The final 15 days, before the vote, are now upon us...
Progress? Yes the "Yes" team has made progress.
Many of the proponents of this plan have chosen to use just about every political trick in the book to transform this into one of the most palatable items ever to come down the pike.
In just this short amount of time they have everyone from young children to Grandmas predicting that this is the very least we can do for our descendants...
What a guilt trip they have laid on the table.
"Do this for Tulsa do it for your children and grandchildren."
I'm sorry but I would hope that I could do better for my children and grandchildren...
Mister Kaiser has placed an unacceptable term upon his charitable gift??
"Decide which one of these bill$ you want before they all disappear."
If I were leaning towards voting for this.. The hoopla, that has now reached a dissonant pitch, would be enough to make me vote no.
The "Channels" and now the "River Tax" have been touted as some sort of panacea for all that ails Tulsa.
I can't buy it...
Below is the sort of development they say was chosen as the "Best For Tulsa"
Which Tulsa....?
Certainly not the Tulsa I would like to see Downtown...
Maybe they are referring to the Tulsa Jenks would like to see just a few miles away from the Aquarium.
With a $25 Million cushion and $40 Million for Downtown "Connector Study"
We should see some action out of this Downtown around 2014.
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/ArkansasBudget.jpg)
Its not the river "OR" downtown, OR the streets, OR schools, OR crime... There are a lot of other things that are going on, or will be. There are lots of different groups and organizations working on various projects to make Tulsa better. Get out there and join a group or a cause and make a difference. This river plan and tax shouldn't stop you or anyone else, from doing other positive things. Its just one more piece that will add to the over all picture.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
With a $25 Million cushion and $40 Million for Downtown "Connector Study"
Did you read the graphic or just post it?
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
The
Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias. They had no less than
FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper.
FOUR.As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:
By and large, they are not paying for it.
The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.
Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they
publically endorse the tax. Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.
Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias. They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper. FOUR.
As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:
By and large, they are not paying for it.
The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.
Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax. Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.
Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.
[:P]
I am honored you chose my post to respond to. Surprised you found time to respond being so busy with KFAQ and all.
The World is attempting to use their private business to take a leadership role in the community. Most award winning newspapers do the same. Just like KFAQ who blathers on about good and evil, liberals and the devil all morning. Do they allow equal time for yes forces? If you want equal time print your own newspaper.
The World printed negative news stories about the plan early on, even one about the sewage treatment plant, but frankly, no one steps up with any legitimate no arguments to be published. Only accusations, fear mongering and threats like you use.
And why aren't the local oligarchy's toadies, the leading businessmen, not going to pay for the river development? Do they not pay that 4/10 cent tax? Are they excluded? Or do you assume they buy everything online or out of state where taxes are lower?
There will be a price to pay for the mindless opposition to any taxpayer funded progress your group embraces. Your threats don't scare anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
All the projects in this plan are fully funded by the said amount that each project is listed for on the ballot plus the 25 mill for cost overruns. If federal funds are collected then the tax can be expired early.
Unless of course you can find a project that says we are raising 5 million for several, and everyone knows that even one will cost substantially more than the 5 mill. But wouldn't something with costs that glaringly out of skew be obvious?
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park... gathering areas are bull****... no amount of improvement to just get a "nicer park" is going to get this town a damn thing... im only for it because of the west bank land acquistion and kaisers money is already on the table... and that damn 41st pedestrian bridge, wth? where is that going? who is going to cross to the west side at 41st? should have made that an auto bridge and really connected the west bank...
and i agree, those editorials by the typro clowns were complete bull****... not a single one of those kids' more successful colleagues is going to move to tulsa because we fixed up the river... hell, 3 of those jackasses mentioned downtown and connectors or not, this plan won't do diddly for downtown...
apparently, nothing will be done on the east bank- which is a huge mistake... and im not happy about it...
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
Again,
The county has said repeatedly that IF federal funds are finally forthcoming that the tax will "sunset" early.
But, I'm betting you already knew that, just like I bet you knew the 2025 dam money was for matching funds when you voted against it.
The 2025 money was always for local matching funds, it stated so in articles at the time of the vote, on the web site for 2025 and in the literature for the vote. This was not a hidden fact. The matching funds were not in "fine print".
That it didn't state this implicitly on the ballot would have had more to do with the fact that the dams were just one of three river projects and there were a total of 4 ballot items with something like 35 total projects. If every detail had been included on the ballot for each project the ballot would have been ten pages long. It was long enough as it was.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
With a $25 Million cushion and $40 Million for Downtown "Connector Study"
Did you read the graphic or just post it?
What I read was the article attached to the graphic...
Knowing you Sgrizzle... there is a reason for the question.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Its not the river "OR" downtown, OR the streets, OR schools, OR crime... There are a lot of other things that are going on, or will be. There are lots of different groups and organizations working on various projects to make Tulsa better. Get out there and join a group or a cause and make a difference. This river plan and tax shouldn't stop you or anyone else, from doing other positive things. Its just one more piece that will add to the over all picture.
Spoken like a true TYPros
William I had no idea........[:O]
Last comment time will allow....
The meeting on 6th St this evening would be a great location to see how this is worked up close and personal........
[}:)]
I drove around town yesterday to get a sign count; "No River Tax" signs are greatly outnumbered by "Our River Yes". I only counted properties with a sign, not total number of signs.
I noticed that neighborhoods closer to the river were of course in favor and there were more yes signs than you could count. I saw no difference in support between well to do, average or lower income. Also no difference between areas that are largely Republican or largely Democrat. No difference in North Tulsa, South Tulsa, East or Midtown (I didn't make it accross the river to West Tulsa or out to the burbs).
As you drive away from the river, there are fewer and fewer signs either yes or no. Could be that these areas are not vocal, dont really care or don't have access to signs.
I did not see any area where the no sign was predominant or even on par with the yes sign.
Not that this is in any way scientific, just interesting to note.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I drove around town yesterday to get a sign count; "No River Tax" signs are greatly outnumbered by "Our River Yes". I only counted properties with a sign, not total number of signs.
I noticed that neighborhoods closer to the river were of course in favor and there were more yes signs than you could count. I saw no difference in support between well to do, average or lower income. Also no difference between areas that are largely Republican or largely Democrat. No difference in North Tulsa, South Tulsa, East or Midtown (I didn't make it accross the river to West Tulsa or out to the burbs).
As you drive away from the river, there are fewer and fewer signs either yes or no. Could be that these areas are not vocal, dont really care or don't have access to signs.
I did not see any area where the no sign was predominant or even on par with the yes sign.
Not that this is in any way scientific, just interesting to note.
Did you count before or after the sign stealing crews came through? Our sign was stolen sometime Thursday night.
My spot check was yesterday.
How do you know it was a sign stealing crew and not a neighbor or the wind?
If you really think your sign has been stolen put out another one or 20 more, this time with a web cam on it. Nothing gets on the news faster than an opposing candidate steeling a sign (or in this instance a high profile steeling sign person on the other side).
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park... gathering areas are bull****... no amount of improvement to just get a "nicer park" is going to get this town a damn thing... im only for it because of the west bank land acquistion and kaisers money is already on the table... and that damn 41st pedestrian bridge, wth? where is that going? who is going to cross to the west side at 41st? should have made that an auto bridge and really connected the west bank...
and i agree, those editorials by the typro clowns were complete bull****... not a single one of those kids' more successful colleagues is going to move to tulsa because we fixed up the river... hell, 3 of those jackasses mentioned downtown and connectors or not, this plan won't do diddly for downtown...
apparently, nothing will be done on the east bank- which is a huge mistake... and im not happy about it...
Why vote for it if you are not happy with it? You really can't be buying into the B.S. about this being the last and only chance to develop the river? The high pressure sale and emotional appeals for this hastily thrown together, conceptual, unspecific, undetailed, river development tax, is necessary because it does not stand on it's own merits. The reality is we can turn this down on Oct 9, develop a real river development financing plan instead of just vague concepts for river development with unreliable cost estimates. We could vote on it as soon as the state/county primary elections or later in the November general elections. You gave many reasons you are unhappy with this tax, yet you didn't give any for why you'll support it. Care to share?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
The real question everyone should be asking is why the backers of this plan neglected to seek state or federal funds before raiding the primary revenue streams for struggling municipalities with a regressive tax that hurts small business and the working poor?
I fall into the same boat DoubleA. I'm probably going to vote yes simply because I have yet to hear a better proposal. I want SOMETHING to be done, and no one else is stepping up with viable alternatives. I guess not wanting to lose out on the private money is another reason.
I'm split. On one token I want the river to be more usable and a real destination. The idea of having water in it appeals to me. Development along the river appeals to me. Generally just more shiny new things in Tulsa is a good thing and when private enterprises steps up with hundreds of millions it caught my attention.
Then again... the plan is a bit vague. The tax is a bit vague. More taxes are generally bad. The numbers (9000 jobs) seem ridiculous. And the amount of money we are talking is heinous. I also have some concerns about the good ole' boy system taking advantage of tax payers. The rushed nature also seems alarming.
You have certainly raised some notable concerns on this issue... so I remain split. If a viable alternative was given, I would vote NO with confidence. But as it stands...
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
With a $25 Million cushion and $40 Million for Downtown "Connector Study"
Did you read the graphic or just post it?
What I read was the article attached to the graphic...
Knowing you Sgrizzle... there is a reason for the question.
I just haven't seen anywhere, or in the posted graphic, where there was $40M for a study. There is a transportation study as a small part of a $15M budget for downtown connectors.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias. They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper. FOUR.
As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:
By and large, they are not paying for it.
The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.
Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax. Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.
Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.
[:P]
I am honored you chose my post to respond to. Surprised you found time to respond being so busy with KFAQ and all.
The World is attempting to use their private business to take a leadership role in the community. Most award winning newspapers do the same. Just like KFAQ who blathers on about good and evil, liberals and the devil all morning. Do they allow equal time for yes forces? If you want equal time print your own newspaper.
The World printed negative news stories about the plan early on, even one about the sewage treatment plant, but frankly, no one steps up with any legitimate no arguments to be published. Only accusations, fear mongering and threats like you use.
And why aren't the local oligarchy's toadies, the leading businessmen, not going to pay for the river development? Do they not pay that 4/10 cent tax? Are they excluded? Or do you assume they buy everything online or out of state where taxes are lower?
There will be a price to pay for the mindless opposition to any taxpayer funded progress your group embraces. Your threats don't scare anyone.
Threats? No threats have been made.
There is however an acknowledged risk that local businessmen make when they choose to inject themselves in politics.
It's a risk that possibly it will turn around and bite them in loss of clientele. That's isn't a new idea, and it's no threat.
Quick-Trip is diversified far outside of Tulsa County, and even if fewer people patronized them due to their leadership's promotion of the new tax, it would not sink them.
What is hurting them is lost cigarette sales due to Indian Smoke Shops. Cigarettes bring a lot of people into their stores, then are cross-sold other products.
I believe that when Quick-Trip or any other retailer buys merchandise for RE-SALE, they pay NO SALES TAX. Nada.
They do charge their customers sales tax, however, on the final sale of the product.
They would pay the equivalent Use Tax for goods they buy for internal use, such as cleaning supplies, for instance.
I have nothing at all to do with KFAQ. I do think that KFAQ airing the issue of the proposed 61st Pedestrian Bridge passing directly over the Sewage Plant Overflow lagoon may have prompted the
Lorton's World to subsequently file a news article regarding the river "smell".
Leadership by the
Lorton's World?Surely, you jest.
No, they are one of the Controlling Oligarchy Families here in Tulsa. They want control.
They promoted with lavish, feel good, pie-in-the-sky optimism the city's investment in Great Plains Airlines, while retaining a secret majority equity interest in the company.
That was craven financial self-dealing at the public expense.
And, to my knowledge, they are a major shareholder in F&M Bank, who just coincidentally received one-half of the Vision 2025 Bond Underwriting work, without I might add of having the benefit of Competitive bidding.
And, the
Lorton's World never met a tax it didn't like, except for a sales tax on newspapers.
Definitely did NOT like that tax!
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park...
I hear Blair owner will not sell. Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell? What if the concrete place refuses to sell? They can't use eminent domain for private development. Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park...
I hear Blair owner will not sell. Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell? What if the concrete place refuses to sell? They can't use eminent domain for private development. Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?
The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park... gathering areas are bull****... no amount of improvement to just get a "nicer park" is going to get this town a damn thing... im only for it because of the west bank land acquistion and kaisers money is already on the table... and that damn 41st pedestrian bridge, wth? where is that going? who is going to cross to the west side at 41st? should have made that an auto bridge and really connected the west bank...
and i agree, those editorials by the typro clowns were complete bull****... not a single one of those kids' more successful colleagues is going to move to tulsa because we fixed up the river... hell, 3 of those jackasses mentioned downtown and connectors or not, this plan won't do diddly for downtown...
apparently, nothing will be done on the east bank- which is a huge mistake... and im not happy about it...
Why vote for it if you are not happy with it? You really can't be buying into the B.S. about this being the last and only chance to develop the river? The high pressure sale and emotional appeals for this hastily thrown together, conceptual, unspecific, undetailed, river development tax, is necessary because it does not stand on it's own merits. The reality is we can turn this down on Oct 9, develop a real river development financing plan instead of just vague concepts for river development with unreliable cost estimates. We could vote on it as soon as the state/county primary elections or later in the November general elections. You gave many reasons you are unhappy with this tax, yet you didn't give any for why you'll support it. Care to share?
because sometimes you settle... you take what you can get, when you can get it... i dont think this is the last chance for the river but it is the only option NOW and i want something done now not five or ten years from now... plus, i'll take a nice park; i just want the mixed-use as well... it is not really an either or for me... i just wish theyd gone for broke and even planned more... i'm willing to concede on the 41st street bridge... after ten years of marriage i'm willing to compromise, a lot... and finally, i don't think we pay enough im taxes for what we expect anyway... so tax on little doggie, i'll pay it...
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
No part of the proposed plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds.
Should federal funds:
1. Get authorized. (This is what Inhofe is working on)
2. Get appropriated. (Happens sometime in the future)
3. Make their way here, in a reasonable time, they would be utilized and very likely would reducing the local cost of this project depending upon what the funds are actually authorized for.
Why vote for an incomplete and, at this point, fairly obscure plan?
This swift vote all seems to have been set in motion by Kaiser's generous gift. John Piercy stumbled around the answer last Tuesday night, but apparently (I'd guess for tax reasons) Kaiser has to get this money off his hands this year. According to Forbes, he's worth $11 bln. I understand that doesn't mean he has $11 bln in cash under his mattress, but I'm sure he could come up with it in short order.
There is still a key environmental report due which does not sound like it will be completed prior to this vote. Unless I'm mistaken, the conclusions could impact dam design or the channeling aspect. My assumption is it could wind up impacting costs or scotching a part of the project.
The primary property for the "land acquisition", according to John Piercy is the concrete plant. $52mm for that plot? Even if you are talking about the city maintenance and engineering center, those are properties which don't need to be purchased by the "authority". That is a total waste and confiscation of taxpayer funds, if the idea is to turn around and flip the property to private developers. You will never see a penny of that money after it is into county hands.
The Tulsa World's support for this is hardly entirely altruistic and civic-minded. What types of business use the daily print media for advertising? Retail and Service type businesses.
This has been pumped up to absurd proportions by the "yes" campaign:
$2.8 bln, $3.5 bln, whoops, no that's even very conservative say "observers". 9,000 new jobs for our kids. Great, but I want my kids to do more than work in retail or food service after I pay for their college education. Hell, the river is even going to fix our streets.
Here's the point: in the absence of any hard details, it's convenient to float out wild speculation about the overall impact. No doubt improving the river becomes an asset we all can appreciate, but how about waiting until they can at least provide a cohesive final plan with all potential players at the table, with their final designs in hand- before we grant them 4/10's of a penny?
If river development is truly something the private donor's are doing for altruistic purposes, then I'm sure some of them would come forward with the funds to complete the rest of the studies which they are threatening to terminate if this vote fails.
How many of you would ever buy a house on-line without so much as looking inside it, or much less having structural and EMP inspections done? Of course you wouldn't because you don't have enough information to make sure it's a sound investment.
The call to vote no is hardly fear, it's common sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan. The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project. Hello? Federal funds? What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds? Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams? Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?
No part of the proposed plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds.
Should federal funds:
1. Get authorized. (This is what Inhofe is working on)
2. Get appropriated. (Happens sometime in the future)
3. Make their way here, in a reasonable time, they would be utilized and very likely would reducing the local cost of this project depending upon what the funds are actually authorized for.
"sometime", "would be", "very likely", "would", "depending"....
Those are the kinds of words that have a lot of people not wanting to vote on this. "Definitely", "is", "are", "will be", inspire more voter confidence.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park...
I hear Blair owner will not sell. Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell? What if the concrete place refuses to sell? They can't use eminent domain for private development. Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?
The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.
I thought the intent was to sell it off for private development. If it were to expand the parks, I would agree with you. But I don't think in OK you can take private land to sell to another private developer.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park...
I hear Blair owner will not sell. Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell? What if the concrete place refuses to sell? They can't use eminent domain for private development. Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?
The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.
I thought the intent was to sell it off for private development. If it were to expand the parks, I would agree with you. But I don't think in OK you can take private land to sell to another private developer.
blair was for public use, not private. They were moving riverside drive onto it.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias. They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper. FOUR.
As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:
By and large, they are not paying for it.
The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.
Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax. Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.
Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.
[:P]
I am honored you chose my post to respond to. Surprised you found time to respond being so busy with KFAQ and all.
The World is attempting to use their private business to take a leadership role in the community. Most award winning newspapers do the same. Just like KFAQ who blathers on about good and evil, liberals and the devil all morning. Do they allow equal time for yes forces? If you want equal time print your own newspaper.
The World printed negative news stories about the plan early on, even one about the sewage treatment plant, but frankly, no one steps up with any legitimate no arguments to be published. Only accusations, fear mongering and threats like you use.
And why aren't the local oligarchy's toadies, the leading businessmen, not going to pay for the river development? Do they not pay that 4/10 cent tax? Are they excluded? Or do you assume they buy everything online or out of state where taxes are lower?
There will be a price to pay for the mindless opposition to any taxpayer funded progress your group embraces. Your threats don't scare anyone.
Threats? No threats have been made.
There is however an acknowledged risk that local businessmen make when they choose to inject themselves in politics.
It's a risk that possibly it will turn around and bite them in loss of clientele. That's isn't a new idea, and it's no threat.
Quick-Trip is diversified far outside of Tulsa County, and even if fewer people patronized them due to their leadership's promotion of the new tax, it would not sink them.
What is hurting them is lost cigarette sales due to Indian Smoke Shops. Cigarettes bring a lot of people into their stores, then are cross-sold other products.
I believe that when Quick-Trip or any other retailer buys merchandise for RE-SALE, they pay NO SALES TAX. Nada.
They do charge their customers sales tax, however, on the final sale of the product.
They would pay the equivalent Use Tax for goods they buy for internal use, such as cleaning supplies, for instance.
I have nothing at all to do with KFAQ. I do think that KFAQ airing the issue of the proposed 61st Pedestrian Bridge passing directly over the Sewage Plant Overflow lagoon may have prompted the Lorton's World to subsequently file a news article regarding the river "smell".
Leadership by the Lorton's World?
Surely, you jest.
No, they are one of the Controlling Oligarchy Families here in Tulsa. They want control.
They promoted with lavish, feel good, pie-in-the-sky optimism the city's investment in Great Plains Airlines, while retaining a secret majority equity interest in the company.
That was craven financial self-dealing at the public expense.
And, to my knowledge, they are a major shareholder in F&M Bank, who just coincidentally received one-half of the Vision 2025 Bond Underwriting work, without I might add of having the benefit of Competitive bidding.
And, the Lorton's World never met a tax it didn't like, except for a sales tax on newspapers.
Definitely did NOT like that tax!
As an aside, I think you are cowardly. You attack others who have the courage to use their real names and those who put their businesses and reputations on the line with support for this program.
No one is exempt from your accusations of impropriety yet no one knows from where or how credible those accusations are. That's gutless and cowardly. You wait for someone to oppose your view then find out all you can about them personally or professionally and start slinging the half truths.
Strangely, you disappeared for awhile and only showed back up on these pages when the river program surfaced. Perhaps you are a paid internet assassin?
So tell me, Bob, how is it that you know so much inside info? Is that because you have a history with the city? County? State? Have you been at the trough and know how the big boys slurp? Can't afford to let anyone know lest they count the number of signs in your yard and the size of your domicile?
We deserve to know whether you're just a saint with a past or a sinner with a future.
I don't understand why so many of you and other people I talk to think that the plans are so "incomplete" and "obscure".
The plan puts more dams in the river! That is the main point for me. It also allows for new development along the river and helps it attract more private investment. Sure, there are some ped bridges and stuff as well coming out of the tax...but if my extra $50 per year or whatever goes to dams to get consistent water in the River and helps attract more river development, I'm all for it. None of the other stuff looks or sounds bad to me...if it were, I might hold off on voting for dams, but as it is, I want my dams. DAM IT!
The incomplete and obscure parts are the privately funded parts are they not? I think the tax funded portion is pretty straightforward. I think they are doing too much trying to sell us on the privately funded part and confusing a lot of people over that.
The River is Tulsa's only natural resource, So Tulsa should do what it must to make the most of it. I'm a big fan of improving the jogging trails and making them longer, however the boat rental thing and other things like that seem like a nifty ideas too. I don't think the tax will pass. on Gwen freeman's morn. radio show 1170 KFAQ am it was mentioned that there are alot of people against the tax and it will likely fail. Gwen is against it. I guess it depends on voter turn out..
Originally posted by sgrizzle.
I just haven't seen anywhere, or in the posted graphic, where there was $40M for a study. There is a transportation study as a small part of a $15M budget for downtown connectors.
And as usual you are correct.... The error of adding the contingency fund and the DT connector and transportation study is all on me...
A thousand pardons.
On another thread regarding this subject...
Kenosha stated "the Downtown connector portion of the plan may be one of the best parts" or something to that effect......
I did not realize it was just a small portion of a measly $15 million....
Adios and later...... Compadre
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
I don't understand why so many of you and other people I talk to think that the plans are so "incomplete" and "obscure".
The incomplete and obscure parts are the privately funded parts are they not? I think the tax funded portion is pretty straightforward. I think they are doing too much trying to sell us on the privately funded part and confusing a lot of people over that.
To answer your last paragraph:
No. No. And finally, they are trying to over-sell the whole project.
Where are final site plans? Where's the final environmental impact study? How many more studies need to be completed? Where's a
true itemization of costs (there are loosely packaged "aspects" with prices) and what exactly is funded on each part? What the heck is a "connector"? Are we getting a pedestrian or mixed use bridge at 41st? Are we getting a ped bridge at 61st? Is Westport a part of the package?
That's pretty obscure if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by sgrizzle.
I just haven't seen anywhere, or in the posted graphic, where there was $40M for a study. There is a transportation study as a small part of a $15M budget for downtown connectors.
And as usual you are correct.... The error of adding the contingency fund and the DT connector and transportation study is all on me...
A thousand pardons.
On another thread regarding this subject...
Kenosha stated "the Downtown connector portion of the plan may be one of the best parts" or something to that effect......
I did not realize it was just a small portion of a measly $15 million....
Adios and later...... Compadre
No problem. It seemed completely wrong when I first read it and I thought the post was written by an impassioned Jovial Woodland creature who often posts such things. I didn't even notice it was you at first.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.
Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.
Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".
The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias. They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper. FOUR.
As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:
By and large, they are not paying for it.
The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.
Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax. Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.
Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.
[:P]
I am honored you chose my post to respond to. Surprised you found time to respond being so busy with KFAQ and all.
The World is attempting to use their private business to take a leadership role in the community. Most award winning newspapers do the same. Just like KFAQ who blathers on about good and evil, liberals and the devil all morning. Do they allow equal time for yes forces? If you want equal time print your own newspaper.
The World printed negative news stories about the plan early on, even one about the sewage treatment plant, but frankly, no one steps up with any legitimate no arguments to be published. Only accusations, fear mongering and threats like you use.
And why aren't the local oligarchy's toadies, the leading businessmen, not going to pay for the river development? Do they not pay that 4/10 cent tax? Are they excluded? Or do you assume they buy everything online or out of state where taxes are lower?
There will be a price to pay for the mindless opposition to any taxpayer funded progress your group embraces. Your threats don't scare anyone.
Threats? No threats have been made.
There is however an acknowledged risk that local businessmen make when they choose to inject themselves in politics.
It's a risk that possibly it will turn around and bite them in loss of clientele. That's isn't a new idea, and it's no threat.
Quick-Trip is diversified far outside of Tulsa County, and even if fewer people patronized them due to their leadership's promotion of the new tax, it would not sink them.
What is hurting them is lost cigarette sales due to Indian Smoke Shops. Cigarettes bring a lot of people into their stores, then are cross-sold other products.
I believe that when Quick-Trip or any other retailer buys merchandise for RE-SALE, they pay NO SALES TAX. Nada.
They do charge their customers sales tax, however, on the final sale of the product.
They would pay the equivalent Use Tax for goods they buy for internal use, such as cleaning supplies, for instance.
I have nothing at all to do with KFAQ. I do think that KFAQ airing the issue of the proposed 61st Pedestrian Bridge passing directly over the Sewage Plant Overflow lagoon may have prompted the Lorton's World to subsequently file a news article regarding the river "smell".
Leadership by the Lorton's World?
Surely, you jest.
No, they are one of the Controlling Oligarchy Families here in Tulsa. They want control.
They promoted with lavish, feel good, pie-in-the-sky optimism the city's investment in Great Plains Airlines, while retaining a secret majority equity interest in the company.
That was craven financial self-dealing at the public expense.
And, to my knowledge, they are a major shareholder in F&M Bank, who just coincidentally received one-half of the Vision 2025 Bond Underwriting work, without I might add of having the benefit of Competitive bidding.
And, the Lorton's World never met a tax it didn't like, except for a sales tax on newspapers.
Definitely did NOT like that tax!
As an aside, I think you are cowardly. You attack others who have the courage to use their real names and those who put their businesses and reputations on the line with support for this program.
No one is exempt from your accusations of impropriety yet no one knows from where or how credible those accusations are. That's gutless and cowardly. You wait for someone to oppose your view then find out all you can about them personally or professionally and start slinging the half truths.
Strangely, you disappeared for awhile and only showed back up on these pages when the river program surfaced. Perhaps you are a paid internet assassin?
So tell me, Bob, how is it that you know so much inside info? Is that because you have a history with the city? County? State? Have you been at the trough and know how the big boys slurp? Can't afford to let anyone know lest they count the number of signs in your yard and the size of your domicile?
We deserve to know whether you're just a saint with a past or a sinner with a future.
Wow, such negative, harsh, personal vitriole, you and RecycleMichael need to enroll in Anger Management therapy, ASAP.
At least I'm glad you aren't keeping that Anger all bottled up inside you.
All I really need is Love. Just Love.
I'm surprised the Forum Administrator does not DELETE your oh so personal and harsh attacks.
Wonder why not??
Speaking of hiding, so, is Waterboy your First Name, or your Last Name? That's your real name, I presume.
As to the resurrection of the Friendly Bear, the Bear started stirring at the end of his last hibernation cycle due to disturbances along the River. There were rumors of a new Sales Tax.
Friendly Bear likes fish, honey, and berries.
He doesn't like new Sales Taxes.
You're certainly correct that the FB is afraid....
He's very afraid for the future for our oppressed and exploited local citizenry, already paying 8.517% on every non-Rx good purchased.
Did I mention that Tulsa County already has the Highest Property Taxes in the State?
Will our Sales Tax at 8.917% be the highest of any major city in the Southweat U.S.?
Not if I can stop it.
But, he's so very afraid of the native Tax Vampires. They are always hungry.
When they are at their hungriest, they are relentless and remorseless in their pursuit of fresh tax dollars.
Why??
They
NEED to
FEED their
GREED.
And, we're on the menu.
[:P]
The vote is really pretty simple, we are voting on spending $282 million dollars to fix the existing dam, build two new dams, and to create a "living" river channel in between. Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow. And some partial funding for road improvements in the area of the river.
Local philanthropists will be adding in $117 million to improve and develop parklands along the river and a private developer from Missouri has said he want to build a $500 million center on the land at 21st.
It's $899 million in development on the river (just to start and not counting anything in Jenks) for under half a penny sales tax.
What is so obscure and shadowy?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How many of you would ever buy a house on-line without so much as looking inside it, or much less having structural and EMP inspections done? Of course you wouldn't because you don't have enough information to make sure it's a sound investment.
The call to vote no is hardly fear, it's common sense.
This is a great question. I'll respond, if you don't mind, by suggesting a slightly different metaphor.
This vote isn't like buying a house, sight unseen. This vote is like deciding you want to build a new house, and getting the money together to do so.
Those of you who want more details: if you were planning to build a home, and you were shopping for architects, how detailed would you expect the renderings to be? Would you expect detailed blueprints? No, because those don't get made until you are ready to proceed. You would look at renderings and get a sense of the builder's vision.
What we have here is a fairly detailed outline of what our river can look like. Plans can change. Blueprints won't exist until we have funds in hand to pay for them. If you don't like this vision, or don't want to pay for it, vote no. If you are willing to pay, vote yes. It's really that simple.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The vote is really pretty simple, we are voting on spending $282 million dollars to fix the existing dam, build two new dams, and to create a "living" river channel in between. Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow. And some partial funding for road improvements in the area of the river.
Local philanthropists will be adding in $117 million to improve and develop parklands along the river and a private developer from Missouri has said he want to build a $500 million center on the land at 21st.
It's $899 million in development on the river (just to start and not counting anything in Jenks) for under half a penny sales tax.
What is so obscure and shadowy?
Where has anyone specified what land is to be purchased? Everything I have read says that what land and where, and for what purpose will all be determined later by the new river authority.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...
(http://www.wickermonkey.com/riverplan.jpg)
without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park... gathering areas are bull****... no amount of improvement to just get a "nicer park" is going to get this town a damn thing... im only for it because of the west bank land acquistion and kaisers money is already on the table... and that damn 41st pedestrian bridge, wth? where is that going? who is going to cross to the west side at 41st? should have made that an auto bridge and really connected the west bank...
and i agree, those editorials by the typro clowns were complete bull****... not a single one of those kids' more successful colleagues is going to move to tulsa because we fixed up the river... hell, 3 of those jackasses mentioned downtown and connectors or not, this plan won't do diddly for downtown...
apparently, nothing will be done on the east bank- which is a huge mistake... and im not happy about it...
Why vote for it if you are not happy with it? You really can't be buying into the B.S. about this being the last and only chance to develop the river? The high pressure sale and emotional appeals for this hastily thrown together, conceptual, unspecific, undetailed, river development tax, is necessary because it does not stand on it's own merits. The reality is we can turn this down on Oct 9, develop a real river development financing plan instead of just vague concepts for river development with unreliable cost estimates. We could vote on it as soon as the state/county primary elections or later in the November general elections. You gave many reasons you are unhappy with this tax, yet you didn't give any for why you'll support it. Care to share?
because sometimes you settle... you take what you can get, when you can get it... i dont think this is the last chance for the river but it is the only option NOW and i want something done now not five or ten years from now... plus, i'll take a nice park; i just want the mixed-use as well... it is not really an either or for me... i just wish theyd gone for broke and even planned more... i'm willing to concede on the 41st street bridge... after ten years of marriage i'm willing to compromise, a lot... and finally, i don't think we pay enough im taxes for what we expect anyway... so tax on little doggie, i'll pay it...
We could very easily be voting on a real river development plan in less than a year from now, instead of just settling for concepts. I would like to see river development happen soon, but I can wait a year to do it right, instead of just rushing into this and hoping for the best. I cannot vote for this in good conscience, there's just too many objectionable aspects for me to ignore.
Most of the things we voted for in 2025 didnt have exact plans either. They got the money, then sought out architects, etc. We had no idea what the arena was going to even look like for instance, or the TCC southeast campus addition, or the OSU Tulsa building, or OU or, Langstons building or the Morton health Care Center or the "downtowns and neighborhoods" part, or ....
i suspect if BA and noth tulsa turn out in force, along with a large bloc of jenks voters who are getting their development done PRIVATELY, this thing will fail miserably. Of course, stranger things have happened to ballot boxes.
Tulsa's only resource, OUR RIVER, what hubris !! The Arkansas starts up in Colorado and flows thru FOUR states - over 1000 miles ----
What blind shortsighted people exist on this forum -- you will not listen to scientific biologists, only to the DAM and Construct mentality of the USACE -- the same USACE that couldn't engineer levies in New Orleans,(who enabled its short below sea level existance) who nearly wiped out the Everglades, one of the most important natural eco-systems in the US with their "channelization projects" that are now being restored again. A kinder, gentler USACE B.S. -- when you guys have finished shatting in your beds I hope you no longer have a place to lay down. When you have killed off important fish in the Arkansas through Tulsa, I hope you are PROUD of your accomplishments - after all you WILL be responsible for the Frankenstein of your making -- US Fish and Wildlife along with Biologists from Oklahoma Department of WILDLIFE Conservation - HAVE gone on RECORD stating what they believe dams will do -- I hope Tulsa voters see through this sham --
No amount of parsing will change what the Scientists trained in this area have said --
On with your commercial[:(!]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?
wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot. I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.
This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.
Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...
Exactly. You need to see the legal, signed and notarized commitment.
Michael Patton posted the text of the ballot resolution on this forum (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7313&whichpage=1%22) some time ago, and I think the World had it on their website, but I haven't seen it anywhere official this time around. Last time, tulsacounty.org had all the resolutions for Vision 2025, and you can still find those there, but they have not yet posted the river tax ballot resolution.
Hey, you revealed my real identity.
Now people will know who I am.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?
wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot. I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.
This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.
Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.
At least you're not wasting your hard-earned money......
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Hey, you revealed my real identity.
Now people will know who I am.
Worst kept secret in history...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
One of the biggest sources of my discomfort on this.
The $52mm in land acquisition from tax payers sounds more like a slush fund to me. To wit:
We appropriate $52mm in this vote, the new authority purchases land for $52mm.
Let's say they re-sell the land to private developers for $62mm.
They are now completely cashed out. What happens to the $62mm? There is no other project funding contingent on recycling the money elsewhere into projects on the river. They now have $62mm in the coffers, so where does that go? I believe that alone would cover the cost of the two new low water dams at the highest estimate for them. However, we are being taxed that amount as well.
So far, I've never heard that the county would remain the owner of the acquired properties and lease them back to the private developers.
This is a big question that needs a good answer. I've not seen one so far.
This project is too important for simple questions and simple answers.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
One of the biggest sources of my discomfort on this.
The $52mm in land acquisition from tax payers sounds more like a slush fund to me. To wit:
We appropriate $52mm in this vote, the new authority purchases land for $52mm.
Let's say they re-sell the land to private developers for $62mm.
They are now completely cashed out. What happens to the $62mm? There is no other project funding contingent on recycling the money elsewhere into projects on the river. They now have $62mm in the coffers, so where does that go? I believe that alone would cover the cost of the two new low water dams at the highest estimate for them. However, we are being taxed that amount as well.
So far, I've never heard that the county would remain the owner of the acquired properties and lease them back to the private developers.
This is a big question that needs a good answer. I've not seen one so far.
This project is too important for simple questions and simple answers.
The lands will be acquired by the new River Authority, which is charged with project implementation. When lands acquired for redevelopment are sold or leased (but I think sold is more likely) those funds would return to that authority to determine what to do with the proceeds and since they are proceeds from a tax with a specific intended purpose my belief is that the proceeds would have to say utilized within that overall intended purpose. This is the same methodology as with the Tulsa downtown housing funds provided by Vision 2025 which by contract revolve for future like purpose. Potential uses from the land sales have been discussed by various individuals (not the actual authority) to be utilized for additional purchases, infrastructure construction and possibly for the purpose of creating a maintenance endowment for the facilities once that need is determined.
Since the River Authority has no other stated purpose I see no way that those funds could be transferred to any other purpose of entity and can only imagine the number of friends of the taxpayer suits that would be brought if such would occur.
V-2025,
That would have been a nice touch if the proponents and planners could have looked at this part of the funding as a two-phase deal:
1) Raise the +/- $52mm to aquire land via the tax. Put out an RFQ, sell the land at a profit.
2) Plough that money back into the two low water dams and the whole tax package is now $223mm, or thereabouts and the collection period could be cut to 5.5 years.
If I've read correctly there are already contingency and maintenance funds either within the tax plan itself or being speculated about from an on-going revenue stream after the project is completed.
I know it has to be frustrating for PMg and the folks at INCOG to have to step up on short notice when there are so many different aspects and not an answer as of yet for every question which is being asked. You are doing the best with what you have to work with at the moment, and don't think I don't appreciate that.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
V-2025,
That would have been a nice touch if the proponents and planners could have looked at this part of the funding as a two-phase deal:
1) Raise the +/- $52mm to aquire land via the tax. Put out an RFQ, sell the land at a profit.
2) Plough that money back into the two low water dams and the whole tax package is now $223mm, or thereabouts and the collection period could be cut to 5.5 years.
If I've read correctly there are already contingency and maintenance funds either within the tax plan itself or being speculated about from an on-going revenue stream after the project is completed.
I know it has to be frustrating for PMg and the folks at INCOG to have to step up on short notice when there are so many different aspects and not an answer as of yet for every question which is being asked. You are doing the best with what you have to work with at the moment, and don't think I don't appreciate that.
Yes, there are $25 million in designated contingency funds budgeted and thank you for the sentiment.
Consumers face record winter heating costs
Yahoo! News
September 25, 2007
U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday.
Heating fuel expenses this winter will be highest for heating oil, with the average family paying $1,834 for the season, up 28 percent or $402 from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.
The group expects propane costs to average $1,732, up 30 percent or $384. Consumers that rely on electricity for heat will pay $883 this winter, up 7 percent or $58.
Natural gas expenses will be the cheapest of the major heating fuels, averaging $881, up 5 percent or $50, the group said.
Mark Wolfe, the group's executive director, called on the Bush administration to immediately release money from the government's Low Income Home Energy Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, to help poor families pay their heating bills as well as cover past-due high cooling bills from the summer.
"These record prices will place a significant burden on low and moderate income families this winter with record high prices," Wolfe said.
The group points out that poor households pay a higher share of their income for heating costs than other families.
During 2005, energy expenses accounted for 20 percent of the income of households that received LIHEAP assistance, compared to only 3 percent for higher income families.
The group's report is based on preliminary heating fuel estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA, which is the Energy Department independent analytical arm, will issue its official winter forecast on October 9.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?
wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot. I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.
This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.
Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.
Thank you. I rememebered reading that somewhere lol. It would still seem like there would be more about the property purchase. I will trust that things will be done.... relatively well lol. I dont have any problem with what has happened with 2025 except wish that the wording had been done more carefully in relation to the building of the dams. It would have saved everyone a lot of hassle one way or the other. However I do wish in this instance that this ballot resolution or something had more thought out wording and detail in order to allay any questions especially considering all the wrankle we have seen from 2025. They did learn some lessons with this. The sunset clause for instance.
It's good to know that we in this area will be little impacted by this.
Natural Gas is only up 5% with the average increase costing about $50. Probably less than that since we have pretty mild winters.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.
Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?
I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol. http://www.tulsacounty.org/
Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?
wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot. I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.
This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.
Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.
I had read that ballot, was wanting to see more info. I have not been "enraged" about any "lie" concerning 2025. Angry that the wording wasnt better, yes. Thinking that there is some nefarious intent to "get more money", No. Wishing that there was more info and wording about what is exactly happening with some things on this new ballot, yes. Not trusting enough to vote for it this way myself, No. Thinking it would help others feel more comfortable about voting for it if there were more precise language, yes.
I dont like what happened with 2025 concerning the dams. When you look at it on simple face value it does indeed appear that those dams should be built using 2025 funds. But after looking at the whole situation we are confronted with now, I would rather do this river plan and pay for them this way. If you will remeber and go back, I was against this plan. I went back and forth but then finally settled as a no vote. But lol, I gave my reasons for it voting no and I received answers that convinced me otherwise.
One question. I kept looking at the 2025 ballot situation and thought that if it were really true that these dams were supposed to be built entirely and only under 2025, then not doing so would be a "breach of contract". Couldnt someone sue if we had legal standing. Why hasnt someone taken this to court? In going through the steps of an imagined court case in my mind I came to the conclusion that we couldnt win. If you think you could pull it off and win because there is enough evidence and proof that would stand up in court. Have at it. Either its wrong or its not. There was a breach of word to the votor, or there was not. Seriously, regrettable, misunderstandings is what it appears to me to be. And I wish this ballot would be more clear on certain things. But over all I would still vote for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Consumers face record winter heating costs
Yahoo! News
September 25, 2007
U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday.
Heating fuel expenses this winter will be highest for heating oil, with the average family paying $1,834 for the season, up 28 percent or $402 from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.
The group expects propane costs to average $1,732, up 30 percent or $384. Consumers that rely on electricity for heat will pay $883 this winter, up 7 percent or $58.
Natural gas expenses will be the cheapest of the major heating fuels, averaging $881, up 5 percent or $50, the group said.
Mark Wolfe, the group's executive director, called on the Bush administration to immediately release money from the government's Low Income Home Energy Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, to help poor families pay their heating bills as well as cover past-due high cooling bills from the summer.
"These record prices will place a significant burden on low and moderate income families this winter with record high prices," Wolfe said.
The group points out that poor households pay a higher share of their income for heating costs than other families.
During 2005, energy expenses accounted for 20 percent of the income of households that received LIHEAP assistance, compared to only 3 percent for higher income families.
The group's report is based on preliminary heating fuel estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA, which is the Energy Department independent analytical arm, will issue its official winter forecast on October 9.
What on earth does that have to do with this thread? lol
The vast majority of people in Tulsa County heat with natural gas, except for the unfortunates with heat pumps or those folks in rural Tulsa Co. who are still on propane. I'd guess 75% or better are on NG.
I don't think it will change the river vote.