A KOTV news clip (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=9126%22) indicates that, now that the river tax vote has failed, Mayor Taylor will spend no more time on river development. Taylor says, "I think it's clear people do not think the river is a priority. It's time to move on. We've spent a lot of staff time on it. It's time to move on to other projects."
Is this really the message that Tulsans sent to our elected officials? My interpretation from all of the debate leading up to the election is that in fact Tulsans *do* want river development. Clearly the 48% who voted yes want river development, and nearly everyone I know who voted no said they were in favor of river development but wanted to find other funding sources for it.
Do city officials now have no obligation to entice private developers to our west bank? What about the dams? Are county officials now off the hook for those?
They can choose to do as they wish.
Will it get them back in office the next time around?
That's up to us.
I think that she is just hydrophobic.
Water makes you stupid. Just look at surfers.
(Sorry waterboy).
Ah yes, kitty taylor truly a vendictive socialite that happened upon Tulsa government.
Honestly, I gained an appreciation for the mayor yesterday I'd not previously had. I was involved in part of a presentation to the park board, and I found her to be well-versed on what was on the agenda and saw thoughtfulness in her comments and actions.
I was also impressed with her comments last night at the yes campaign watch party after they conceded.
I think she is a person of great vision, some of it for personal gain, quite a bit is altruistic. I don't think it's proper analysis of her comments to conclude she's giving up on the river. I think she's just ready to tackle other pressing issues of city business. For the time being the river IS a non-issue for the city until the plans are really finally ready for a vote.
if she does give up on the river, i will like her more .... fix the streets, fix the crime, do the things that the government is supposed to do
Taylor is a moron. She will certainly be a one term mayor. We need a true visionary in office that will listen to the people of Tulsa.
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
Well if she had just made it a city tax and not a county tax, it probably would have passed.
She seems to forget that she is the mayor of Tulsa and not the mayor of Tulsa County. (LaFortune was the same)
ENOUGH REGIONALISM!
I certainly hope that the Mayor doesn't give up on the river. After all, 48% of the people voted for this, despite numerous problems. I wish someone would break down the numbers according to the City, but I would bet that, had only the city voted on this, it might have won. Honestly, I heard soo many Tulsans say they were going to vote for this but that they had some serious problems with the plan--it was too rushed, too many missing details, county shouldn't control it, dont' like sales tax. I heard many people say, "I'll hold my nose and vote for it." If anything, the Mayor should be energized by the fact that many (if not most) of the citizens of Tulsa want river development so much so that they will vote for any type of plan, flaws and all.
The thing that depresses me is that I bet a huge chunk of people out there still voted against it because they still thought it was the Channels.
^^^ ditto here. And if it were a city vote, it would have narrowly won, 52% to 48%.
Tulsans voted yes 52 to 48.
I think your precinct passed it 302 to 82. Many of the near river precincts passes it by five and six to one margins.
These six voting places , Madeline Catholic Church, Arts and Humanities council, St Pauls, Methodist, All Souls Unitarian, Holy Trinity and the Tulsa Garden Center passed it by 3328 to 818 (a combined four to one).
Looks like the Broken Arrow postcard may have lost the election by itself
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
quote:
Originally posted by wenwilwa
A KOTV news clip (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=9126%22) indicates that, now that the river tax vote has failed, Mayor Taylor will spend no more time on river development. Taylor says, "I think it's clear people do not think the river is a priority. It's time to move on. We've spent a lot of staff time on it. It's time to move on to other projects."
Is this really the message that Tulsans sent to our elected officials? My interpretation from all of the debate leading up to the election is that in fact Tulsans *do* want river development. Clearly the 48% who voted yes want river development, and nearly everyone I know who voted no said they were in favor of river development but wanted to find other funding sources for it.
Do city officials now have no obligation to entice private developers to our west bank? What about the dams? Are county officials now off the hook for those?
I'm intrigued. Please, tell us more about these "other sources". What, exactly, is the city supposed to "entice" developers with?
The majority spoke; they said no to the river. There is no money, and so, the Mayor is doing
exactly the right thing. She's moving on because you told her to move on. She's moving on because you left her nothing to work with. She's moving on because you
even turned down $117 million in private funding.
Go ask one of the no tax advocates if they still think we can do something on the river without raising taxes. If they were honest, they'd say, "Lower your expectations...a LOT."
You may be feeling a little buyer's remorse. I suggest you savor it for a while. Next time somebody tells you that you can get something for nothing, maybe you'll remember this. There is no free lunch.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by wenwilwa
A KOTV news clip (//%22http://kotv.com/e-clips/?id=9126%22) indicates that, now that the river tax vote has failed, Mayor Taylor will spend no more time on river development. Taylor says, "I think it's clear people do not think the river is a priority. It's time to move on. We've spent a lot of staff time on it. It's time to move on to other projects."
Is this really the message that Tulsans sent to our elected officials? My interpretation from all of the debate leading up to the election is that in fact Tulsans *do* want river development. Clearly the 48% who voted yes want river development, and nearly everyone I know who voted no said they were in favor of river development but wanted to find other funding sources for it.
Do city officials now have no obligation to entice private developers to our west bank? What about the dams? Are county officials now off the hook for those?
I'm intrigued. Please, tell us more about these "other sources". What, exactly, is the city supposed to "entice" developers with?
The majority spoke; they said no to the river. There is no money, and so, the Mayor is doing exactly the right thing. She's moving on because you told her to move on. She's moving on because you left her nothing to work with. She's moving on because you even turned down $117 million in private funding.
Go ask one of the no tax advocates if they still think we can do something on the river without raising taxes. If they were honest, they'd say, "Lower your expectations...a LOT."
You may be feeling a little buyer's remorse. I suggest you savor it for a while. Next time somebody tells you that you can get something for nothing, maybe you'll remember this. There is no free lunch.
Chicken Little, I'm not sure if you're speaking directly to me or not, but since you quoted my original post and used the word "you," I'll assume you are.
I happen to be part of the 48% who voted yes. I did so with reservations, but because I live close to the river near 61st and Peoria (an area that desperately needs revitalization in order to off-set the oversaturation of multi-family, low income housing and ensuing crime), I felt that I needed to accept any plan offered up by our elected officials in hopes that it might raise property values near my home. Additionally, I enjoy using the Riverwalk in Jenks and would be very happy to see similar pedestrian-friendly, family-friendly options along Tulsa's portion of the river.
Now, back to your question. Even though I stood to gain from this tax package -- and I voted yes -- I was not entirely disappointed that it failed. My reaction was, "Well, now our City officials will go back to the drawing board and start working on a city-driven plan for developing Tulsa's portion of the river." After all, the yes votes won by narrow margin within the city (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/462612.html%22).
How can it be done you ask? How can we "entice" developers to our west bank? What are the "other sources" of funding? I don't know. I'm not an expert in economic development, but I do expect our elected officials (or their hired assistants) to be. I expect Mayor Taylor to be in touch with the true sentiments of her constituents and to set Don Himmelfarb on a mission to give the city of Tulsa what, in my opinion, they did say they wanted: yes to incremental river development, no to a county-wide tax increase. Start with Michael Bates' suggestion if you like. (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/tulsa-county-citizens-win.html%22) Call me naive, but I do believe that with political will this could be done.
Right now, I don't see political will. I see sour grapes.
What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?
Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071011_1_A1_hBoth58247
quote:
River plans docked for now
Mayor Kathy Taylor
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
10/11/2007
Both sides of the proposal seem ready to move on to other public priorities.
Don't expect to see another publicly funded Arkansas River development proposal floated anytime soon.
The day after Tulsa County residents rejected a $282 million initiative, proponents and opponents alike said the issue is dead for now.
"I can't see a proposal similar to this having any traction at all," said state Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, who opposed the plan.
County Commissioner Randi Miller was instrumental in getting the county involved in a river development proposal. Don't expect her to do so again in the near future.
"There's no Plan B," she said. "River development is over."
And it will likely be a long time before the county steps up to back another river development plan.
"The citizens have spoken, and we will move on," Miller said.
Tuesday's results seem to indicate that that's a good idea: Only two Tulsa County communities, Tulsa and Jenks, approved the plan.
It died in the other suburbs.
For Tulsa City Councilor Roscoe Turner, that was just fine.
"Each individual entity is supposed to take care of themselves," he said. "The county needs to stay in county business."
Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday that the city, too, is moving on.
"We've got a lot of things on our plate," she said. "We're going to move on to other priorities."
At least one major developer, however, still likes what he sees in Tulsa.
"We believe in Tulsa; we're just ready for Tulsa to believe in Tulsa," said Patrick Cox, an associate with HCW Development Co. of Branson, Mo.
Last week, officials from the company visited Tulsa to once again say they were interested in building a mixed-use development along the west bank of the river between 11th and 21st streets.
Cox said that's still the goal, but the company will need some type of public funding mechanism or tax increment finance district to help provide infrastructure.
He said that if Tulsa still has an interest in HCW's project, "we'll hear from their leaders and we'll get back in the race."
Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed.
The same goes for the $5 million pledged for maintenance and repair of city parks and pools.
"We're basically going to refocus on other priorities," he said. "The voters reached their conclusion."
One exception is the gathering area planned for 41st Street and Riverside Drive.
QuikTrip spokesman Mike Thornbrugh said the company will build a modest version of the proposed gathering area by September 2008 to mark its 50th year of business.
"QuikTrip is still going to do something very attractive that people can utilize and appreciate," he said.
Tuesday's vote made one thing clear: Talk of river development draws a crowd.
Thirty-nine percent -- 127,794 of the county's 328,314 registered voters -- cast a ballot.
In the end, however, proponents of the plan could persuade only 47.5 percent of voters to say "yes," while 52.5 screamed "no."
Mike Neal, chief executive officer of the Tulsa Metro Chamber, said he looks forward to the day those numbers are reversed.
"I think that if this community ever wants to fully develop its river, it's going to require a public investment," he said.
I apologize. I presumed you voted no. There are several "no" voters who, like you, are expecting the Mayor to deliver River development even though there is no majority support and no money. That's an unrealistic position sold to you by people like Michael who told you that you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can't. Michael says:
quote:
It's likely, though, that after trying to convince voters that the false dilemma set up by the County Commissioners was a true dilemma, that their way was the only way to make our river happen, that they've convinced themselves as well.
Hogwash. That's just Michael trying to deflect criticism that he has rightfully earned for himself by over-promising. Everybody is moving on because the voters, led by people like Michael, told them to.
Speaking of over-promising, I'm happy to talk about Michael's west bank TIF. It's a limited tool. It could be used in a small area like the concrete plant, to do very basic public improvements, i.e. streets. If there are still developers who will build, sure, do a TIF. But, as I mentioned...lower your expectations...a LOT. The voters are cheap, so, don't expect developers to be any better.
A couple of other things about the TIF. Not one dime of the revenue generated within the TIF will be available for streets, schools, police or other non-TIF related costs for decades. And, the taxpayers will not get to vote on that. A TIF is just a tool, it ain't no magic money tree. You don't have to be an expert on economic development to understand this, there is no money for river development, the voters said no.
I see no problem with a tiff in this instance. If its paying for infrastructure in this part of town instead of that part of town, its still paying for basic infrastructure. (if our only real option is to go to Jenks, well my tax money wont be going to ANYTHING in Tulsa that way)
The hope is that a Tulsa Landing development will do several things.
Provide one more amenity and quality of life attraction for Tulsa. Its yet one more thing to help make Tulsa more desirable place to move to, attract and retain young people, workers, etc. Be one more interesting place to go, "something to do".
Spur development in the area around it. Usually when someting like this goes in there is a spillover effect. Property values increase around it (tax collections go up that way) More businesses, condos, etc. develop in the area to coattail off the traffic.
It will give downtown, convention, arena, business,, visitors another option thats more "family friendly" than the club scene, and also improve our cities image as a lively place with several things to do in the core of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Well if she had just made it a city tax and not a county tax, it probably would have passed.
She seems to forget that she is the mayor of Tulsa and not the mayor of Tulsa County. (LaFortune was the same)
ENOUGH REGIONALISM!
You're right Cubs. I think its time the cities squared off against each other. Teams are way over rated. You ready for the battle between the heathen liberal city folk versus the humble spiritual salt of the earth? It starts when we turn off the water spigot.
Some view Vision2025 as "pushing forward" but I think of it as "catching up." since while we may be building a lot of nice things, once it's done the main effects is that we won't be behind OKC, Wichita, etc. anymore. Keep in mind that Vision2025 was scaled back to make room for the boeing tax. The River Tax, in my mind, was adding back some of the lost luster and things that really would've helped create a Tulsa we want to be in in 2025.
Probably no-one would support it but I would support a revision to Vision2025 that would address the perceived future overage AND fund the river. Revise Vision2025 that is will end when they have received $800M in revenue, not on a certain date. No sooner, no later. According to Eagleton's theory, that will actually make the tax end sooner than it will now. That will assure another $200M in funding for river projects, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?
Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.
Hopefully, our elected leaders are a tad bit more mature than you and don't take the "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude." If, on the other hand, they are as childish as you, they really should just resign their offices.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?
Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.
Hopefully, our elected leaders are a tad bit more mature than you and don't take the "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude." If, on the other hand, they are as childish as you, they really should just resign their offices.
Right back at 'ya oil hog. I guess its easier for you to make a personal attack rather than address my assertions. You prove my point though, thanks.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
The endless stream of ugly, idiotic, shamelessly and wildly false accusations from the "no" side are what confused the issue.
One of my favorites was Friendly Bear's accusation Chet Cadieux had lowered gas prices to help fix the vote and that the day after the vote Quik Trip was going to jack prices back up, you know, "the Tulsa Premium"
It is good to know that there won't be illegal immigrant, gay, criminal, drug dealers hanging out at the river with all the dead fish and birds now that the vote failed. We would not want them getting sick from the polluted water or have to eat a burger in the awful smell.
FYI, the price of gas went down 3 cents yesterday.
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.
Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics. My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.
My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.
They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?
But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
The endless stream of ugly, idiotic, shamelessly and wildly false accusations from the "no" side are what confused the issue.
One of my favorites was Friendly Bear's accusation Chet Cadieux had lowered gas prices to help fix the vote and that the day after the vote Quik Trip was going to jack prices back up, you know, "the Tulsa Premium"
It is good to know that there won't be illegal immigrant, gay, criminal, drug dealers hanging out at the river with all the dead fish and birds now that the vote failed. We would not want them getting sick from the polluted water or have to eat a burger in the awful smell.
FYI, the price of gas went down 3 cents yesterday.
Sheesh Swake, how about showing some dignity.
I bet you were a lot of fun when you'd lose a game of "Hi-Ho Cheerio" when you were a kid. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.
Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics. My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.
My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.
They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?
But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.
I'll agree there were some un-educated comments and un-founded conspiracy theories coming out of the No side, just not from me [;)].
However, a case can be made for the Yes campaign stretching the truth as well in many instances and playing on emotions in lieu of substantive facts attractive to more voters.
I think the worst thing the Yes side can do right now is alienate people who voted no by calling them idiots and saying they lack vision, and plying accusations. I'm of the personal opinion that there's a minimum of another 10% which can be brought on board from the No side with more time.
Also, had this been a plan with more comprehensive benefits for each community in Tulsa County, with a ten year collection term, I think it would have passed county-wide just like V-2025. And no
I wouldn't be throwing a temper-tantrum right now had it passed.
A better use of time would be to figure out where they failed instead of complaining about how the No contingent failed them. It really will never come to fruition if some people won't swallow their pride long enough to look realistically at where they came up short.
If the Oklahoma Poll figures are credible, only 2% of people in Tulsa County were actually against developing the river, leaving 50% of voters with the impression the plan itself was flawed, bogus, misleading or just too confusing. 98% want development, but half weren't sold on the plan.
For those in power to look at Tuesdays election results and proclaim that Tulsans just dont want river development is disconnected, irresponsible and just plain bad leadership.
quote:
"We believe in Tulsa; we're just ready for Tulsa to believe in Tulsa," said Patrick Cox, an associate with HCW Development Co. of Branson, Mo.
Last week, officials from the company visited Tulsa to once again say they were interested in building a mixed-use development along the west bank of the river between 11th and 21st streets.
Cox said that's still the goal, but the company will need some type of public funding mechanism or tax increment finance district to help provide infrastructure.
He said that if Tulsa still has an interest in HCW's project, "we'll hear from their leaders and we'll get back in the race."
I'd support a TIF, definitely, and the City needs to pursue this development if nothing else.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.
Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics. My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.
My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.
They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?
But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.
Waterboy, I understand your frustration with the opposition and because you seem to be close to the campaign. I think however that your reasoning for the failure and the reasoning of others shared here is far too complicated.
I agree this was a divisive and volatile vote but I sincerely doubt that most rural residents (north Tulsa included) looked at this vote the same way you or I or most others on this board did. We're a bit of a bubble and tend to overanalyze, myself included.
(5 minute phone call to see if I'm crazy) For instance, I just made a call and asked my mother who is retired and living in Owasso how she voted and what she thought of the issue. Her response? She didn't really know much about it but she voted no because she didn't want more tax. She thought the money was going to be used to "clean up" the river because it stinks. Furthermore, she felt that the companies that made it stink should be the ones that had to clean it up.
This vote was a long shot from the beginning. We need the development desperately but we also need to be given the time to educate the voters on the merits if the measure passes.
Don't let your passion for the issue wane. Redirect it to coming up with other ideas and ways that we can make things like this work. I give a lot of proposals to people. Do I always get the sale, no. But I don't give up on other angles either.
Remember how long it took to get a measure like 2025 passed? That plan wasn't (isn't) perfect either.
The vote DID pass in the city, ya know.
Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've
GOT to be kidding me. If that happens, I
WILL move to Jenks.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've GOT to be kidding me. If that happens, I WILL move to Jenks.
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste? He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste? He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.
I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to
COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.
This is a man who's not just against
this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.
This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.
This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.
He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste? He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.
I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.
This is a man who's not just against this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.
This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.
This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.
He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended
Okay, he did lose me on the tax base collapsing. I'm still not sure I get the point of 4/10's doing that. I see how it could apply with higher amounts or higher rates of corporate or personal taxes, not a small hike in sales tax.
I've talked to John a couple of times in the last few weeks and I've had the ear of another councilor as well. There is a problem we have in this city and county of not managing the tax dollars we already have in a smart or efficient manner.
I totally agree with the comment that as time goes on in Tulsa, we are getting more government administration and less essential services expected of a municipality. We need to figure out how to take less money out of the pot before we look at new ways to add to it.
Your comment on the faux hawk- priceless.[;)]
Swake I believe the environmental side posted no false information -- in fact we were STEADFAST in pointing out the fallacies in INCOG's plan for the river -- ODWC biologists are on RECORD concerning the effects low water dams (as proposed) would have on fish and wildlife already existant in the river. For Waterboy I saw no posts which indicated Blue Cat would disappear -- what Zink has done is impede migration of highly migratory fish, lowered water quality AND affected the QUALITY of a once premier state fishery below Keystone dam. This was due to the impediment to fish migration -- as ODWC biologists stated , just having water does not mean you have fish -- further dams will disrupt the fish which have adapted to current conditions, creating an environment that is not good for lake dwelling fish nor river adapted fish -- so the net effect is NEGATIVE for BOTH environments.
On the allegation of other "unfounded" concerns , there were just TOO MANY studies incomplete and a LOT of conjecture by proponents with no basis in STUDY. I include the COE in that proponents group. This is the same COE which permitted ZINK a monumental design FAILURE.
But we can agree to disagree - for the moment status quo.
Quotation From US Fish And Wildlife BEFORE the vote
"US FISH AND WILDLIFE STATES":
"We support an organized plan for the Arkansas River that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife resources, but the proposed plan is largely conceptual and does not include details about how impacts would be addressed, minimized and mitigated.
For example, the potential impact on the river's habitat and wildlife has not been studied extensively. The only existing fisheries study, conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, indicates that the effects of low water dams (LWD) on fish could be substantial. Building new tern nesting islands (to replace the four to six tern nesting areas that would be flooded or affected) in the created lakes would not be effective, if the terns don't have adequate forage fish to eat. Similar questions exist concerning effects on nesting and foraging bald eagles.
The controlled releases from the Sand Springs LWD would provide water quality benefits by providing low flows during a portion of the time that hydropower generation releases are not being made from Keystone Lake. However, these low flows (400 to 1,000 cubic feet per second)could not be provided during extreme droughts or anytime there is no significant hydropower generation from Keystone for more than three days, according to a draft Tennessee Valley Authority report.
During significant droughts, such as occurred in 2006, no substantial hydropower releases from Keystone may be made for weeks or months on end, resulting in extremely low or no flow in the river channel. We estimate that at least 5,000 cfs is required to make the river appear to be mostly full of water given the current configuration of the river channel; none of the LWDs has the capacity to provide that level of sustained flow.
In addition, to maintain water quality in the impounded pools, especially the pool upstream of the Creek Turnpike bridge, the lakes would need to be drained frequently and for extended periods of time.
Any natural resource benefits should not be exaggerated and the potential ecological impacts should not be overlooked."
But YOU proponents shot yourselves in the foot, obviously many of you wish the wildlife issue would go away but it won't, neither will those of us who feel it is as important as development.
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons
She's so out of touch with why this failed.
Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.
I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.
So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.
Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?
Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.
Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics. My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.
My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.
They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?
But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.
Waterboy, I understand your frustration with the opposition and because you seem to be close to the campaign. I think however that your reasoning for the failure and the reasoning of others shared here is far too complicated.
I agree this was a divisive and volatile vote but I sincerely doubt that most rural residents (north Tulsa included) looked at this vote the same way you or I or most others on this board did. We're a bit of a bubble and tend to overanalyze, myself included.
(5 minute phone call to see if I'm crazy) For instance, I just made a call and asked my mother who is retired and living in Owasso how she voted and what she thought of the issue. Her response? She didn't really know much about it but she voted no because she didn't want more tax. She thought the money was going to be used to "clean up" the river because it stinks. Furthermore, she felt that the companies that made it stink should be the ones that had to clean it up.
This vote was a long shot from the beginning. We need the development desperately but we also need to be given the time to educate the voters on the merits if the measure passes.
Don't let your passion for the issue wane. Redirect it to coming up with other ideas and ways that we can make things like this work. I give a lot of proposals to people. Do I always get the sale, no. But I don't give up on other angles either.
Remember how long it took to get a measure like 2025 passed? That plan wasn't (isn't) perfect either.
The vote DID pass in the city, ya know.
I like your positive attitude. You have to have that if your making alot of presentations.[;)]
Here's the rub. Maybe trying to educate and convince voters in the burbs that a project will have a multiplier effect on the whole region won't work under any leadership or time frame. Maybe throwing enough meat on the table that all the dogs are fat and happy, like v2025 did, empties the cubboards and doesn't make them any less dissatisfied. That "maybe" is stuck in the heads of entrenched anti's all over the county. I heard a few minutes of idiot radio where it was not only the general consensus but damn near a religious vision that regionalism is failed policy. (I'm sorry Lord...give me another chance..I won't listen again).
I have come full circle once again. In fact, other than friendly agreements between adjoining cities to keep each other from dehydrating or burning up, regionalism may just be dead. Sales tax is as high as most can tolerate. TIF's are like credit cards with too high a limit and too easy to use. Add all the ingredients, add a little enlightened self interest and ....you get temporary city income tax country stew. Enough for everyone. Of course it works better if you lower the city sales tax a little to make it more palatable. A progressive tax that's good...and good for you.
Here is what I think went wrong:
Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.
Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.
The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.
The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.
Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.
Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.
Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.
I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.
I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Here is what I think went wrong:
Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.
Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.
The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.
The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.
Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.
Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.
Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.
I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.
I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.
Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Word.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste? He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.
I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.
This is a man who's not just against this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.
This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.
This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.
He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended
You've been following him pretty well. I swear, the man even looks like Churchill.
My opinion. I admire his dogged, passionate, insightful character. And he's smart. But he is blunt, abrasive, unyielding and dogmatic. Not the description of a good Mayor who must deal diplomatically with a variety of interests. Maybe a rogue congressman but he needs polishing to lead. He at first impressed me with his sensitivity re the Greenwood memoriam, but now I suspect it was the same pandering that Taylor used with Kaiser's money. Smarter, but the same. He is certainly maneuvering to build a northside, midtown coalition that could elect him but Mr. E. beware. Churchill was a war time leader. England never accepted his style in peacetime.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Here is what I think went wrong:
Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.
Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.
The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.
The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.
Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.
Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.
Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.
I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.
I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.
Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.
I don't think he's wrong here. He's just listing a set of things that got under the "No" voters' skin. Now - I think most of these things are silly, but like I said in another thread, these are hard lessons that must be learned about placating the "agin'ers" in the Tulsa electorate. The "Yes" side needs to figure out how to keep the children from throwing a tantrum, and get development going.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Here is what I think went wrong:
Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.
Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.
The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.
The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.
Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.
Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.
Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.
I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.
I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.
Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.
I don't think he's wrong here. He's just listing a set of things that got under the "No" voters' skin. Now - I think most of these things are silly, but like I said in another thread, these are hard lessons that must be learned about placating the "agin'ers" in the Tulsa electorate. The "Yes" side needs to figure out how to keep the children from throwing a tantrum, and get development going.
You can't discount silly when it comes to winning or losing elections. Even silly people vote and need to be placated.[;)]