

---

I think they will be under the impression that they will get the rebate in addition to the EIC.  I had not read anywhere that it would be a replacement of that credit, and, someone just recently explained it to me.  

Also, some in the really low income brackets might think it would be more than they would get from taking the EIC.  I may be wrong, but, I continue the way it is being presented in the ads is deceptive.  There's no ad explaining the "rebate".  Of course, this is entirely my opinion and I'm open to information on this from someone who definitely knows how it will work.

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ladytrader2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

---

Right...that's just how I see it, it is just baiting people to vote "Yes" when they will not be eligible when the time comes to get it.  I think it's for Seniors and people in a certain income bracket (I might be wrong about the latter).  But, nevertheless, since there's no way to figure how much a person actually pays in sales taxes, it will be a percentage based on income and number of people in the household?

---

I thought it was seniors and families making less than 50,000 a year. $25 credit would be equal to about $125/week in purchases at walmart and taco bell.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

---

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

P.S. QuikTrip is not Quick Trip.

---

someone, more in the know than me, would validate that the 41st st vehicular bridge was kaiboshed by the west bank land-owner/41st street gathering place donor... it won't happen in our lifetime...

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

---

How arrogant. The river needs us to sustain it? Gimme a break. The river sustains itself, despite our meddling. OKC has a canal, not a river. That's why Bricktown works, it is on a human scale that is conducive to that type of development.

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

---

Someone's been drinking the TYPros Koolaid.

Main Entry: in·fra·struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'in-fr&-"str&k-ch&r, -(")frä-
Function: noun
1 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
2 : the permanent installations required for military purposes.

Infrastructure is not a project to provide cool new places for young professionals to hang out.

It is also not the countY's responsibility.

Do you really think the citizens of the city of Tulsa would pony up a tax increase to develop Black Jack creek for Collinsville?

Companies go to regions with a low tax burden, well maintained basic infrastructure, low crime rates, cheap labor, and if all that is met they will use lifestyle as a tie breaker.

Just like a football team that has lost a few games, Tulsa needs to return to the basics of a functioning city.  Once the trust of the citizens has been regained....then the right time to take on another project has come.

Right now....we're still trying to digest Vision 2025.  Wasn't that supposed to fix all of Tulsa's problems?  Why don't we finish those over-budget projects first?

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty


Right now....we're still trying to digest Vision 2025.  Wasn't that supposed to fix all of Tulsa's problems?  Why don't we finish those over-budget projects first?

---

Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?

How about the white elephant in the middle of downtown and the projects from which funding was taken to cover that.

Don't know that I've heard of any others over budget aside from the arena, but it has penalized or delayed the start of others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle



Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?

---

Well, the arena for one.  How about the low water dams we were promised would be constructed for a second one.  They're so far over budget on that one that they are asking us to raise our taxes again.  

The ballot I voted on said "Construct", not "Study" low water dams.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle



Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?

---

Well, the arena for one.  How about the low water dams we were promised would be constructed for a second one.  They're so far over budget on that one that they are asking us to raise our taxes again.  

The ballot I voted on said "Construct", not "Study" low water dams.

---

Let's add the Route 66 (11th Street) Bridge renovation/rehabilitaion which will not occur at all now.

That makes three.

OK, there's three.

I thought about the route 66 project too, but since it's not going to happen it isn't technically over budget.

Now why exactly isn't it going to happen?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle



Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?

---

Well, the arena for one.  How about the low water dams we were promised would be constructed for a second one.  They're so far over budget on that one that they are asking us to raise our taxes again.  

The ballot I voted on said "Construct", not "Study" low water dams.

---

Let's add the Route 66 (11th Street) Bridge renovation/rehabilitaion which will not occur at all now.

That makes three.

---

The Avery bridge preservation work is happening NOW.  

The missing railing sections have been replaced, new lighting is being installed and the deck has been cleaned and sealed to retard further weather damage.

The new parking area is nearly complete and the pedestrian crossing (bridge) across SWB is under contract and will soon be under construction.  In addition, the bronze artwork is in fabrications and is expected to be installed on the east approach within the next year.

FYI - That Bridge is structurally incapable of again supporting traffic or even large numbers of people safely, the rendering that circulated around of it being used as a gathering place was proven infeasible in the structural evaluation.  Also I believe that structure is on the National Register, generating serious doubt of being able to put anything on it that was not there originally there, like pavilions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle



Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?

---

Well, the arena for one.  How about the low water dams we were promised would be constructed for a second one.  They're so far over budget on that one that they are asking us to raise our taxes again.  

The ballot I voted on said "Construct", not "Study" low water dams.

---

Let's add the Route 66 (11th Street) Bridge renovation/rehabilitaion which will not occur at all now.

That makes three.

---

I seem to remember seeing trucks and workers working on it right now.

Maybe I was just better educated than most going into the Vision2025 vote, but I never thought we were paying for the whole dam cost.

Originally posted by sgrizzle.

quote:

---

I seem to remember seeing trucks and workers working on it right now.

Maybe I was just better educated than most going into the Vision2025 vote, but I never thought we were paying for the whole dam cost.

---

Sgrizzle I think what you saw them working on can be best described by this excerpt from Rwarn's blog page....

---

I was able to procure handout artist’s renderings of the Cyrus Avery Centennial Plaza planned near the Route 66 museum and interpretive center that’s going to be built at 11th Street and Southwest Boulevard in Tulsa. It’s all part of the Vision 2025 master plan for Route 66 in Tulsa County.

quote:

---

That Bridge is structurally incapable of again supporting traffic or even large numbers of people safely, the rendering that circulated around of it being used as a gathering place was proven infeasible in the structural evaluation.  

---

Don't you mean it costs too much?

I seriously doubt any claim which says it cannot be done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

That Bridge is structurally incapable of again supporting traffic or even large numbers of people safely, the rendering that circulated around of it being used as a gathering place was proven infeasible in the structural evaluation.  

---

Don't you mean it costs too much?

I seriously doubt any claim which says it cannot be done.

---

Zing! I wonder how many of these conceptual renderings for the river tax concepts will be proven infeasible if this tax passes? Closer examination of Vision 2025 should cause second thoughts about this river tax. Just look at the tax rebates for Seniors in Vision 2025, I wonder how many eligible Seniors are utilizing that rebate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

That Bridge is structurally incapable of again supporting traffic or even large numbers of people safely, the rendering that circulated around of it being used as a gathering place was proven infeasible in the structural evaluation.  

---

Don't you mean it costs too much?

I seriously doubt any claim which says it cannot be done.

---

Zing! I wonder how many of these conceptual renderings for the river tax concepts will be proven infeasible if this tax passes? Closer examination of Vision 2025 should cause second thoughts about this river tax. Just look at the tax rebates for Seniors in Vision 2025, I wonder how many eligible Seniors are utilizing that rebate?

---

If you read the Route 66 master plan (also been out there for years) they spent about a third of it discussing all of the options for the bridge. They were concerned about the river being able to hold vehicles again and decided against it and decided to go for aesthetic changes. I doubt it's gonna cave in anytime soon considering they are repaving it right now. Like, with big trucks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision 2025

---

The Avery bridge preservation work is happening NOW.  


[/quote]

What happened to the plans for the museum and restaurant plans for that hill?

I have always thought Tulsa could use a "Fall Fest". Something that would bring people downtown like Mayfest does. But perhaps an art festival that has booths and tents on the bridge would be nice. A "Route 66 Art Festival". It wouldnt neccessarily have to have art that just focused on Route 66, but I bet a lot of artists, musicians, etc would tend to bring out stuff that reflected Route 66.

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

---

You make excellent points here, persp.

quote:

---

I have always thought Tulsa could use a "Fall Fest". Something that would bring people downtown like Mayfest does. But perhaps an art festival that has booths and tents on the bridge would be nice. A "Route 66 Art Festival". It wouldnt neccessarily have to have art that just focused on Route 66, but I bet a lot of artists, musicians, etc would tend to bring out stuff that reflected Route 66.

---

I'm all in favor of a Fall Festival, and I like your idea of incorporating Route 66.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

---

You make excellent points here, persp.

quote:

---

I have always thought Tulsa could use a "Fall Fest". Something that would bring people downtown like Mayfest does. But perhaps an art festival that has booths and tents on the bridge would be nice. A "Route 66 Art Festival". It wouldnt neccessarily have to have art that just focused on Route 66, but I bet a lot of artists, musicians, etc would tend to bring out stuff that reflected Route 66.

---

I'm all in favor of a Fall Festival, and I like your idea of incorporating Route 66.

---

We have a great fall festival, Oktoborfest (//%22http://www.tulsaoktoberfest.org/%22).  It's on the river too. I swear, you chamber youths, always bellyachin' theres nothing to do in Tulsa or on the river. What's the matter, a beer festival beneath you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A:
We have a great fall festival, Oktoborfest (//%22http://www.tulsaoktoberfest.org/%22).  It's on the river too. I swear, you chamber youths, always bellyachin' theres nothing to do in Tulsa or on the river. What's the matter, a beer festival beneath you?

---

I'm well aware of Oktoberfest, but that's not the Arts festival I think artist was envisioning.  He even said like Mayfest but in the fall.  Does it hurt to have more than ONE festival during one season?  Really?

No, Oktoberfest isn't beneath me, and I've NEVER said that there's nothing to do in Tulsa--quite the opposite.  And I'm not associated with the Chamber, either.  

So, is reading something and NOT spinning it to fit your cynical, conspiratorial mindset beneath you?

Yes I like that we have Octoberfest. I have never suggested otherwise. I dont really consider it an Art Festival. Yes they do have a few things  which are nice but I dont go there to look at and buy art or arts and crafts.  I was actually considering something during the last week of September or First week of October so as not to be during the time of Octoberfest and still likely to have some nice weather. I figure being on that bridge may be a bit windy so the sooner in the fall the better so that it wont be too chilly.  I think the Route 66 tie in theme could make it a unique event and draw, capitalizing on something very different than Octoberfest. Early fall is a great time to start getting outdoors and do the "festival" thing. I dont think having two different festivals in the fall would be any stretch at all.

Originally posted by the Artist.

quote:

---

I was actually considering something during the last week of September or First week of October so as not to be during the time of Octoberfest and still likely to have some nice weather.

---

---

Excellent choice...
That way you would not have to worry about any of the people attending the "Fair" showing up at the little gathering of the societe elevee.........