Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.
The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
I second this........... Keep the County out of it.
I think I'd head to court with the County on the dam construction promised in Vision2025. Once settled, I'd plan anything which takes the County out of it.
But, I wouldn't expect a 0.4%/7-year budget.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
So you dont think the new idea of a larger dam in Sand Springs to help keep water flowing in Tulsas part of the river more often is a good idea?
Artist you asked a question.......
Inteller answered it..
If you are setting this up to debate each and every point of the current offering...
shame on you.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
So you dont think the new idea of a larger dam in Sand Springs to help keep water flowing in Tulsas part of the river more often is a good idea?
water flowing and water in the river are two different things. if you notice in the current proposal all they talk about is water in the river. not flowing (despite the fake blue water illustrations) SO I could give a rats donkey what sand springs does, but if they want to pass a tax to build a dam up there more power to them. the 41st and 61st st dams in the ARCMP will keep water in tulsa's part. i've already said it before. I want river development, but I don't want the county paying for tulsa welfare, just like I wouldn't expect tulsans to pay for crap in bixby or owasso. so drop the regionalist bull****.
Why are you being an donkey? I was in no way trying to suggest or proffer a regionalist agenda. I am honestly interested in seeing what we can come up with. Sorry I framed my response that way though. I had actually thought earlier about mentioning the idea of possibly "teaming up" with Sand Springs ONLY and doing a coordinated effort with just them if we thought that the dam there would be a good idea for Tulsa as well.
I was thinking the dam in Sand Springs could help allay some of the concerns some people on here have about fish migration by having more running water, more often and more aerated water, and it could also help Tulsas "lake" in other ways. If we all agree that it is not a good idea then fine. I have no regionalist agenda with this.
I actually think Jenks could build their own dam. They are in a much better financial situation to do so. However I dont know if Sand Springs could afford to build a larger, more expensive dam by themselves. They may just opt to do a smaller version if they have to do it by themselves. I remember reading somewhere that the Jenks dam that will give the fish the most trouble, will likely be the most stagnant, could further reduce Least Turn nesting sites and have other concerns, pollution etc. Someone from some environmental group (sorry dont remember lol) said the other dams could actually improve some things. Its the Jenks dam that they had problems with. I say if Jenks wants it let them deal with the troubles, environmentalists, sewage plant, etc. that dam could bring.
I was not vying for a regional or county thing in bringing up the Sand Springs idea. Just trying to point out that the larger Sand Springs dam could benefit Tulsa, it could help allay the concerns of the environmentalists and "fish lovers" among us. Thus possibly helping to create a plan that more people could support.
So far the few people who have responded apparently want just a City of Tulsa tax if there were to be one.
But again, and dont jump down my throat lol. In our imaginary City of Tulsa plan, is there no room to figure out a way to coordinate something with Sand Springs (only lol) to help them build a larger dam? Or will it not be worth it to us?
The living river won't work without the Sand Springs dam holding water. So there goes a good portion of the current Tulsa plan. So Sand Springs decides to go ahead and build their dam and also do not believe in regionalism so they hold the water for their own usage, strangling the Tulsa lakes. Also, the 61st street dam would conflict with the one planned by Jenks at 96th street. That would end up in court no doubt as Jenks could build their dam and flood yours.
Yeah, that regionalism just doesn't make sense.
I wouldn't support any plan without flowing water. I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...
I dont think we need to do a dam at 61st anyway, especially if Jenks wants a dam bad enough they will build one that will put more water in the river in parts of Tulsa. And they can deal with the headaches that a dam in that are could bring.
I would rather just improve the Zink dam and use a bit of money to help Sand Springs do a larger one and coordinate with them only.
Waterboys concern with the flowing water is an example of what I was trying to address with the Sand Springs idea. Its not county or regionalism, but it could get the job done. I think just coordinating with them on this one thing could be a compromise position to help us come up with a plan most of us can agree with?
Remember, no plan is going to be perfect. But can we cobble together something that we can mostly agree on?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
Except for the fact that you live in Bixby
Hmmm. I suppose if we decide to go with the Tulsa City only idea, with perhaps a joint venture with Sand Springs on the dam part... only those who live in those two communities should be allowed to have input.
One of the other ideas I would like to see in any plan would be the 6th street Pearl District.
That is said to run about 55 million.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.
The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.
Nothing for North Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.
and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.
so Sand Springs has an economic advantage in regards to the river because they live up stream from tulsa. Good for them. If I were Sand Springs I would use it as a point of leverage. However, as tax out as Sand SPrings is, a tax for anything else is destined to fail. Hell they barely renewwed their road tax. That town has serious tax issues.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.
and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.
Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?
Yeah, poor Sand Springs. That v2025 money is really dragging them down. Not. How do you know they won't support a half cent tax? You live there, work there, run polls there?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.
and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.
Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?
i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less. every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.
and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.
Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?
i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less. every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.
So we agree that toll gates put up on the outskirts of town would be within Tulsa prerogatives. Owasso will be required to pay market price for our drinking water. The county government is unnecessary since each city will have sovereignty over their own fiscal and economic development. That means no county sheriff, no county jail cause each city will provide their own. And if a criminal passes over the city limits, he becomes the next city's responsibility.
Is this the plan? Try not to change your post before you at least read the response.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.
and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.
Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?
i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less. every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.
So we agree that toll gates put up on the outskirts of town would be within Tulsa prerogatives. Owasso will be required to pay market price for our drinking water. The county government is unnecessary since each city will have sovereignty over their own fiscal and economic development. That means no county sheriff, no county jail cause each city will provide their own. And if a criminal passes over the city limits, he becomes the next city's responsibility.
Is this the plan? Try not to change your post before you at least read the response.
unfortunately county goverments must exist due to state law, but that doesn't mean they have to be omnipotent. it would be ideal if they had no taxing authority at all and that would solve their appetite for taxation. since the state makes them exist they should have to fund them, not the cities.
owasso water deal cant be changed for decades. however, hopefully someone smart will be around when it does to leverage the deal to tulsa's benefit and not give it away.
the way you describe criminal handling isn't too far from the way it is today.
you're tollgate idea is just stupid and doesn't deserve a response.
You probably shouldn't be making judgements about what's stupid. The county is there for a reason, not just to collect taxes. When there are disputes between cities, fleeing criminals, crimes committed between the two entities, the county is the part of government who has the responsibility and the authority. Just like when those same things happen between states, the Federal government is the governing entity. I guess you would eliminate states too? Same logic. No you probably would eliminate the federal jurisdiction. The taxes are collected to enable each entity to do its job.
Without the county and state governments you would have cities and states squaring off against each other like Alfalfa Bill Murray and the state of Texas a century ago. And without a strong county presence, the city could and would find a way to make the predatory suburbs pay for their blood sucking. A toll gate was an extrapolation of that power but more likely it would be in the form of toll roads like the Creek or a city income tax for those who are employed within the city, regardless of where they live. I'm told that's what Kansas City does. They then rebate according to income level, but they get to play with your money all year long. These are the kinds of things that happen when you cut our regionalism or emasculate the county.
Owasso has a long term contract? All the more tasty. Without a regional outlook by Tulsa here's what we do. After they grow their city off of cheap water, Tulsa jobs, and Tulsa infrastructure we can raise the price through the roof when it lapses. Sort of like how drug dealers, pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies, the first bites are always cheap.
That's stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?
To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.
Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely. (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)
So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?
River development, how much and what and where? Parks and pools? Expanding our new Colleges? The 6th street Pearl District? Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?
Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)
Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.
come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.
I second this........... Keep the County out of it.
The County should get the hell out of the sales tax business, they don't need it. It would be great if there was a way to strip the County of their authority to levy sales taxes altogether.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.
The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.
Nothing for North Tulsa?
Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.
I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.
The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.
Nothing for North Tulsa?
Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.
I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.
I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....
You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.
The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.
Nothing for North Tulsa?
Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.
I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.
I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....
You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]
Not mine. Downtown? That's just the same old song and dance. How about 244 corridor development? If visitors head downtown from the airport, this is their main corridor of travel, not to mention visitors from the booming areas of Mayes and Rogers Counties and northwest Arkansas. I think redevelopment of this corridor would be the spark that could draw revitalization north of the Berlin Wall that is the Crosstown Expressway. Would this be a magic bullet for North Tulsa? Of course not, but it's got to be better for North Tulsa than just throwing more money at downtown.
Speaking of replacements, I heard the Chamber Youth recruited someone to run against Councilor Maria Barnes.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Not mine. Downtown? That's just the same old song and dance. How about 244 corridor development? If visitors head downtown from the airport, this is their main corridor of travel, not to mention visitors from the booming areas of Mayes and Rogers Counties and northwest Arkansas. I think redevelopment of this corridor would be the spark that could draw revitalization north of the Berlin Wall that is the Crosstown Expressway. Would this be a magic bullet for North Tulsa? Of course not, but it's got to be better for North Tulsa than just throwing more money at downtown.
Speaking of replacements, I heard the Chamber Youth recruited someone to run against Councilor Maria Barnes.
I tend to be broader in my definition of Downtown, to include areas just outside like OSU Tulsa, Langston, etc. Greenwood has better development outlook than the east end at this point.
I'm not sure what you mean by 244 redevelopment but they definitely have enough gas stations and mcdonalds. [:(!]
It is definitely the most utilitarian and barren looking highway we have at this point. If you're talking aesthetics, I'm all for it.
Be interested to see how areas like Kendall-Whitier take to opposition of their reigning champion.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....
You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]
I don't have enough money or people in my pocket, sorry. You have to have your own personal business that is directly effected by your political office BEFORE you go up for election.
Well when they say "best plans sometimes go astray" they aren't just kidding....... Take a few minutes and read this article regarding the "Trinity River Project"
TCC's second college try
By Mitchell Schnurman
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Tarrant County College is working on a Plan B for its new campus -- all the while hoping that it won't be needed.
That's how dicey the situation has become for the groundbreaking project in downtown Fort Worth.
It's a prudent but discouraging move. Several pieces have to come together soon, or the college may be unable to build one of the campus's signature elements: a wide pedestrian bridge that links two sides of the city and provides a gateway to the river for students and the public.
TCC leaders are optimistic and moving ahead on all fronts, with their fingers crossed.
The campus has already had problems with rising costs, schedule delays and an 11th-hour challenge to the design. Now, in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, it's hung up on a crucial permit process with the Army Corps of Engineers, and that means more delays and possibly more money.
TCC has a little wiggle room with a $22 million contingency in the construction budget. But the board and administration have said they won't float bonds, raise taxes or raid college programs to scare up more funding.
That leaves two paths: satisfying the corps quickly enough to build the campus as planned or scaling back to the point that it doesn't require the corps' approval.
"If there's a significant increase in costs, we must not just move forward," Trustee Bobby McGee said in phone interview Friday. "We need other options."
That may sound like common sense, except that TCC has already spent $40 million on construction and has a huge hole in the bluffs near the Tarrant County Courthouse.
Talk about boxed in: The district's $200 million construction contract now has to be rebid because a lot of work has to be delayed.
Imagine renegotiating with your home builder after half the foundation has been poured -- and asking to stretch the build time. Not exactly a strong bargaining position for TCC.
The college district is in a hurry to get the new campus up and running because attendance has been booming. So it started construction late last year, before all the approvals were granted -- and after the corps had raised new, substantial questions about the plan.
That aggressive strategy is looking pretty risky today.
The campus design calls for several buildings on both sides of the Trinity River -- some next to the central business district, others on the near north side and anchored in the levees along the river. The concern is that the new construction, including the pedestrian bridge, will weaken the levees and leave the city vulnerable to flooding.
When TCC and its consultants began working with the corps in summer 2005, they believed that the review would take about a year. Then Katrina ravaged New Orleans and savaged the reputation of the Corps of Engineers.
Levee safety became a high-profile issue. And flood projects nationwide faced closer scrutiny, along with more oversight beyond the local offices.
The TCC campus would have attracted attention under any circumstances because it's a potential threat to a levee system that's working well. Post-Katrina, it was destined to be put under a microscope.
Engineers for TCC have worked with the corps to figure out a way to protect the area, primarily with a giant steel-and-concrete wall built into the bedrock.But other issues remain, and the entire plan has to be formally vetted and approved by the agency. That starts with the Fort Worth office, then Dallas and, finally, the corps headquarters in Washington.
More than two years into the process, approval from the corps is still several months away. But at least the major technical issues appear to be resolved.
"We're down to the last few pieces on the hydraulics," said Gene Rice, project manager for the corps' Fort Worth office. "We feel like we're pretty close."
Rice wouldn't say whether that means 80 percent or 90 percent finished. The corps is far too cautious for that.
David Wells, the TCC vice chancellor who's been guiding the project, is aiming to submit the formal application to the corps in December. That would leave time for the public to comment on the environmental and cultural resources and let engineers confirm that the new campus won't increase flooding downstream.
"It's an aggressive schedule, but I believe it's doable," Rice said.
Getting the review through Dallas and Washington could take another 60 days, meaning that construction on the northern side of the campus couldn't start until February.
What will that do to the construction price? Since spring, much of the residential construction business has dried up because of the housing bust. That's eased prices on materials and labor, but commercial activity has remained strong.
Architect Bing Thom has been working on a campus design without the bridge and without much contact with the levees, Wells said. The general idea would be to put the administration building and conference center to the south, next to the central business district; the classroom buildings would be bunched further north, on the north side.
A bridge could be added eventually, either after corps approval or after the Trinity River Vision builds its bypass channel. The TRV work will do away with the nearby levees entirely, but that's at least a decade away.
While TCC has been building on the south side of the campus for almost a year, it hasn't broken ground on the north, because the corps asked that it wait. "The corps' concern was that if we began any work, people would assume they'd given final approval," Wells said.
Who could miss the lesson now? With projects this big and this complex, it's dangerous to make assumptions.
schnurman@star-telegram.com
Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sunday and Wednesday. 817-390-7821
There were some positive signals in that article too.
One, the college is growing quickly, probably because of its proximity to the Trinity River Project. It validates that these types of projects attract young, education oriented types.
Two, the Corps is being even more careful after having a high profile failure in Nawlins. That may mean more time for completion but surely more safety.
Three, with the housing bust comes a greater availability of supplies and labor. Greater supply means lower prices, which means our project has a better chance to be built at or under budget.
Four, they are using coping skills to keep moving. They have a back up plan, are communicating with the public and there is no sense of disaster, only obstacles to overcome.
I like the attitude of Foat Wuth. We could learn from them.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...
Yeah, that'll work, if I was forced to pay a toll so I could get to work everyday, I'd move. So would several other young, middle, and old professionals. OKC has more jobs. So does Dallas, Kansas City, and Joplin. I did a quick check for my chosen skill and there are currently 4 job openings in Tulsa, using the same source for the same job in Denver, I find 287 jobs listed. I'd move if Tulsa made it more prohibitive for me to get to work. How's the lack of a work force ever going to allow Tulsa to attract new employers.
What I think Tulsa should do, is find a way to become more efficient by setting proper priorities based upon the role government is supposed to have in a community. If this is done, I bet you will find that no tax increase will be needed to fix our roads and bring our crime rate down. Priority needs to be on fixing current infrastructure, not on giving the mayor's staff a raise and financing a new city hall. With such irresponsible spending, I can't believe you guys are actually discussing what you would spend the next tax increase on.
It's your money, why don't you spend it on yourself instead of discuss how you want government to spend it for you, or do you not trust yourself to spend your own money correctly?
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...
Yeah, that'll work, if I was forced to pay a toll so I could get to work everyday, I'd move. So would several other young, middle, and old professionals. OKC has more jobs. So does Dallas, Kansas City, and Joplin. I did a quick check for my chosen skill and there are currently 4 job openings in Tulsa, using the same source for the same job in Denver, I find 287 jobs listed. I'd move if Tulsa made it more prohibitive for me to get to work. How's the lack of a work force ever going to allow Tulsa to attract new employers.
What I think Tulsa should do, is find a way to become more efficient by setting proper priorities based upon the role government is supposed to have in a community. If this is done, I bet you will find that no tax increase will be needed to fix our roads and bring our crime rate down. Priority needs to be on fixing current infrastructure, not on giving the mayor's staff a raise and financing a new city hall. With such irresponsible spending, I can't believe you guys are actually discussing what you would spend the next tax increase on.
It's your money, why don't you spend it on yourself instead of discuss how you want government to spend it for you, or do you not trust yourself to spend your own money correctly?
Thanks for letting us know what Tulsa should be doing to improve. It means a lot to have someone on the outside giving us positive and balanced feedback. If you ever need/want any insights on utopian Owasso let us know. We'll be happy to return the favor.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...
Yeah, that'll work, if I was forced to pay a toll so I could get to work everyday, I'd move. So would several other young, middle, and old professionals. OKC has more jobs. So does Dallas, Kansas City, and Joplin. I did a quick check for my chosen skill and there are currently 4 job openings in Tulsa, using the same source for the same job in Denver, I find 287 jobs listed. I'd move if Tulsa made it more prohibitive for me to get to work. How's the lack of a work force ever going to allow Tulsa to attract new employers.
What I think Tulsa should do, is find a way to become more efficient by setting proper priorities based upon the role government is supposed to have in a community. If this is done, I bet you will find that no tax increase will be needed to fix our roads and bring our crime rate down. Priority needs to be on fixing current infrastructure, not on giving the mayor's staff a raise and financing a new city hall. With such irresponsible spending, I can't believe you guys are actually discussing what you would spend the next tax increase on.
It's your money, why don't you spend it on yourself instead of discuss how you want government to spend it for you, or do you not trust yourself to spend your own money correctly?
Thanks for letting us know what Tulsa should be doing to improve. It means a lot to have someone on the outside giving us positive and balanced feedback. If you ever need/want any insights on utopian Owasso let us know. We'll be happy to return the favor.
+1. I look forward to a city income tax collected based on where you work that recovers some of the cost of providing infrastructure for those suburbans who use our city amenities, get paid to do so, then take the money home and refuse to support regional improvements. Then complain that there just isn't any opportunity for them in the big city.
I actually like the Dallas Tollways. Very convenient.
you've got to have county gov and they've got to be able to collect a tax in order to function as with most counties in oklahoma that aren't covered by concrete such as tulsa county almost is ... the roads between the cities and towns have to be maintained as well as the county roads, dirt roads and what not ... county sherrif dept is also a necessary entity that requires people within that county to foot the bill ... now where I have a problem with county taxation is when they're used to collect taxes for city projects such as these river developements that only benefit parts of the county but all the county populations have to pay for it. the county shouldn't have that kind of power when it comes to development and collecting funds for certain cities in the county to have the benefits when they force the whole county's population to pay for it. it's like saying chandler oklahoma wants a new lake built ... let's call it bellcow lake so let's get the county to collect more taxes so that chandler can have it's new lake forcing stroud davenport tryon agra carny welston prague and all the little districts to pay for chandler's new lake to be built ... this is exactly what tulsa county is trying to do. I think if tulsa wants a dam then tulsa should have to pay for it ... if jenks wants one then let jenks pay for it and sand springs for their's. leave the other towns out of their wants.
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
you've got to have county gov and they've got to be able to collect a tax in order to function as with most counties in oklahoma that aren't covered by concrete such as tulsa county almost is ... the roads between the cities and towns have to be maintained as well as the county roads, dirt roads and what not ... county sherrif dept is also a necessary entity that requires people within that county to foot the bill ... now where I have a problem with county taxation is when they're used to collect taxes for city projects such as these river developements that only benefit parts of the county but all the county populations have to pay for it. the county shouldn't have that kind of power when it comes to development and collecting funds for certain cities in the county to have the benefits when they force the whole county's population to pay for it. it's like saying chandler oklahoma wants a new lake built ... let's call it bellcow lake so let's get the county to collect more taxes so that chandler can have it's new lake forcing stroud davenport tryon agra carny welston prague and all the little districts to pay for chandler's new lake to be built ... this is exactly what tulsa county is trying to do. I think if tulsa wants a dam then tulsa should have to pay for it ... if jenks wants one then let jenks pay for it and sand springs for their's. leave the other towns out of their wants.
I'd be happy if they would just focus on taking care of our needs, first.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
you've got to have county gov and they've got to be able to collect a tax in order to function as with most counties in oklahoma that aren't covered by concrete such as tulsa county almost is ... the roads between the cities and towns have to be maintained as well as the county roads, dirt roads and what not ... county sherrif dept is also a necessary entity that requires people within that county to foot the bill ... now where I have a problem with county taxation is when they're used to collect taxes for city projects such as these river developements that only benefit parts of the county but all the county populations have to pay for it. the county shouldn't have that kind of power when it comes to development and collecting funds for certain cities in the county to have the benefits when they force the whole county's population to pay for it. it's like saying chandler oklahoma wants a new lake built ... let's call it bellcow lake so let's get the county to collect more taxes so that chandler can have it's new lake forcing stroud davenport tryon agra carny welston prague and all the little districts to pay for chandler's new lake to be built ... this is exactly what tulsa county is trying to do. I think if tulsa wants a dam then tulsa should have to pay for it ... if jenks wants one then let jenks pay for it and sand springs for their's. leave the other towns out of their wants.
I'd be happy if they would just focus on taking care of our needs, first.
Your needs or my needs?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
you've got to have county gov and they've got to be able to collect a tax in order to function as with most counties in oklahoma that aren't covered by concrete such as tulsa county almost is ... the roads between the cities and towns have to be maintained as well as the county roads, dirt roads and what not ... county sherrif dept is also a necessary entity that requires people within that county to foot the bill ... now where I have a problem with county taxation is when they're used to collect taxes for city projects such as these river developements that only benefit parts of the county but all the county populations have to pay for it. the county shouldn't have that kind of power when it comes to development and collecting funds for certain cities in the county to have the benefits when they force the whole county's population to pay for it. it's like saying chandler oklahoma wants a new lake built ... let's call it bellcow lake so let's get the county to collect more taxes so that chandler can have it's new lake forcing stroud davenport tryon agra carny welston prague and all the little districts to pay for chandler's new lake to be built ... this is exactly what tulsa county is trying to do. I think if tulsa wants a dam then tulsa should have to pay for it ... if jenks wants one then let jenks pay for it and sand springs for their's. leave the other towns out of their wants.
I'd be happy if they would just focus on taking care of our needs, first.
Your needs or my needs?
If you knew the difference between wants and needs I'd dignify your question with a response.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
you've got to have county gov and they've got to be able to collect a tax in order to function as with most counties in oklahoma that aren't covered by concrete such as tulsa county almost is ... the roads between the cities and towns have to be maintained as well as the county roads, dirt roads and what not ... county sherrif dept is also a necessary entity that requires people within that county to foot the bill ... now where I have a problem with county taxation is when they're used to collect taxes for city projects such as these river developements that only benefit parts of the county but all the county populations have to pay for it. the county shouldn't have that kind of power when it comes to development and collecting funds for certain cities in the county to have the benefits when they force the whole county's population to pay for it. it's like saying chandler oklahoma wants a new lake built ... let's call it bellcow lake so let's get the county to collect more taxes so that chandler can have it's new lake forcing stroud davenport tryon agra carny welston prague and all the little districts to pay for chandler's new lake to be built ... this is exactly what tulsa county is trying to do. I think if tulsa wants a dam then tulsa should have to pay for it ... if jenks wants one then let jenks pay for it and sand springs for their's. leave the other towns out of their wants.
I'd be happy if they would just focus on taking care of our needs, first.
Your needs or my needs?
If you knew the difference between wants and needs I'd dignify your question with a response.
Do you remember this from high school, Maslows Hierarchy of Needs? As a person moves through their life there is a natural evolution that occurs, with everyone. Our concerns, needs, thoughts, feelings about what is important, change. We arent just plants that need water, and sunlight or animals that just need food and shelter. We are human beings that have higher needs which when the lower needs are met, those higher needs feel none the less real or important. We arent just physical animals but thinking, creative, spiritual, beings as well. And to be fully human, to reach our full potential those higher needs must be allowed to be fulfilled.
Not everyone has the same needs or feels the same at the same time. But its good for a society to have a place for those who have achieved certain things in life, who are different, to be able to fully express and attain those higher needs. Everyone, no matter where they are in life should be thought of and given consideration. When your a child and you need a parent its no less a need than when your a young adult and need a partner to love. Sure people can live without both. But life is much richer and fuller with them. Is a loving parent a need or a want? Is a good road a need or a want( people managed for centuries without them)? Is play a need or a want? Is a church a need or a want? Is a union a need or a want? Is beauty a human need or a want?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
A "new" seven year $100 million city river tax (2/10th)
Repair Zink Dam $25,000,000
Jenks Dam $12,000,000
West Bank site Acquisition $50,000,000
Riverbank Stabilization $13,000,000
The Jenks dam to be built when Jenks provides a matching $12 million, which would likely come from the TIFF on The River District. Retain the living river plan and Sand Spring Dam plan for when (if) Federal funds come through and with overages (if any) of 2025. This might take a decade, but it still "might" get built.
A new permanent 1/10th cent sales tax to hire additional police and a new permanent 1/10th cent for citywide street repairs. Each would raise about $8 million in new annual money.
A $300 million street bond issue to catch up on reconstruction and widening projects. Include reconstruction of Riverside Drive.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A "new" seven year $100 million city river tax (2/10th)
Repair Zink Dam $25,000,000
Jenks Dam $12,000,000
West Bank site Acquisition $50,000,000
Riverbank Stabilization $13,000,000
The Jenks dam to be built when Jenks provides a matching $12 million, which would likely come from the TIFF on The River District. Retain the living river plan and Sand Spring Dam plan for when (if) Federal funds come through and with overages (if any) of 2025. This might take a decade, but it still "might" get built.
A new permanent 1/10th cent sales tax to hire additional police and a new permanent 1/10th cent for citywide street repairs. Each would raise about $8 million in new annual money.
A $300 million street bond issue to catch up on reconstruction and widening projects. Include reconstruction of Riverside Drive.
Sounds good - Riverside definitely needs to be reconstructed into more of a parkway. I say let's get out of bed with the county and just do it on our own. Hopefully Kaiser could still contribute something.
I want a new baseball stadium.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I want a new baseball stadium.
You need about $40 million. Donating city land would put you about $5 million towards that amount. Naming rights probably nets another $5. You still need another $30 million. You could extend the 2/10th tax to 9 years and probably get there.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A "new" seven year $100 million city river tax (2/10th)
Repair Zink Dam $25,000,000
Jenks Dam $12,000,000
West Bank site Acquisition $50,000,000
Riverbank Stabilization $13,000,000
The Jenks dam to be built when Jenks provides a matching $12 million, which would likely come from the TIFF on The River District. Retain the living river plan and Sand Spring Dam plan for when (if) Federal funds come through and with overages (if any) of 2025. This might take a decade, but it still "might" get built.
A new permanent 1/10th cent sales tax to hire additional police and a new permanent 1/10th cent for citywide street repairs. Each would raise about $8 million in new annual money.
A $300 million street bond issue to catch up on reconstruction and widening projects. Include reconstruction of Riverside Drive.
Swake, this is something I think you and I see eye-to-eye on.
The new Springfield stadium was $32 million.
The new Jacksonville park was $34 million.
The Montgomery stadium was only $26 million.
$40 million is probably about right.
Doesn't four tenths of a penny in just the city of Tulsa produce about $40 million a year?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
A "new" seven year $100 million city river tax (2/10th)
Repair Zink Dam $25,000,000
Jenks Dam $12,000,000
West Bank site Acquisition $50,000,000
Riverbank Stabilization $13,000,000
The Jenks dam to be built when Jenks provides a matching $12 million, which would likely come from the TIFF on The River District. Retain the living river plan and Sand Spring Dam plan for when (if) Federal funds come through and with overages (if any) of 2025. This might take a decade, but it still "might" get built.
A new permanent 1/10th cent sales tax to hire additional police and a new permanent 1/10th cent for citywide street repairs. Each would raise about $8 million in new annual money.
A $300 million street bond issue to catch up on reconstruction and widening projects. Include reconstruction of Riverside Drive.
I would give sand springs the same matching funds opportunity. Mainly as I don't think Sand Springs could do it.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Doesn't four tenths of a penny in just the city of Tulsa produce about $40 million a year?
Here is my math; $288 million 75% collected in Tulsa or about $216 million. So about $54 million per tenth for seven years or $7.7 million per year.
You prompted me to look up the City of Tulsa budget.
This year they predict the three pennies will bring in $209,260,000 this year (about $70 million per full penny or $7 million per tenth of a penny, per year).
Add four percent growth each year and a five year, one tenth of a penny sales tax for only Tulsa will bring in $38 million.