Hello, everybody. As a former Tulsan and soon to become one again, please allow me to take an outsiders perspective and throw my two cents into the ring regarding what could potentialy become Tulsa Metro's unique treasure...river development. Let's deal with the facts first...
The Metro will receive $117 million in private donations. As I understand it, that's a 16 to 1 return on the investment. That's a lot of beautification GIVEN without costing the taxpayers a dime and worth mentioning again. I believe it will be the largest private donation for public benefit given in the history of Oklahoma.
Next, it's the counties responsibility for providing county functions such as dams, since the county will own it. This serves the entire public and should be financed by the public. All river communties MUST work in coordinated way to achieve the ultimate goal of everycommunity benefitting from river enhancements. Also, a retail developer can't be expected to pay for public infrastructure,but should expect to be able to have land that is accessable to be able to have as much success as possible.
Next, this project could become the catalyst to helping revize a blighted west Tulsa and other points of interest all along the river. Tulsa has done extensive research on what is one of Tulsa's greatest assests is and the results came back as the river time and again. This could become a shot in the arm to getting Green Countrians back to Tulsa at least to spend some of their tax dollars on shopping, dining, etc...
It also would become a regional attraction if you give the masses points of interests.
River beatutification serves the greater good. It gives the masses a sense of civic pride and a destination for young and old. It also promotes a healthy way of life by getting outside and enjoying the great outdoors. A healthy way of life is beneficial to all citizens.
Entertainment-Tulsa really could use a destination that is close in proximity to downtown, Cherrystreet, and Brookside, to tie in all destinations together as a whole entertainment district that has something to offer for all. The proximity of the proposed area ties it all together and seems to be going unnoticed that the county would have to be able to pull of the land acquisition to make a development of this grandeur possible. A yes is the only sure way to make that happen.
Also, even if this doesn't pass they're are no guarantess that there will be road improvements, like the proponents would like you to believe. However, generating more tax revenues to the city will ultimately assure more money for road improvements. Common sense tells us it takes money to make money. Build it and they will come-just ask Jenks.
Finally, the time is now to make this happen. The price will only grow as the years go by. I think the synergy that could be created by this will only help Tulsa metro in the years to come.
Tulsa needs to generate MORE REVENUE, SO THE COUNTY is asking the metro to invest in itself. Vote YES for a greater metro.
Taking a job with the MTCC when you move back TT Mike? [;)]
Your enthusiasm is noted, however more service level wages and cannibalistic sales taxes are hardly economic assets to a community.
I agree with the points of having some hip recreation along the river, but I do believe this package is being way, way over-sold.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Taking a job with the MTCC when you move back TT Mike? [;)]
Are they hiring? I hear it pays well and all you do is say "Yes" all the time..
Funny stuff. I'm glad to see some keeping their senses of humor about a heated topic.
That being said, I understand the view that it won't provide powerhouse jobs, but that is missing the point, IMO. The point is it makes Tulsa a GREATER place for ALL, residents and visitors alike-that's something that carries alot of weight with others. Word of mouth goes along way in where people will possibly relocate to and travel to. Points of interests and destinations have mass appeal. A vibrant, flowing river is an asset that should be embraced and enhanced for all walks of life to enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Taking a job with the MTCC when you move back TT Mike? [;)]
Are they hiring? I hear it pays well and all you do is say "Yes" all the time..
That's why I maintain my anonymity on here. I'm bucking for one of those jobs. I don't want them to know how much I lampoon that sorry outfit.
might be good for tulsa initially but it's gonna rip the state a new one. ain't gonna be good for tulsa in the long run either. in a few years someone will be saying ... can't something be done about that sewer pond under the 71st st bridge ... man that stanks to high heaven. hahahaha
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
might be good for tulsa initially but it's gonna rip the state a new one. ain't gonna be good for tulsa in the long run either. in a few years someone will be saying ... can't something be done about that sewer pond under the 71st st bridge ... man that stanks to high heaven. hahahaha
You're a couple of miles off.
If I remember correctly, they can make all these improvements to the river OR make the treatment plan smell better. It is far from cheap. Hopefully they can get state or federal funds to rehab it.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Tiny
might be good for tulsa initially but it's gonna rip the state a new one. ain't gonna be good for tulsa in the long run either. in a few years someone will be saying ... can't something be done about that sewer pond under the 71st st bridge ... man that stanks to high heaven. hahahaha
You're a couple of miles off.
If I remember correctly, they can make all these improvements to the river OR make the treatment plan smell better. It is far from cheap. Hopefully they can get state or federal funds to rehab it.
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/forgottentulsa/1520717288/[^]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
[}:)]
Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?
Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
[}:)]
Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?
Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.
Ahh...
'cuz yer a big negative nancy : )
quote:
Originally posted by hello
http://www.flickr.com/photos/forgottentulsa/1520717288/[^]
Now the buildings are aligning with the "yes" side?!?!
Conpiracy!
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
[}:)]
Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?
Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.
Ahh...
'cuz yer a big negative nancy : )
Better than being an a**l Alice...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
[}:)]
Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?
Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.
Ahh...
'cuz yer a big negative nancy : )
Better than being an a**l Alice...
Common sense would seem to indicate a Vote NO to the Kaiser River Tax.
A Vote Yes is primarily to date being made on emotional appeals, of the ilk of "It's For the Children", followed by pie-in-the-sky wild predictions of "It's about 9,000 jobs to be created".
Voting YES has little if nothing to do with Common Sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:
"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."
Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...
[}:)]
Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?
Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.
Ahh...
'cuz yer a big negative nancy : )
Better than being an a**l Alice...
Common sense would seem to indicate a Vote NO to the Kaiser River Tax.
A Vote Yes is primarily to date being made on emotional appeals, of the ilk of "It's For the Children", followed by pie-in-the-sky wild predictions of "It's about 9,000 jobs to be created".
Voting YES has little if nothing to do with Common Sense.
It's over. Back to your cave. Until next time.
(http://www.theblackrepublican.net/images/Voted.gif)
time to rejoice at a mojority of 53% NO!
(http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/images/smiles/4_17_211.gif)
and a big
(http://www.catfishing.tv/cattalk/images/smiles/23_30_126.gif)
from the state of Oklahoma Fishermen and women to the 53% that voted NO!
Common Sense 60,740 (47.5%)
Status Quo 67,026 (52.5%)
I'd be curious to see how the city of Tulsa voted... and Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby...
I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...
I heard on the local news that BA folks voted no at a 4-1 ratio and Owasso people voted no at a 2-1 ratio...
Maybe a Tulsa plan would have passed... or a Sand Springs plan or a Jenks/Bixby plan...
Live and learn.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...
BA is myopic. If the general image of Tulsa improves, the general image of BA improves. Jobs in Tulsa benefit BA. This us vs. them mentality of the suburbs vs. the city is ridiculous. This issue wasn't about the river alone, it was about investing in infrastructure that spurs economic growth for the entire metro area. The river was just the vehicle for spurring that growth. And why not the river? Bodies of water have been focal points for communities for centuries. The opportunity cost of doing nothing with the river is far higher than 0.4 cents!
I reemerge everyone beware
Not to rain on anybodies parade but This was my reply to TU Law:
Are you kidding? I mean after this rant It seems to imply your actually serious. The "River Tax" benefits the haves and has nothing to with improving the environment of the "have nots". Apparently according to the vote we know who was more passionate about the so-called river tax. We voted yes to such projects when we voted for "Vision 2025" We (Tulsa City Limits) shouldn't be asked to fit the bill for the small, but I admit the growing suburbs. If they want it then they should pay for it. For a city who relishes on being "Jenks America" disassociating the state, for which they were created just adds to the animosity. Hey "Jenks America" Pay for your own damn tax- river development. As said before, we have already been through this' we voted yes, you wanna add a few suburbs to the list? I don't think so. Do you want a new "River Walk" maybe that should have been included in the previous vote. Jenks, wanna expand your part of the river? Don't expect Tulsa Citizens to pay for it? Jenks America, see if America will fund your cause. I don't feel obligated to a "city" who won't recognize the state wherein they reside.
In case those of you who have failed to do your homework, most of the property that lies beneath the AR river belong to the Indians thanks to our wonderful forefathers. If you think for one moment they won't seize the opportunity to assert their property rights, well that just shows again your ignorance to the issue. For those lawyers out there who would like to argue that fact, reliction and accretion never forget it because it will ALWAYS bite you in the end, Indian affairs Treaties Tit II ยง VI (b)(If you don't like that one do your own research (389 U.S. 290)). It is more confusing than "Adverse Possession" Ouch! Don't imply to your students that they would be better off with this idea, well because, if they're half way, their money lies in those who don't already have a retainer with a Law Firm they won't be working for. Mislead to please and you failed good luck next time
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...
BA is myopic. If the general image of Tulsa improves, the general image of BA improves. Jobs in Tulsa benefit BA. This us vs. them mentality of the suburbs vs. the city is ridiculous. This issue wasn't about the river alone, it was about investing in infrastructure that spurs economic growth for the entire metro area. The river was just the vehicle for spurring that growth. And why not the river? Bodies of water have been focal points for communities for centuries. The opportunity cost of doing nothing with the river is far higher than 0.4 cents!
Myopic is a street that runs both ways... [B)]
One-third of Broken Arrow voters actually voted FOR this river-only proposal, even though it DIRECTLY BENEFITTED economic rival Jenks... maybe BA would like to spend tax dollars on their own city in the future and felt this county tax would jeopardize that option...
Instead of demonizing suburban voters in BA and Owasso, maybe you should look at city of Tulsa voters pitted against each other, or even the voters in Sand Springs while your at it... here's a few choice Tulsa precincts...
01 -- Houston Elem Sch, 5402 N Cincinnatti... Yes 73, No 397
13 -- Rudsill No. Reg. Library, 1520 N Hartford... Yes 94, No 460
39 -- McClure Comm Ctr, 7440 E 7th St... Yes 130, No 266
44 -- Eastland Family Ctr, 12929 E 21st St... Yes 112, No 288
60 -- Cooper Elem Sch, 1808 S 123rd E Ave... Yes 161, No 458
99 -- Disney Elem Sch, 11702 E 25th St... Yes, 80, No 203
149 -- Grace United Methodist, 519 S 49th W Ave... Yes 120, No 294
139 -- LaFortune Towers, 1725 Southwest Blvd, Yes 120, No 170
Why yes, territorialism and class warfare are alive and well in the city of Tulsa...48 -- St. Paul's UMC, 1442 S Quaker, Yes 541, No 136
156 -- Cascia Hall PAC, 2520 S Yorktown Ave, Yes 361, No 68
703 -- Jenks West Elem, 1200 W 91st St, Yes 556, No 371
351 -- Bixby City Hall, Yes 398, No 399