The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

And the good folks in Broken Arrow can pretty much forget support from the City of Tulsa on future endeavors - they made their priorities perfectly clear: They want Tulsa to be as mediocre as Broken Arrow, a community of strip malls and concrete.

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

Conan, while I agree that it was over sold and have always disparaged the "jobs creation" aspect of the pitch - it would have created a spark in this community.  Something that industry, young people, and visitors could claim and desire.

Honestly, Tulsa is an aging city that has lost her shine.  And the world is vane.  Glossy new industry generally does not move to towns that are falling behind.  Wichita, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Omaha... what does Tulsa have to offer that they do not?  All are cleaner towns, all have nicer amenities, all have some spark going for them.  I'm trying not to be negative, but I REALLY want to see something happen in Tulsa.

2025 was nice... but it really didnt even get us to par with those other cities.  We are just so damn far behind.  (No I dont think taxes solve everything blah blah blah...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Wichita, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Omaha... what does Tulsa have to offer that they do not?  All are cleaner towns, all have nicer amenities, all have some spark going for them.  

---

Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

---

I would expect those who didn't support this to minimize any impact of potential new taxes from the development, but the fact is it would have been an improvement over what we have now, and it's my understanding that there was at least one potential anchor tenant that could have had a big impact on the area. (Nothing official was announced, but I have it on good authority that there were in fact a couple ready to sign on.)

And that doesn't really answer my question. Now that the No River Tax people have killed this deal, how are any of us better off?

Are our roads going to miraculously repair themselves?

Will our tax collections somehow now manage to cover a few more cops on the streets?

Other than keeping a few bucks a month in their wallets, I think what we've lost is much greater than what we've retained. Tulsa needs something new - and desperately.

The status quo in Tulsa is not working, as can be evidenced by the lack of police on the streets, the crumbling roads, and the general neglect of the city.

Again, I ask, where is the money going to come from to address these issues?

T-Town, if you really want prosperity on the river, quit placing all the blame on the people who voted no.  Take a look at the parody of a political campaign that the yes campaign became.

Sometimes we need to consider our own failures before we can fault someone else.

The yes campaign failed to address REAL issues which concerned REAL people.

I WANTED them to convince me to vote for this.  I want river development, but I want to see something which looks like it was put together by engineers and planners, not a high school civics project.  It's unfortunate they were pressed to make this vote happen so soon by a handful of private donors, that is truly what doomed this.

If the MTCC will change their mind-set that call center jobs are the only new business worthy to attract to Tulsa, that would go a long way in increasing the tax base.  There are two ways you can increase your tax base, have a unique tourist appeal or attract companies who will bring 500 to 1000 jobs at a time which pay high end union or professional wages.  They can attract these companies with or without this river proposal.  I'll agree eventual development on the river won't hurt, but by itself is no panacea for more cops and better roads.

Now question back to you: I want to know who is going to reimburse the taxpayers for the election expense for a half-baked proposal.  Got any ideas on that TTN?

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

---

How about a TIF district.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

---

How about a TIF district.

---

World's largest TIF

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

---

How about a TIF district.

---

Part of the plan was to increase the area's tax base. Since a TIFF is funded from that increase, there is no improvement in the city's budgetary situation and in fact can be harmed by the TIFF since there are now new maintenance, police and other costs for the TIFF area.

I think Wichita has more bullet casings lying around that city than we do.

Or, one for Jenks.  They already have one.
One for West Tulsa. One for Bixby. One for Sand Springs.  The whole 41 mile corridor does not have to fall under the same TIF.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

---

Your bonkers. No those low paying river jobs and construction jobs were not what the ultimate goal was about. Though even those new jobs wouldnt hurt. If the city becomes more attractive to YPs then they grow and attract jobs. Many can work anywhere, they take their" jobs" or careers with them. Wherever they are, high paying tech and industries are able to hire them and grow.

Its the oddest thing, I dont know how people dont get it that we need to attract more young professionals and they will enable companies to grow, have their own companies, etc. I know so many young people that HAVE jobs and careers here........ but MOVE. Like I and others are considering doing. Its not about the jobs, its about quality of life.

I HAVE a career. I EMPLOY people. I and other people like me HAVE careers and work, but we also live in a city that lacks in things to do and places to go and lots of other people like ourselves to hang out with. There are companies that are already here that have a hard time recruiting young higher wage, highly educated workers. I have heard many stories of businesses, flying someone in, wining and dining them, offering them a good wage, only to have them look around the city and say no thanks. Nothing here for me. Yet our company is supposed to compete in a global market with the same company in another city that has no problem attracting YPs? That company is going to feel pressure to move.

We need to do something to jump start a hip urban lifestyle, have nice amenities, fun busy gathering areas with street life. Just have some signs of growth and hope. We need areas that cater to YP people. Brookside, Cherry streets are starts, but tiny in comparison to what other cities have to offer.  

We need someting to give Tulsa a leg up to retain and attract more YP and creative class people. People like me can live anywhere in the world we want to. Those river "jobs" werent the point, thats stupid. It was about having some place interesting and nice to go, a place to LIVE not work. We have the work.

Your viewing the world from some working class mindset. You may focus on "finding a job" and that may be your concern, your way of seeing things. But many of us have careers. Wherever we are, thats where the work is. If we dont want to live here then the companies cant hire us. If we go someplace else, companies prosper there, we create companies and jobs. etc.

If you want to only grow low wage jobs and compete with third world countries on that level, well good luck being prosperous with that.


It boils down to this...

 If I can get a job anywhere. Why would I choose Tulsa?  

Why would I choose Tulsa over Austin, or Denver, or Dallas?

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

---

How about a TIF district.

---

Nothing wrong with that.  But the revenue generated by the businesses within that district would not be available to the rest of the city (places outside the TIF) for many years.  Yes, you do grow the tax base, but that money is used first to pay off the TIF bonds.  As long as people realize that the new development won't effect the bottom line for cities and schools for a number of years, then that's okay.  Think people are that patient?  Plus, the TIFs are negotiated between the developer and the city and other taxing authorities...the voters don't get a say.  Think people are that trusting?

UPDATE: Swake is saying the same thing...only clearer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

Or, one for Jenks.  They already have one.
One for West Tulsa. One for Bixby. One for Sand Springs.  The whole 41 mile corridor does not have to fall under the same TIF.

---

You really are under the impression that TIFF fixes everything, aren't you?

Where do you think the money from a TIFF comes from? It's still mostly all the same tax money. Jenks can do a TIFF because all the spending that increases the tax base is new to Jenks, most of it USED to be in Tulsa.

But Tulsa has to be really careful. Writing a TIFF on a project's increase in tax revenue to an area is great, but a lot of that spending that drives that increase used to be spent in other parts of Tulsa. You will kill the city's budget really fast by writing too many TIFFs that are too large.

But understanding that a TIFF isn't free money takes the kind of thoughtful consideration that the "no" people just didn't want to take the time for. Stupid zingers and blasting public figures is more fun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

---

Not disagreeing with you or your take on this, Conan, but the question was "Where will the $$$ come from?".  What will work?  That's a far more interesting question in light of yesterday's vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

You really are under the impression that TIFF fixes everything, aren't you?

Where do you think the money from a TIFF comes from? It's still mostly all the same tax money. Jenks can do a TIFF because all the spending that increases the tax base is new to Jenks, most of it USED to be in Tulsa.

But Tulsa has to be really careful. Writing a TIFF on a project's increase in tax revenue to an area is great, but a lot of that spending that drives that increase used to be spent in other parts of Tulsa. You will kill the city's budget really fast by writing too many TIFFs that are too large.

But understanding that a TIFF isn't free money takes the kind of thoughtful consideration that the "no" people just didn't want to take the time for. Stupid zingers and blasting public figures is more fun.

---

Perhaps another way of saying that is that right now Jenks is booming.  Every year there are new households, new stores, and new streets, and new revenue.  They can invest with TIFs easily because they don't need the revenue right this minute.  In 10 or 20 years, when they really need it, the TIFs will expire and they can use this burst of revenue to fix aging streets, etc.

Tulsa isn't booming and already has aging streets to fix.  They needed the revenue like, yesterday.  So, while a TIF might help land a new shopping center on the River, it won't fill the coffers anytime soon.  It's an option, and maybe a really good one, depending on the circumstances.  But it probably isn't the solution.

And it's probably worth mentioning again.  We don't get to vote on TIFs.

quote:

---

Now question back to you: I want to know who is going to reimburse the taxpayers for the election expense for a half-baked proposal. Got any ideas on that TTN?

---

Not everyone thought this proposal was half baked. Was it perfect? No, but it was better than nothing, and that's what we have now.

I think this would have been a good base to start something with. We have the new arena, downtown is getting a badly needed face lift, there's the Botanical Gardens to the north, possibly the American statue (if it ever gets off the ground), and we're getting new river trails as we speak.

In and of itself, not the perfect development, but it would have complimented everything else quite nicely, and it would have been located perfectly to link everything together, and spur new development, renovation, and attractions in an area of town that is sorely lacking all those things now.

And since when do we expect someone to pick up the tab for election expense just because they lost? Has Steve Largent paid us back yet?

I don't see how we're better off now than we would have been. For a few extra cents, folks in the suburbs have ensured that Tulsa will not grow in the near future. And that is death to a city today.

We are not competing, we are not attracting new residents, businesses, or tourists. And it's been that way for a long time. The streets are a mess, our infrastructure is decaying, and Tulsa is not on most people's "must see" list.

Again, where do the No River Tax people think the money is going to come from to fix the streets? That was the big objection, so with no new development to spur new jobs and create a new tax base, where is it going to come from now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

---

Your bonkers. No those low paying river jobs and construction jobs were not what the ultimate goal was about. Though even those new jobs wouldnt hurt. If the city becomes more attractive to YPs then they grow and attract jobs. Many can work anywhere, they take their" jobs" or careers with them. Wherever they are, high paying tech and industries are able to hire them and grow.

Its the oddest thing, I dont know how people dont get it that we need to attract more young professionals and they will enable companies to grow, have their own companies, etc. I know so many young people that HAVE jobs and careers here........ but MOVE. Like I and others are considering doing. Its not about the jobs, its about quality of life.

I HAVE a career. I EMPLOY people. I and other people like me HAVE careers and work, but we also live in a city that lacks in things to do and places to go and lots of other people like ourselves to hang out with. There are companies that are already here that have a hard time recruiting young higher wage, highly educated workers. I have heard many stories of businesses, flying someone in, wining and dining them, offering them a good wage, only to have them look around the city and say no thanks. Nothing here for me. Yet our company is supposed to compete in a global market with the same company in another city that has no problem attracting YPs? That company is going to feel pressure to move.

We need to do something to jump start a hip urban lifestyle, have nice amenities, fun busy gathering areas with street life. Just have some signs of growth and hope. We need areas that cater to YP people. Brookside, Cherry streets are starts, but tiny in comparison to what other cities have to offer.  

We need someting to give Tulsa a leg up to retain and attract more YP and creative class people. People like me can live anywhere in the world we want to. Those river "jobs" werent the point, thats stupid. It was about having some place interesting and nice to go, a place to LIVE not work. We have the work.

Your viewing the world from some working class mindset. You may focus on "finding a job" and that may be your concern, your way of seeing things. But many of us have careers. Wherever we are, thats where the work is. If we dont want to live here then the companies cant hire us. If we go someplace else, companies prosper there, we create companies and jobs. etc.

If you want to only grow low wage jobs and compete with third world countries on that level, well good luck being prosperous with that.


It boils down to this...

 If I can get a job anywhere. Why would I choose Tulsa?  

Why would I choose Tulsa over Austin, or Denver, or Dallas?

---

That must make two of us bonkers, Artist.

If the 9,000 job growth claim by the chamber is for YP jobs, I'm laughing hysterically now.  Our chamber still thinks $9-$11 an hour jobs represent quality employment and a lot of their job growth claims on this campaign were centered around the service level and construction jobs this was supposed to create.  

I'm all for more YP level jobs, I don't know where you get the idea I have a working class mentality.  I have a career as well, and what I do is considered "YP".  Personally, I could move from the Tulsa area and make more money at what I do.  That option is always open.  

However, I think Tulsa is a very liveable city with many things to do and far more things on the horizon.  I feel it takes a great deal of myopia to crap on the city to say there is nothing to do here.  The only time I'm bored is when I choose to sit around the house instead of getting out.

Tulsa, with or without more river development will NEVER be able to compete with the natural assets of Denver, Colorado Springs, Miami, Seattle, New England, San Diego etc.  A prairie river full of water is not as compelling as the majesty of the rocky mountains, national forests, rich national history and architecture, and beaches you can swim at.

We will never compete with NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc. for people who prefer over-crowded areas to live in.  If Tulsa ever became that large, I'd move elsewhere.

Austin has a leg up due to a nationally-prominent four year university, high-tech oriented YP jobs due in large part to that four year university and a nightlife scene with credibility falling only behind Nashville for live music.  There's only so much room to make a living in the arts and so many areas that can happen in.  If you don't think we have a good music scene, it's an insult to a lot of hard-working very good local musicians.

Tulsa has hamstrung itself for years by having to play b!tch to the university regents at OU and OSU.  Tulsa is the largest metro area in the country which still does not have a full four year, public university.  We have starter schools and finishing schools.

Brain-trust will bring jobs, major transportation hubs will lure jobs, government incentives will bring jobs.  Everything else is gravy.

Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year.  All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be.  We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

I think your relative anger is mis-placed being directed at me and people who share my view.  I think there's a minimum of another 10% who can be brought on board for river development next time around if it is presented correctly and not within the constraints of a philanthropic gift.

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

"Tulsa City Councilman Roscoe Turner, who opposed the tax because he wanted the city's aging infrastructure to be fixed first, called the argument that it might take years to bring a similar project back to the area ``rhetoric.'' "

I'd love to know what he knows

quote:

---

Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year. All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be. We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

---

Unfortunately, there aren't all that many people who feel the same as you do. The people who live here may love it, but given other options, most potential new residents select "other."

It's going to take a development like this to bring on additional development, which attracts even more development. Developers want to go where there is development activity that will compliment and enhance what they want to build.

YPs want cool restaurants to go to, trendy clubs, hot shopping spots, a vibrant night life. Some of those things can be found in Tulsa, but they are few and far between.

I've lived in Tulsa, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, and Denver, and each has its own unique feel. I think Tulsa could be a contender for a destination city, but we have to lose the "what's in it for me" attitude to get there.

If the folks in Owasso, Broken Arrow, and other cities that voted this down think they've done something good for their communities, they are wrong. How many other developers were watching this to see the outcome? What other developments might have been waiting in the wings to be announced? Which employers were considering Tulsa for expansion, but now will not because we're viewed as an area that doesn't have the attractions their employees will want? The truth might make some people regret their no votes.

I can assure you other developers, faced with high construction and land acquisition costs in other parts of the country, are looking for new untapped opportunities. The selfish No River Tax folks have likely ensured that Tulsa metro has now been crossed off their lists. If the citizens of an area don't think it's worth spending money to live there, why would outsiders?

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now


I think this would have been a good base to start something with. We have the new arena, downtown is getting a badly needed face lift, there's the Botanical Gardens to the north, possibly the American statue (if it ever gets off the ground), and we're getting new river trails as we speak.

And since when do we expect someone to pick up the tab for election expense just because they lost? Has Steve Largent paid us back yet?

I don't see how we're better off now than we would have been. For a few extra cents, folks in the suburbs have ensured that Tulsa will not grow in the near future. And that is death to a city today.

Again, where do the No River Tax people think the money is going to come from to fix the streets? That was the big objection, so with no new development to spur new jobs and create a new tax base, where is it going to come from now?

---

I edited your post for brevity of points I want to address:

This IS a good base to start with!  There is enough interest that this has not died.  I truly believe this would have eventually been brought to vote without the private donations to the project.

It may boil down to private development needing to happen first to spur approval of a tax, it may be as simple as cutting out dissenting municipalities (read: don't make it a county vote next time).

Eh, I was just making a sophomoric come-back about who pays back the campaign.  FWIW, Largent didn't spur a referendum vote to my knowledge.  I'm assuming you are talking about the special campaign for his un-fulfilled house term.  Can't say I disagree that a politician following his political aspirations shouldn't be required to pay back the election costs when they abandon their job.  Along those lines, looking at voter turn out at the precincts, we could cut the number of polling places in half, especially on referendum-only elections.

It's not death to a city.  Look around you, there's lots of ambitious plans on the table.  This is a plan, that IMO, would have been led out in two years or less if not for the deadline imposed from a large donor to get the money out of a charitable trust.

The streets will be addressed by Dec. 1, that's already happening.  Unless there's something incredibly stupid in that plan or it's open for malfeasance, I don't know why what ever the solution is for that won't pass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

---

As a personal opinion, no.  

As far as competing with what other cities do to lure good jobs, what's the alternative to being competitive?  It's a good argument that an investment like $350mm to lure more Boeing work to town adds the most to a tax base.  It also has the ability to spur relocation of key suppliers and provides opportunity for locals to start their own business in support of those jobs and to become direct suppliers.

I might get whipped on this by someone like CF who is a more schooled economist, but IMO, the best way to build a "micro-economy" within a city is to lure a large anchor which will directly (not indirectly via liveability improvements) provide new high-paying jobs to a market and which will demand suppliers and vendors re-locate in close proximity.

1st off, Conan, that is a train of thought.  However, to do so the city must give the perspective giant HUGE incentives to move here.  Tulsa is not willing to do that, that's why Citgo left.  In general, Tulsans seem opposed to such acts as "corporate charity."  

Again, not to disparage the idea.  That is the M.O. of many metro areas.  I just do not think Tulsans have the stomach for it, and am of the opinion that in such a deal the company makes sure they win more than anyone.  Not too mention you hit the dangerous zone of subsidizing a competitor of a long standing Tulsa company (ie. Delta, move your Maintenance here and we'll give you money.  Which is directly to the detriment of AA).

What I would suggest, is making Tulsa a business friendly atmosphere.  Have "The Metro Chamber," the city, County, ORU or Tulsa create top notch small business workshops to help start or grow businesses.  Have the city inspection process as easy as possible.  Encourage the State to make registration, incorporation, and taxation as business friendly as possible.  Let Tulsans make Tulsa great, and if you want to join us all the better.

Look around.  QT, OneOK, HP, ORU, The University of Tulsa, Williams, SEM Group... most of the great companies in Tulsa were born here and grew up here.  THATs the best long term solution.  

Any company that is bribed into moving to Tulsa, while good, may just as easily be bribed elsewhere on down the road.  Not to mention, like any auction, it proves Tulsa was willing to pay more than anyone else.

- - - -

quote:

---

Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

---

Having been to both of those cities in the last 6 months - yes.  Easily yes.  Admitedly, I was only in select areas of Wichita (Eastern Business park and downtown area) but it was nice.  And Albuquerque I saw extensively.  I'm sure it has some ghetto, but most of that city is very nice.  ESPECIALLY for a desert city.
- - - -

And I am not BLAMING the "no" people for anything.  I am merely turning to you for alternatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend

"Tulsa City Councilman Roscoe Turner, who opposed the tax because he wanted the city's aging infrastructure to be fixed first, called the argument that it might take years to bring a similar project back to the area ``rhetoric.'' "

I'd love to know what he knows

---

They're going to divert the river through North Tulsa... [:P]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

quote:

---

Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year. All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be. We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, there aren't all that many people who feel the same as you do. The people who live here may love it, but given other options, most potential new residents select "other."

---

The Tulsa MSA approaching 1mm people pretty much scotches the idea that I'm in a minority.  If the Tulsa area sucked that bad, it would be shrinking not growing.

quote:

---

It's going to take a development like this to bring on additional development, which attracts even more development. Developers want to go where there is development activity that will compliment and enhance what they want to build.

---

They will go as long as the local economy can support it.  The river was no guarantee that we would be able to attract a satellite branch of Microsoft with 3000 jobs paying $80K and up.  More retail development begatting more retail development is cannibalistic in nature if other incentives aren't in place to provide the kinds of jobs which can make those developments feasible.  At some point, developers are going to realize Tulsa is saturated with restaurants and retail.

quote:

---

YPs want cool restaurants to go to, trendy clubs, hot shopping spots, a vibrant night life. Some of those things can be found in Tulsa, but they are few and far between.

---

Blue Dome, Brookside, Cherry St, Riverwalk Crossing, Brady Dist., proposed East Village, The Pearl...

quote:

---

I've lived in Tulsa, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, and Denver, and each has its own unique feel. I think Tulsa could be a contender for a destination city, but we have to lose the "what's in it for me" attitude to get there.

---

You just mentioned four very "it" cities.  Ft. Lauderdale is one of my favorite places.  There's a lot of private development money which is spurring the face-lift on FLL.  I love their "New River" district.  One distinct difference there which spoke to me was a narrow waterway not unlike San Antonio or OKC on which their river front development is taking place.

You can't compete with the asset of having one of the nation's best natural resources, the Rocky Mountains, in plain view of Denver.  LA is two hours or less driving distance from beaches, hip beach-side towns, and the mountains.

You also mentioned three out of four places which are major transportation and commerce hubs and have been for well over 100 years.  Combine FLL's Port Everglades with Miami's port and you've got one of the major sea ports on the east coast.

FLL has also become a haven for the wealthy.  Much of that wealth has been earned in other parts of the country and imported there.  How many people want to move to the prairie to retire if they can afford to live in FLL or Miami?  Muddy river water just doesn't have the same attraction as the ICW and the Atlantic Ocean where people can navigate in their mega yachts.

It's hard to draw direct comparisons, but consider that we lack a lot of the resources which must be in place first in order for ancillary quality of life development to become more of an attraction.

quote:

---

If the folks in Owasso, Broken Arrow, and other cities that voted this down think they've done something good for their communities, they are wrong. How many other developers were watching this to see the outcome? What other developments might have been waiting in the wings to be announced? Which employers were considering Tulsa for expansion, but now will not because we're viewed as an area that doesn't have the attractions their employees will want? The truth might make some people regret their no votes.

---

BA and Owasso are getting a lot of brick and mortar development via private development with some incentives thrown in by their cities.  They also got direct benefit from V-2025.  A lot can be learned from this tax package failing.  The outlying communities will not support it unless it builds something in their community.  I'm not saying that's the right attitude, but that's what their attitude is and this needs to be considered and heeded on future county-wide referendums.

Quote

I can assure you other developers, faced with high construction and land acquisition costs in other parts of the country, are looking for new untapped opportunities. The selfish No River Tax folks have likely ensured that Tulsa metro has now been crossed off their lists. If the citizens of an area don't think it's worth spending money to live there, why would outsiders?

---

Not true.  Tulsa is still a bargain for development.  Private development can and will happen without this package.  One reason is, Jerry Gordon took the risk and proved it's viable even with sand in the river.  Monkey-see, monkey-do.  If it can do that well for Jenks, just think what it will do at mid-town where we already have the benefit of a LWD.  The Creek Tribe will take advantage of it too eventually.

Hardly selfish in voting no.  What you are failing to grasp is there was not one bit of wording in the ballot resolution which would bind the county to provide the projects as promised.  There's also been no formal committment from the Corps of Engineers that the low water dams can, in fact, be built.  That was a cornerstone of this plan.

We have a very nice River Parks system as-is.  Kaiser's $12mm gift will go a long ways in improving it.  I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

---

As a personal opinion, no.  

As far as competing with what other cities do to lure good jobs, what's the alternative to being competitive?  It's a good argument that an investment like $350mm to lure more Boeing work to town adds the most to a tax base.  It also has the ability to spur relocation of key suppliers and provides opportunity for locals to start their own business in support of those jobs and to become direct suppliers.

I might get whipped on this by someone like CF who is a more schooled economist, but IMO, the best way to build a "micro-economy" within a city is to lure a large anchor which will directly (not indirectly via liveability improvements) provide new high-paying jobs to a market and which will demand suppliers and vendors re-locate in close proximity.

---

So, it's okay for government to pad the profits of a private company, but it's not okay for them to serve the public good?  You really think that?  Why have government at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1st off, Conan, that is a train of thought.  However, to do so the city must give the perspective giant HUGE incentives to move here.  Tulsa is not willing to do that, that's why Citgo left.  In general, Tulsans seem opposed to such acts as "corporate charity."  

Again, not to disparage the idea.  That is the M.O. of many metro areas.  I just do not think Tulsans have the stomach for it, and am of the opinion that in such a deal the company makes sure they win more than anyone.  Not too mention you hit the dangerous zone of subsidizing a competitor of a long standing Tulsa company (ie. Delta, move your Maintenance here and we'll give you money.  Which is directly to the detriment of AA).

What I would suggest, is making Tulsa a business friendly atmosphere.  Have "The Metro Chamber," the city, County, ORU or Tulsa create top notch small business workshops to help start or grow businesses.  Have the city inspection process as easy as possible.  Encourage the State to make registration, incorporation, and taxation as business friendly as possible.  Let Tulsans make Tulsa great, and if you want to join us all the better.

Look around.  QT, OneOK, HP, ORU, The University of Tulsa, Williams, SEM Group... most of the great companies in Tulsa were born here and grew up here.  THATs the best long term solution.  

Any company that is bribed into moving to Tulsa, while good, may just as easily be bribed elsewhere on down the road.  Not to mention, like any auction, it proves Tulsa was willing to pay more than anyone else.

- - - -

quote:

---

Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

---

Having been to both of those cities in the last 6 months - yes.  Easily yes.  Admitedly, I was only in select areas of Wichita (Eastern Business park and downtown area) but it was nice.  And Albuquerque I saw extensively.  I'm sure it has some ghetto, but most of that city is very nice.  ESPECIALLY for a desert city.
- - - -

And I am not BLAMING the "no" people for anything.  I am merely turning to you for alternatives.

---

We voted for $350mm in V-2025 to give an incentive to an exisiting Tulsa employer, Boeing, to expand jobs here.  Hardly a rival of American Airlines, but rather AA is one of Boeing's larger customers.  Not that this base would be directly related to customer support for AA, but we would have gotten our snout in the 787 Dreamliner trough.

Citgo would have left regardless.  The oil industry in the U.S. is centralized in Houston, that's just the way it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71
I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

---

No, it won't be. You all blew it. This is from an article in the Houston Chronicle  and it includes a telling quote from the Rick Huffman of Branson Landing:

quote:

---

With a "no" vote, the city also lost a chance at landing a major development on the river's west bank and at least $117 million pledged by the private sector for river improvements, such as fountains and better public restrooms.

Both were contingent on the passage of the 0.4-cent tax increase that would have paid for low-water dams, land acquisition, pedestrian bridges and habitat improvements along 42 miles of the river from Keystone Dam to the city of Jenks.
"A lot of towns would kill for that amenity," said Rick Huffman, chief executive officer of HCW Development Co., which announced plans for a 700,000-square-foot project on the west bank of the Arkansas River contingent on a "yes" vote.
"To just let it sit there and be undeveloped and give it back to the next generation of citizens _ people need to think not about themselves, but about their kids, and their kids' kids."

---

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5203605.html

The whole article is very bad for Tulsa. You all just refused to believe what anyone was saying, everyone was lying or on the take. This is the press we are getting, from Houston and from Oklahoma City. It's pathetic.
Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

---

We're going to be staring at a closed concrete plant aren't we?

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71
I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

---

No, it won't be. You all blew it. This is from an article in the Houston Chronicle  and it includes a telling quote from the Rick Huffman of Branson Landing:

quote:

---

With a "no" vote, the city also lost a chance at landing a major development on the river's west bank and at least $117 million pledged by the private sector for river improvements, such as fountains and better public restrooms.

---

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5203605.html

The whole article is very bad for Tulsa. You all just refused to believe what anyone was saying, everyone was lying or on the take. This is the press we are getting, from Houston and from Oklahoma City. It's pathetic.
Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

---

Yeah Swake, like the Houston Chronicle really has their finger on the pulse of Tulsa.  You make it sound like HCW is the only company capable of putting in an MUD on the west bank.

You notice the developers in Jenks will forge ahead without this package.  Don't bet on it not happening a few miles up-stream.

The no people didn't blow it for everyone else.  The county was cocky and thought they could grease this a lot easier than SS, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby going it alone.  Combined with throwing out a bunch of outlandish facts and figures in the media campaign and they lost a lot of people very quickly.

I've mentioned it on another thread, why don't you take an honest appraisal of what was done wrong by the yes campaign and bust them in the chops as well before you seek fault soley in the people who voted against it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

---

As a personal opinion, no.  

As far as competing with what other cities do to lure good jobs, what's the alternative to being competitive?  It's a good argument that an investment like $350mm to lure more Boeing work to town adds the most to a tax base.  It also has the ability to spur relocation of key suppliers and provides opportunity for locals to start their own business in support of those jobs and to become direct suppliers.

I might get whipped on this by someone like CF who is a more schooled economist, but IMO, the best way to build a "micro-economy" within a city is to lure a large anchor which will directly (not indirectly via liveability improvements) provide new high-paying jobs to a market and which will demand suppliers and vendors re-locate in close proximity.

---

So, it's okay for government to pad the profits of a private company, but it's not okay for them to serve the public good?  You really think that?  Why have government at all?

---

I'm not quite following you CL.  Re-read my post.  As a personal principle, no I don't like it.  So quit beating on me. [;)]

I'm just saying that other municipalities do this all the time to lure high paying jobs which expand the tax base.  It's a necessary evil to compete with other municipalities and states which do exactly that to lure more jobs to fund the tax base and provide better quality of life as an off-shoot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

We voted for $350mm in V-2025 to give an incentive to an exisiting Tulsa employer, Boeing, to expand jobs here.  Hardly a rival of American Airlines, but rather AA is one of Boeing's larger customers.  Not that this base would be directly related to customer support for AA, but we would have gotten our snout in the 787 Dreamliner trough.

Citgo would have left regardless.  The oil industry in the U.S. is centralized in Houston, that's just the way it is.

---

We did get our snouts in the Dreamliner.  It's called Spirit Aerosystems.  It didn't cost the taxpayers a dime.  I'm happy that we landed this, but the three card monte shuffle that created Spirit Aero also cost many former Tulsa Boeing employees their bennies, some of them their livelihoods.  Why is throwing money at a private corporation, who has no mission other than profit, a better choice than investing in something that benefits all of us?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71
I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

---

No, it won't be. You all blew it. This is from an article in the Houston Chronicle  and it includes a telling quote from the Rick Huffman of Branson Landing:

quote:

---

With a "no" vote, the city also lost a chance at landing a major development on the river's west bank and at least $117 million pledged by the private sector for river improvements, such as fountains and better public restrooms.

---

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5203605.html

The whole article is very bad for Tulsa. You all just refused to believe what anyone was saying, everyone was lying or on the take. This is the press we are getting, from Houston and from Oklahoma City. It's pathetic.
Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

---

Yeah Swake, like the Houston Chronicle really has their finger on the pulse of Tulsa.  You make it sound like HCW is the only company capable of putting in an MUD on the west bank.

You notice the developers in Jenks will forge ahead without this package.  Don't bet on it not happening a few miles up-stream.

The no people didn't blow it for everyone else.  The county was cocky and thought they could grease this a lot easier than SS, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby going it alone.  Combined with throwing out a bunch of outlandish facts and figures in the media campaign and they lost a lot of people very quickly.

I've mentioned it on another thread, why don't you take an honest appraisal of what was done wrong by the yes campaign and bust them in the chops as well before you seek fault soley in the people who voted against it.

---

Again, land cost is 10x higher in Tulsa and Tulsa cannot float the same size TIF that Jenks can without breaking the budget. So, while Tulsa can't use the same size TIF, they need MORE money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71
I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

---

No, it won't be. You all blew it. This is from an article in the Houston Chronicle  and it includes a telling quote from the Rick Huffman of Branson Landing:

quote:

---

With a "no" vote, the city also lost a chance at landing a major development on the river's west bank and at least $117 million pledged by the private sector for river improvements, such as fountains and better public restrooms.

Both were contingent on the passage of the 0.4-cent tax increase that would have paid for low-water dams, land acquisition, pedestrian bridges and habitat improvements along 42 miles of the river from Keystone Dam to the city of Jenks.
"A lot of towns would kill for that amenity," said Rick Huffman, chief executive officer of HCW Development Co., which announced plans for a 700,000-square-foot project on the west bank of the Arkansas River contingent on a "yes" vote.
"To just let it sit there and be undeveloped and give it back to the next generation of citizens _ people need to think not about themselves, but about their kids, and their kids' kids."

---

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5203605.html

The whole article is very bad for Tulsa. You all just refused to believe what anyone was saying, everyone was lying or on the take. This is the press we are getting, from Houston and from Oklahoma City. It's pathetic.
Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

---

har!! one of the upcoming candidates who was "considering" a position with us is from houston..
but he has some "reservations" about the town...
i wonder they'll read the article... yeehaw!!!!



we'll show him the new river plan... the one we're willing to pay for...
(http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/reports/may/redneck-boat.jpg)

One reason I'm beating on you, Conan, is because paying cash to lure a company here is just as indirect as making "liveability improvements".

First off, it's likely to be a fleeting investment.  Most of the companies that play that game play it much better than us.  They will take the money and run to the next town at the first opportunity.  Second, just because others are doing it, doesn't mean we have to.  "Monkey see, monkey do." is not the way to do business if you want to win.  Your words, friend.

But spending money on making Tulsa more livable is a lure too.  And it's something that corporations can't take with them when they leave.  Nobody can take it from us.  We can make this town more livable and enjoyable for ourselves and leave an optimistic future for our children and grandchildren.  And if we do it right, private companies will want to be here, too.  Just like Soylent Green, they're made of people.  That's what I mean by public good.

But why would you hang your faith and future on the whims of a private company?  They are in it for profit, they'll be the first to tell you that.  If they can't make it in Tulsa, they'll either close up shop or move on to cheaper labor markets. For some things, it seems less risky to trust a dimwitted government that is dedicated to the public good in Tulsa, than it does trust a well-run private company that does not acknowlege that the public good even exists and couldn't find Tulsa with a map.

I do think there are a lot of positive things going on in Tulsa, but nothing yet that will create that extra bit of "attraction". Its like we are constantly just doing the basics, like any other city can do, but never doing that extra. Even 2025 was trying to catch us up to where other places are by building an arena, getting a few more buildings converted to living downtown, adding a bit more to our little "starter colleges" etc. Still nothing above and beyond average. Good, yes, of course. But if we are trying to compete with other cities, doing something extra to give us some advantage would be very nice.


I remember someone on here mentioning that Jenks wouldnt pass the river tax because they already have river development. I remember thinking, thats not the point, its the "adding to quality of life" point that will make it pass in Jenks. People arent moving to Jenks over Tulsa because there are jobs in Jenks.  Families are moving there, to be in a new neighborhood which automatically means they will be around others like themselves, new businesses will follow, (yes they have a good school district but thats not the only reason, there are comparitively good schools in Tulsa and even Glenpool is growing and will continue to grow and its schools are not very good at all, they will get better as better students continue to enroll and tax collections go up just like any school in Tulsa would if its population were growing with middle and upper middle class students). All of those are things that new families like. Where their job is is not as important as the quality of life, its the lifestyle they want and are willing to pay for.  

Tulsa will have a hard time competing with the suburbs for that demographic. It would be nice if Tulsa were to try and compete for the YPs and kids, who will be young adults looking to go to college and live in a cool urban environment, that those people in the suburbs are having. Those young people and YPs like certain things as well. They want a certain quality of life and lifestyle, being around lots of others like themselves, etc. just like the people in the Suburbs do and will move to those places that offer them. Can Tulsa compete with those other places by being average?

Its one thing to say you can grow jobs and incentivise a business, get better politicians in office etc. But are those solutions any more likely to happen and have more certainty of results as that river plan would have had? It was something tangible, that could have actually happened. Sure, try and do those other things if you want, its not as though we havent had the time before. Small business incubators? Absolutely, but again, doesnt every city do that as a matter of course? Whats exceptional or different about that?

I actually dont mind the idea of a TIFF.

Again the emphasis should not be on the jobs it immediately brings, but the quality of life and impression it brings to the city. If its a great project, THEN, that improvement will encourage growth and act as an attractor. Its not what the river plan or a tiff would immediately do, its what effects it would have later. The spillover brought about by the improved perception and quality of life.

Where will the money come from? The river is NOT Tulsa's best asset- and all the bets that it will be made into a blue water paradise are just silly dreams. The city is located within a green river bottom and trees parks and open space are some of Tulsa's greatest assets -- face it the river in its present state or altered into a series of lakes will not attract all those users of the resource - CLEANING up the banks, planting trees, creating pedestrian use trails, making the actual river accessible are viable proposals -- Vision 2025 monies are ALREADY approved for such beautification -- there are just no matching federal funds for low water dam construction. Take the current Vision allocation for dams and make Zink dam an environmentally friendly structure with a SAFE downstream design. Rock the banks with tiered ledges and make access to the river easier, other than that spend the money above bank level. Do something about Storm Water point source pollution, ask for tax to remediate the sludge pond odors at 21st street, clean up the concrete plant and west bank superfund areas - Kaiser would be the town HERO were he to donate his money for those purposes !!!

Tulsa will continue to grow in spite of all the doom sayers -- projects along the river will continue to grow, people who live and work in Tulsa will come and go just like they do all over our mobile society. There IS water in the river except during extreme drought and the dams won't change that.

Taxing one citizen to give to another citizen who stands to make profit off that tax is not FAIR taxation. Private enterprise make a city grow not taxing the citizens for uber interests.

Anybody who thinks there is another plan being readied, or who thinks Kaiser will bestow more money on the river...needs to read Tony's post closely. They are not going to yield. Truth is a luxury to them (what superfund site for God's sake). It wasn't the plan, it wasn't the personnel. They want things spruced up a bit but they think nothing will or should...change.

Swake is right.

CL- It's not really a chicken v. egg issue.  In order for a community to build and sustain quality of life assets there has to be a means to pay for it.  Those means in our community come from property taxes and consumption taxes.  Without employment, there is no money to collect for new development and on-going maintenance.  Unless a city is primarily a retirement destination, bringing retirees from other parts of the country, then you need to lure new jobs to expand your base.

Corporate incentives, whether it's free land, a corporate tax break, property tax break, an industrial district like Mid-Am industrial park in Pryor, etc. are considered an investment in bringing in additional sales, income, and property tax base via new payroll.  

FWIW, we didn't get near the amount of 787 work in Tulsa as we would have if Boeing had decided to bring more operations here.  FAIK, there's 737 and 777 work which was already being done and some 747 bulkhead work and some defense projects.  At least that's what was going on when I was a contractor there with their environmental engineering dept.

Would $350mm have been a worthy investment for the county?  If other cities are offering such incentives and Tulsa really wants to compete on equal footing, that's the cold hard reality of what it takes to lure a corporate giant with quality jobs.  Personally, I think it sucks that profitable companies look for hand-outs like this.  Either way, to help a company  maintain profitability, we wind up paying for it, whether it is via tax payer funds or in purchase prices, or fares charged on the finished product.

There's a risk in public investment in any large business.  Look how dependent we were on McDonnell Douglas, the oil companies, and Wil-Tel, but those people eventually assimilated out into other jobs elsewhere and yes some left the city.  But while those jobs were here, they added to our tax base.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I do think there are a lot of positive things going on in Tulsa, but nothing yet that will create that extra bit of "attraction". Its like we are constantly just doing the basics, like any other city can do, but never doing that extra. Even 2025 was trying to catch us up to where other places are by building an arena, getting a few more buildings converted to living downtown, adding a bit more to our little "starter colleges" etc. Still nothing above and beyond average. Good, yes, of course. But if we are trying to compete with other cities, doing something extra to give us some advantage would be very nice.


I remember someone on here mentioning that Jenks wouldnt pass the river tax because they already have river development. I remember thinking, thats not the point, its the "adding to quality of life" point that will make it pass in Jenks. People arent moving to Jenks over Tulsa because there are jobs in Jenks.  Families are moving there, to be in a new neighborhood which automatically means they will be around others like themselves, new businesses will follow, (yes they have a good school district but thats not the only reason, there are comparitively good schools in Tulsa and even Glenpool is growing and will continue to grow and its schools are not very good at all, they will get better as better students continue to enroll and tax collections go up just like any school in Tulsa would if its population were growing with middle and upper middle class students). All of those are things that new families like. Where their job is is not as important as the quality of life, its the lifestyle they want and are willing to pay for.  

Tulsa will have a hard time competing with the suburbs for that demographic. It would be nice if Tulsa were to try and compete for the YPs and kids, who will be young adults looking to go to college and live in a cool urban environment, that those people in the suburbs are having. Those young people and YPs like certain things as well. They want a certain quality of life and lifestyle, being around lots of others like themselves, etc. just like the people in the Suburbs do and will move to those places that offer them. Can Tulsa compete with those other places by being average?

Its one thing to say you can grow jobs and incentivise a business, get better politicians in office etc. But are those solutions any more likely to happen and have more certainty of results as that river plan would have had? It was something tangible, that could have actually happened. Sure, try and do those other things if you want, its not as though we havent had the time before. Small business incubators? Absolutely, but again, doesnt every city do that as a matter of course? Whats exceptional or different about that?

I actually dont mind the idea of a TIFF.

Again the emphasis should not be on the jobs it immediately brings, but the quality of life and impression it brings to the city. If its a great project, THEN, that improvement will encourage growth and act as an attractor. Its not what the river plan or a tiff would immediately do, its what effects it would have later. The spillover brought about by the improved perception and quality of life.

---

Overhauling the TPS school system, or at least it's image, would help alleviate some of the flight to the 'burbs and to be able to retain YP's in the central part of Tulsa.  There is a certain trend of YP's buying their first home in mid-town and then migrating to Union, Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby when the kids reach school age unless they put them in private school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71
[br
This IS a good base to start with!  There is enough interest that this has not died.  I truly believe this would have eventually been brought to vote without the private donations to the project.

It may boil down to private development needing to happen first to spur approval of a tax, it may be as simple as cutting out dissenting municipalities (read: don't make it a county vote next time).

---

I agree. Its clear that the burbs are not interested in Tulsa or its future. Let's come up with a plan to develop our section of the river, support Sand Springs to build a regulating dam, plan for our streets and schools, and promote Tulsa. Let's drop the Metro from our Chamber of Commerce. Let's find ways to collect money that is not sales tax based. Let's seriously look at the impacts of commuter tolls  or local income taxes for better or worse.

I've never been an isolationist, but I am now. I doubt I'll ever support another county initative. The burbanites can worry about their bland little bedroom communities and keep dreaming of recreating Plano. Let's focus on Tulsa and make it better and more unique.

quote:

---

I agree. Its clear that the burbs are not interested in Tulsa or its future. Let's come up with a plan to develop our section of the river, support Sand Springs to build a regulating dam, plan for our streets and schools, and promote Tulsa. Let's drop the Metro from our Chamber of Commerce. Let's find ways to collect money that is not sales tax based. Let's seriously look at the impacts of commuter tolls  or local income taxes for better or worse.

I've never been an isolationist, but I am now. I doubt I'll ever support another county initative. The burbanites can worry about their bland little bedroom communities and keep dreaming of recreating Plano. Let's focus on Tulsa and make it better and more unique.

---

I agree that Tulsa should do something without the burbs. And I will remember this next time one of the burbs wants something from Tulsa. There is no reason for Broken Arrow, Owasso, or Jenks to exist without Tulsa, and I see nothing special about any of those little towns. Broken Arrow is nothing but strip shopping centers, concrete, and bland boring suburbia.

Owasso has more natural beauty, but there's really no special reason to live there from what I've seen.

Jenks has the new river development, which is nice but other than a few blocks of quaint antique shops, there ain't much there.

I'm sick of these little towns sucking the life out of Tulsa. They fight to take things from us, but they won't give back. Why are the taxes so high in Broken Arrow? Residents there should look at that. I know someone who lives just off of Main Street near the new PAC they're building. His street has no curbs, open gutters, and most houses have gravel driveways. Nice. Where's all that tax money going in BA?

why do you think that if tulsa wants to build a park along the river and dam it up that the little towns all over the county should have to pay for it ... if tulsa wants something they should pay for it themselves ... if I want something should I expect my neighbors to pay for it?... sell them on the idea that I want to beautify my lawn but they're going to have to pitch in and help pay for the landscaping ... I don't think they'd go for it either.

^ Fine with me, next time you need a county road improvement, county park improvement or something for the Sherrif or want to put your county jail in Tulsa, I'll remember that neighbors should not help neighbors and vote no.

While we're at it, get your own Chamber of Commerce and work where you live. Build your own water supply and your own landfills. Don't send your kids to take their senior pictures in Woodward Park because I pay for that not you. Might as well shut off your roads when they reach the Tulsa City limits and stop looking at my downtown skyline.

The way the burbs think is so retarded. We're all in this together.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tiny

why do you think that if tulsa wants to build a park along the river and dam it up that the little towns all over the county should have to pay for it ... if tulsa wants something they should pay for it themselves ... if I want something should I expect my neighbors to pay for it?... sell them on the idea that I want to beautify my lawn but they're going to have to pitch in and help pay for the landscaping ... I don't think they'd go for it either.

---

Yeah, I'm still strugging to get my next door neighbor to trim my tree. [;)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

Or, one for Jenks.  They already have one.
One for West Tulsa. One for Bixby. One for Sand Springs.  The whole 41 mile corridor does not have to fall under the same TIF.

---

You really are under the impression that TIFF fixes everything, aren't you?

Where do you think the money from a TIFF comes from?

---

TIF is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. When a public project such as a road, school, or hazardous waste cleanup is carried out, there is an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and often new investment (new or rehabilitated buildings, for example). This increased site value and investment creates more taxable property, which increases tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the "tax increment." Tax Increment Financing dedicates that increased revenue to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for public projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities.

A TIF is not perfect, but it is a much better financing vehicle than a sales tax increase.

Ironic that Jenks is looking at continuing with the plans for the low water dams by using existing V2025 funds and the option of a TIF.

Official Word

KOTV talked to the parties in question...

QT has said they are out, it doesnt make sense for them to pour money into river projects if the corridor as a whole remains under utilized.  And Kaiser's stipulated additional money on a match of public money - if we don't support it, he will not either.  ~$125,000,000.00 of private funds gone.

They also called Huffman on Tulsa Landing:

quote:

---

From our perspective right now, it's probably dead.

---

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=137657

to fox he said:

quote:

---

right now all plans, at least for now, are off the table.

---

The guy wasn't asking for a handout, just help consolidating the property in exchange for MASSIVE development.  Don't most cities do that as standard operating procedure?

Meanwhile, in a radio interview the BA mayor said that defeating this proposal will allow Broken Arrow to compete for the development that would have been given to Tulsa.  Jenks is pushing forward to develop their river themselves.  And Tulsa sits with its *&%$*@ dangling in the wind.

This is why I voted YES.  Because I thought a NO vote would send a message to everyone else that Tulsans are not interested in improving our community any more.  We passed 2025, all is well in the world.  Now go to Jenks or Broken Arrow.

$200,000,000 public money for $700,000,000 private money.  The more I read, the more pissed I get.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

^ Fine with me, next time you need a county road improvement, county park improvement or something for the Sherrif or want to put your county jail in Tulsa, I'll remember that neighbors should not help neighbors and vote no.

While we're at it, get your own Chamber of Commerce and work where you live. Build your own water supply and your own landfills. Don't send your kids to take their senior pictures in Woodward Park because I pay for that not you. Might as well shut off your roads when they reach the Tulsa City limits and stop looking at my downtown skyline.

The way the burbs think is so retarded. We're all in this together.

---

Well put Carlton. Its time for Tulsa to realize that we should drop this semblance of "family" and work for the good of our city. They will benefit from our inward looking attitude. A temporary city income tax looks better each day.

Chesty, I am a doubter of the TIF concept. It simply sounds like a credit card deal to me. We're borrowing against "potential" increases in tax revenue, not guaranteed increases. Meanwhile the debt still needs to be repaid whether the project succeeds or not. I like to think of the TIF as a tool for liquidity, somewhat like I do my credit card. Once you see it as a solution to a long term lack of financial stability, you risk too much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

And the good folks in Broken Arrow can pretty much forget support from the City of Tulsa on future endeavors - they made their priorities perfectly clear: They want Tulsa to be as mediocre as Broken Arrow, a community of strip malls and concrete.

---

First off, why is it that whenever something needs to be paid for, the first F'ing thing that is thought of to do is a tax?  If I have a need in my life that I need to pay for, i.e. new doors, a new grill, some non-emergency repairs to my house etc, do I go to my boss and say I need a raise each time?  No.  That would be nice indeed, but no, I don't think that would work out too well.  Instead, I do somethign totally wierd, its called budgeting.  Yeah, I know most of you pro-tax people haven't heard of that concept but here is how it goes.  You basically live off of as much or less than you make.  If you have a need, you spend less in other areas of your budget and direct money towards that new need until it is paid for.  If it is a large neeed, and I have friends or family who are willing to help, they can give me some assitance.

Why doesnt' government learn this concept.  Instead of everytime a new little rich person's pet project comes up, esepcially a NON-Emergency such as this pet project, they don't propose yet again a new tax, that they budget for it, cut spendign in some areas, accept donatiosn from private persons and enterprises, and spend some time saving for it.  The answer?  They aren't fiscally resposnible.  If they saved any moderate amount of money the morons in charge would blow it.

The problem isn't the citizens, we are already highly taxed, the problem is the governments inability to budget, and are fiscally irresponsible.  Especially on a pet-project non-emergency issue like this, they want to tax the entire county.  Thank God there are some people with sense left in Tulsa (Majority of people in tulsa voted no) and in the suburbs.

Additionally, I love these pro-river peopel who keep puttign out this pie in the sky stuff about massive growth and jobs, which is so much bs it's halarious.  Most of the jobs would be temporary, and the permentant jobs would be oh so wonderful service level jobs, of which there are a glut already around Tulsa.  So please, give us some real, good paying jobs, and I might get excited.  

As for how are they going to pay for it?  Private enterprise, and if the city wants in on the action, they can do a city tax.  I'm sorry, i'm not going to pay for a disguised "Channels" project of Mr. Warren's, and if those private philanthrpists who were goign to donate money to the first plan, will not do so now, it just proves they don't really care about developing the river for the benefit of the city, but just wanted the city to foot the bill for their little pet project.

Sorry, the "channels" in all its glory is sailing down the river.  Oh, and why the hate for BA?  Vindictive much?  And it may be good to know that Owasso voted No by a higher margin than BA did, 75% compared to 65%, so uhm yeah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Official Word

KOTV talked to the parties in question...

QT has said they are out, it doesnt make sense for them to pour money into river projects if the corridor as a whole remains under utilized.  And Kaiser's stipulated additional money on a match of public money - if we don't support it, he will not either.  ~$125,000,000.00 of private funds gone.

They also called Huffman on Tulsa Landing:

quote:

---

From our perspective right now, it's probably dead.

---

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=137657

to fox he said:

quote:

---

right now all plans, at least for now, are off the table.

---

The guy wasn't asking for a handout, just help consolidating the property in exchange for MASSIVE development.  Don't most cities do that as standard operating procedure?

Meanwhile, in a radio interview the BA mayor said that defeating this proposal will allow Broken Arrow to compete for the development that would have been given to Tulsa.  Jenks is pushing forward to develop their river themselves.  And Tulsa sits with its *&%$*@ dangling in the wind.

This is why I voted YES.  Because I thought a NO vote would send a message to everyone else that Tulsans are not interested in improving our community any more.  We passed 2025, all is well in the world.  Now go to Jenks or Broken Arrow.

$200,000,000 public money for $700,000,000 private money.  The more I read, the more pissed I get.

---

That's an inaccurate analysis.  Mike Thornbrugh from QT was on KOTV last night saying their 41st St. gathering space project will be scaled back, they are not out.

Kaiser's foundation has the funds to help some in the future if they want to for the right reasons, right now is not likely the best time to talk to them about it.  I'm also miffed that they wouldn't go ahead and give the parks and pools their $5mm gift regardless of the vote outcome.  That might go a long way in smoothing some ruffled feathers and would be a nice gift to neglected areas of the city.  They could have made an unconditional donation to the river unless there's something tax-wise which would not have allowed them to do so.  If there's anything you can think of, let me know.

I'm becoming more irked by the nature of the conditional philanthropy the more I think about it.  

I'm totally mystified how the Warren Foundation, whose leader spearheaded The Channels (because we needed to develop the river) was absent in weighing in with PR or with substantial funds.  

Consolidate what property???  It's all in one parcel at the concrete plant.  I'm becoming more convinced there had already been an agreement with HCW for a "Tulsa Landing".  We owe it to ourselves to shop around so we don't wind up with Branson tacky.

Just to emphasise also, those private donors who were putting money up for this project, if they are now takign their ball and going home, pretty much shows their true motivation about the project and what they wanted out of it.

If they truely want to see the city grow and benefit, they will still be behind a project to do just that, but if they were in it for personal and selfish reasons, then... proof is in the pudding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Srogue

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

And the good folks in Broken Arrow can pretty much forget support from the City of Tulsa on future endeavors - they made their priorities perfectly clear: They want Tulsa to be as mediocre as Broken Arrow, a community of strip malls and concrete.

---

First off, why is it that whenever something needs to be paid for, the first F'ing thing that is thought of to do is a tax?  If I have a need in my life that I need to pay for, i.e. new doors, a new grill, some non-emergency repairs to my house etc, do I go to my boss and say I need a raise each time?  No.  That would be nice indeed, but no, I don't think that would work out too well.  Instead, I do somethign totally wierd, its called budgeting.  Yeah, I know most of you pro-tax people haven't heard of that concept but here is how it goes.  You basically live off of as much or less than you make.  If you have a need, you spend less in other areas of your budget and direct money towards that new need until it is paid for.  If it is a large neeed, and I have friends or family who are willing to help, they can give me some assitance.

Why doesnt' government learn this concept.  Instead of everytime a new little rich person's pet project comes up, esepcially a NON-Emergency such as this pet project, they don't propose yet again a new tax, that they budget for it, cut spendign in some areas, accept donatiosn from private persons and enterprises, and spend some time saving for it.  The answer?  They aren't fiscally resposnible.  If they saved any moderate amount of money the morons in charge would blow it.

The problem isn't the citizens, we are already highly taxed, the problem is the governments inability to budget, and are fiscally irresponsible.  Especially on a pet-project non-emergency issue like this, they want to tax the entire county.  Thank God there are some people with sense left in Tulsa (Majority of people in tulsa voted no) and in the suburbs.

Additionally, I love these pro-river peopel who keep puttign out this pie in the sky stuff about massive growth and jobs, which is so much bs it's halarious.  Most of the jobs would be temporary, and the permentant jobs would be oh so wonderful service level jobs, of which there are a glut already around Tulsa.  So please, give us some real, good paying jobs, and I might get excited.  

As for how are they going to pay for it?  Private enterprise, and if the city wants in on the action, they can do a city tax.  I'm sorry, i'm not going to pay for a disguised "Channels" project of Mr. Warren's, and if those private philanthrpists who were goign to donate money to the first plan, will not do so now, it just proves they don't really care about developing the river for the benefit of the city, but just wanted the city to foot the bill for their little pet project.

Sorry, the "channels" in all its glory is sailing down the river.  Oh, and why the hate for BA?  Vindictive much?  And it may be good to know that Owasso voted No by a higher margin than BA did, 75% compared to 65%, so uhm yeah.

---

Wrong analogy of going to your boss and asking for a raise. The city is more like a business competing for jobs and people with other cities. Sometimes a business takes some of its profits or does without in one are in order to "increase sales". You want the company to make more money in the long run. It takes money to make money.  Whenever I need more money, I dont budget, I make more money. Remember going to college and surviving on Ramen Noodles and living in a tiny dump? (well some of us may have) It was hard work and sacrifice so that later in life that investment would pay off. I could have focused on a job and eaten and lived better during that time, but I knew if I sacrificed in the short term and made an investment, the rest of my life would be better. I do agree that taxes shouldnt be the first and only notion, that all other options should be put in the mix.

As for the citizens already being highly taxed. We have been through this argument before. All taxes, local, sales, state, federal, city income, state income, utilities, property, fees, gasoline, tags, etc. added together. Oklahomans have the lowest tax burden in the nation. Could we do better with our efficiencies and waste, I am sure every state could. If you find any waste, corruption etc. let someone know. Could we arrange our collection of taxes differently, less city tax more of something else? Nobody is stopping anyone from trying.

I emailed a letter to the Tulsa World today, in response to their "Muddy Water" editorial that was in today's paper.  Here is what I said.

Tulsa World,
Regarding your October 11, 2007 editorial "Muddy Water":

I am one of the "naysayer and anti-progress" citizens that you bitterly refer to and I want to state exactly why I voted "No" on the river tax.  Yesterday I went to the grocery store to only buy a ½ gallon of milk, and had to pay 19 cents sales tax.  19 cents sales tax for just one ½ gallon of milk!  You want Tulsa County citizens to add insult to injury and vote in MORE sales taxes?  I vowed many years ago that as long as the state and local governments in Oklahoma continue to charge regressive sales taxes on basic food and clothing, necessities of life, that I would vote "NO" on any further sales tax proposal, whatever the issue.  The only exception I have made to that vow in the past 30 years was to vote "Yes" on the portion of Vision 2025 that is building our new arena.

River development is already happening, and will continue without public funding.  If proposed recreation and entertainment projects for the river are sound and good economic propositions, they will happen as they should with private money and without any additional regressive taxes.

You speak of ingratitude towards the private donors and their $117 million.  If they were doing this for public accolades and ego, then I don't want their money.  If they think their projects worthy, then they should donate the money, no strings attached, and not try to coerce the public into passing more taxes.

Thank you Tulsa County Citizens for seeing to reason on this one, and I suggest the Tulsa World and Commissioner Randi Miller just swallow their "sour grapes" and move on.

Steve E., Tulsa resident since 1957.

I like it when a plan comes together.........

---

Originally posted by the Artist.

quote:

---

I remember someone on here mentioning that Jenks wouldnt pass the river tax because they already have river development. I remember thinking, thats not the point, its the "adding to quality of life" point that will make it pass in Jenks. People arent moving to Jenks over Tulsa because there are jobs in Jenks. Families are moving there, to be in a new neighborhood which automatically means they will be around others like themselves

---

I was kinda curious as to why Swake is quoting the "Houston" newspaper and sounding more and more like Davazz .... But reading this made it all so clear...

They all have been Stepfordized..


(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Stepfordsimpson.jpg)


Beware the Stepford's shall inherit the Burbs....!

[}:)]

As for the donors. QT is going to do something along the river and Kaiser already is. QT will do a scaled down version. No need for the piers and some other things, piers traditionally go over water not sand lol. Plus with no pedestrian bridge that will change some things including "traffic flow". I would like to hope that Kaiser would do some of his 71st concept. Again, the piers with restaurants or things on it may not be realistic at this point, but the rest of the stuff could still be done and enjoyed.

I can understand to an extent the desire to have "conditional philanthropy". If you have x amount of dollars to give and several things vying for that money, you try and figure out which one will get the most bang for the buck and try to get others to chip in to make your project have as much impact as possible. If one project can only be done half way its better not to do that and use your money on another project that will see more results. Why not use your money for leverage and shop around to get the most impact? Cant hurt. Be stupid not to do that especially if you see other philanthropists doing more with their money by getting others to chip in.


I remember people telling me I was too cheap on my prices for my artwork. I said I was trying to make my prices affordable for more people and get lots of work. People pointed out to me that my work wasnt valued by those who got it because it was so cheap. Some wouldnt even hire me because I was cheap lol. The more something costs the more its valued and appreciated.

If you were to give something it would be better to give it to someone who would really valued it versus not appreciate it at all.

If you are going to give, give where it is most appreciated and or will do the most good.

As with everything, I think there should be a balance and limits with what you give unconditionally and conditionally. Each circumstance is different.

Isnt mr Kaiser giving 12 million to the river as it is? And I bet the city put conditions on what he wanted to do and we wanted conditions put on what he was going to give with this river tax.

Nothing in life is free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Srogue

Just to emphasise also, those private donors who were putting money up for this project, if they are now takign their ball and going home, pretty much shows their true motivation about the project and what they wanted out of it.

If they truely want to see the city grow and benefit, they will still be behind a project to do just that, but if they were in it for personal and selfish reasons, then... proof is in the pudding.

---

What would that say their motivation was wiseguy? Did you miss the part where he said going in that if we didn't match the funds they would be moved somewhere else? He personally made the analogy on TV if you watched. "Its like watching someone cross the street who needs help. You offer to help them, but if they don't want the help you leave them alone". Pretty clear to me. So again, what would be their true motivation and how would you know that?