I'm thinking now it's every community for itself. Take up arms! Git yer Torches and let's march!!!
Jenks Takes Tulsa Mayor To Court Over Proposed Toll Bridge
Thursday October 11, 2007 4:03 pm
Tulsa - The City of Jenks is filing a lawsuit against Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and Public Works Director Charles Hardt over a proposed toll bridge that would run from 121st and South Yale in Tulsa to 131st and South Yale Place in Jenks. Jenks officials accuse Tulsa officials of stalling the project.
The lawsuit alleges Mayor Taylor has not signed an engineering services contract that the City of Jenks needs to move forward on the bridge project.
Jenks city leaders say the contract must be signed in order for engineers to do very important studies. Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley says the contract has been on Mayor Taylor's desk since the end of April. He says he didn't want to take it as far as a lawsuit, but he has no other choice.
Construction costs are continuing to go up, oil prices as they go up, that's a cost for asphalt, et cetera, so, it's costing the project quite a bit of money by all of these delay tactics."
Both parties will be in court on October 23rd, at which time the mayor must sign the contract or give a good reason that she's not signing the contract. We contacted the City of Tulsa. They say they will not comment at this time because the court has not yet handed them the lawsuit.
The bridge has not been given the official go ahead just yet. The supreme court still has to make the final decision. Jenks hopes to get that answer by January.
Did you read the comments after the article in the TW? People were ragging all over the mayor. Sounded to me like she is trying to do everything she can to get that bridge to be a revenue generating possibility for the city of Tulsa. Yet people were making it sound like she was the antichrist or something.
Why would she sign it? I would've used it for toilet paper in a pinch by this point. It's like bringing a remodeling contractor in to look at your house because your neighbor wants you to. Neither one of you are going to pay for the remodeling, so why bring the guy in?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Why would she sign it? I would've used it for toilet paper in a pinch by this point. It's like bringing a remodeling contractor in to look at your house because your neighbor wants you to. Neither one of you are going to pay for the remodeling, so why bring the guy in?
Really. When the supreme court signs off on it, then she can consider signing. Not until.
why would she sign it? so we can make it easier for people to get out of tulsa?
The problem is she is not saying "I wont sign it because its bad for Tulsa (or for the Rich people lobbying against this effort in South Tulsa)." She's making up excuse after excuse and dragging her feet. That's not only unfair to Jenks (not that I really care) but also a pretty cowardly method of leadership.
Mayor, if you think this is a bad idea stand up to it. If not, let it go through. If your not sure, say so.
Is there any way that she can get it to be a Tulsa built toll bridge so that Tulsa will be making money instead of that private company and Jenks? They are projecting the company will make over 600 mill during the life of the contract and Tulsa will be left spending a couple hundred mill widening the roads and intersections to the bridge. I can imagine she is trying her darndest to figure out a way to make things work better for Tulsa with this bridge. Any ideas?
I think she should sign it when Jenks agrees to pay for the widening of Yale from 91st Street to the river and only if Tulsa benefits from the tolls collected from the bridge.
Oooo-eeee! Tee-Shane!
Get down wit your bad self!
Sounds reasonable to me.
No kiddin', Tshane. Can you help me get a good deal on a car?
Does somebody have some more context? Why would Vic think he had a deal?
quote:
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland said the city of Tulsa has had a copy of the engineering services contract since April 26.
"It normally takes a week, and it's been sitting
there ever since," he said. "She (Taylor) told me she wasn't going to sign it. We'll let a judge decide."
Finally, Kathy Taylor does something I support.
Scr*w Jenks.
They are trying to force a bridge on Tulsa that isn't economically feasible at this time, which will incur road widening costs that haven't been budgeted for.
I'm sick of Jenks, Broken Arrow, and Owasso. They are just arm pit communities sucking the life out of Tulsa.
I'm glad Taylor has been dragging her feet, if that's what she's doing. That bridge would make much more sense over on Riverside.
Scr*w Jenks and its Mayor.
I think the bridge would make more sense on Riverside, too.
I'm enjoying the show. What's funny is watching somebody try to strongarm the Mayor. They'd better be careful or Don Himelfarb'll let loose a salvo on them in the Tulsa World. I've seen this movie before...it's a good'n.
Why is it that Jenks feels it can force Taylor into signing this agreement? Did she, or LaFortune, agree to do something?
To me this sounds like Vic Vreeland is yelling "But mahhhhhhhhm! Kathy's not playin' fay-er!"
Vic Vreeland wants his cake and to eat yours too. Jenks needs a new mayor willing to spend the city's recent windfalls on better intersections, a main street without 90deg turns, and building his own low water dam. Instead he just sits on the money and whines about what other people are or aren't doing.
When the new Cherokee Casino opens on Riverside, the traffic has got to increase big time. It would seem a new bridge crossing at South Riverside would be perfect to help move traffic in, out, and through the area. That location would connect people in South Tulsa to downtown, the west side, and I-44 much better than a bridge at Yale would.
Yale crawls around the 91st Street intersection, and 91st Street itself is pathetic during rush hour.
It's pretty obvious someone stands to profit at the expense of the citizens of the City of Tulsa.
Don't underestimate Mayor Vic.
He has an amazing success record and is one of the "straightest talking" politicians around.
I don't have much opinion on this bridge, but think that when cities sue each other, nobody wins.
quote:
Originally posted by T-Town Now
When the new Cherokee Casino opens on Riverside.
It's pretty obvious someone stands to profit at the expense of the citizens of the City of Tulsa.
Creek Nation Casino.
It's the privatization that Vreeland wants the worst. This bridge was needed to provide a precedent for privatized toll roads/bridges to facilitate the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway through Oklahoma. That's why he insists IVI must build it and that it can't be built through a revenue sharing public partnership with Tulsa. If the citizens of Jenks want this bridge, all they have to do is elect a Mayor willing to work with the city of Tulsa to do this publicly.
quote:
Originally posted by T-Town Now
Scr*w Jenks.
They are trying to force a bridge on Tulsa that isn't economically feasible at this time, which will incur road widening costs that haven't been budgeted for.
I'm sick of Jenks, Broken Arrow, and Owasso. They are just arm pit communities sucking the life out of Tulsa.
I'm glad Taylor has been dragging her feet, if that's what she's doing. That bridge would make much more sense over on Riverside.
Scr*w Jenks and its Mayor.
Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...
Oh, forgot.... suburbs = intrinsic evil.
Carry on (my wayward son)... [8D]
quote:
Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...
You can lump them all together as far as I'm concerned. None of those communities would exist in the manner they do today without the City of Tulsa, but they have conveniently forgotten that.
For the RECORD...
Good advice
By Tulsa World's Editorial Writers
9/6/2007
Warren: Bridge sound investment
W. K. Warren Jr., the oilman and philanthropist who is one of Tulsa's chief benefactors, says he didn't invest in the now controversial Yale Avenue bridge project because the city of Tulsa was not getting any of the revenues.
But ". . . the city of Tulsa should be building the bridge. It's a very good investment for the city."
He said the bridge is more important to Tulsa than it is to Jenks, the city now trying to build the bridge through a contract with a group of private investors.
Warren says the city of Tulsa wasn't paying enough attention to the river when the private toll bridge was proposed.
"With recent interest in our river, they are taking a look at the whole picture," he added.
Warren was referring to the campaign to pass a small sales tax to finance the public part of a program to build low-water dams and beautify the river from Sand Springs to below Jenks.
Tulsa COULD HAVE made a deal to share the profits from the bridge, but bullied by a small group of homeowners, REFUSED. When Tulsa City Hall opposed the county proposal, the cities of Jenks and Bixby made a deal with the private bridge builders.
Warren's right. Tulsa should be involved. But now, after five years of fumbling, the best and fastest way to get the bridge built and revenue coming in is for all parties to agree to share profits. The private builders have invested $1.5 million or so and can start construction in months, whereas governments likely couldn't get the bridge built in five more years.
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland says he is not against a deal that gives Tulsa a part of the hoped-for profits from the toll bridge, and Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor says she is ready to bargain on the bridge. But the mayors have not yet seriously tried to resolve the impasse.
There is agreement among all the parties that the bridge is needed, that it should be built at Yale Avenue as planned, and that it would benefit Tulsa as well as Jenks and Bixby.
The mayors, of course, are listening to some of their noisiest constituents. The hope here is that they will decide the issue in the way that benefits the most people by building the bridge. Politics — and egos — have so far stopped agreement.
It's time for our mayors to be leaders. Taylor and Vreeland should put aside politics and resolve the bridge issue.
It's called leadership.
quote:
Originally posted by T-Town Now
quote:
Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...
You can lump them all together as far as I'm concerned. None of those communities would exist in the manner they do today without the City of Tulsa, but they have conveniently forgotten that.
Would YOU have voted for a county tax that would have directly benefitted Broken Arrow and Owasso with $282mil in tax $$$ in exchange for $117mil in private donations to sweeten the pot???
I'd like to point out that north Tulsa voted this down by more than 4-1, and east Tulsa voted this down, too...
from the Tulsa World...
14 -- Mount Zion Baptist Church, 419 N. Elgin Ave. Failed 94 to 290
21 -- Tulsa Urban League, 240 E. Apache Failed 81 to 220
28 -- UAW No. 952, 1414 N. Memorial Drive Failed 93 to 281
39 -- McClure Community Center, 7440 E. Seventh St. Failed 130 to 266
60 -- Cooper Elem. School, 1808 S. 123rd East Ave. Failed 161 to 458
99 -- Disney Elementary School, 11702 E. 25th St. Failed 80 to 203
101 -- Garnett Church of Christ, 12000 E. 31st St. Failed 110 to 267
If I'm not mistaken, the Broken Arrow mayor seemed to think his city would vote this down 4-1, but in reality Broken Arrow voters were MORE LIKELY to vote for the River Tax than Owasso, north Tulsa and probably east Tulsa voters.
When you lump everybody together you don't like, there's no room to get anything done...
Vision2025 passed county-wide with 60% voting yes after two city-wide taxes failed... for those scoring at home, if the suburbs are allowed a place at the table, they will vote for a project that builds an arena downtown instead of in BA or Jenks...
And I don't understand why anybody thinks the Kaiser Foundation is going to say ANYTHING about investing in Tulsa at this time... especially less than two weeks after the initiative failed...
quote:
Would YOU have voted for a county tax that would have directly benefitted Broken Arrow and Owasso with $282mil in tax $$$ in exchange for $117mil in private donations to sweeten the pot???
Yes, I would have if those cities were the draw for the metro area.
Face it, Tulsa is the object of interest here. It's the financial center of the metro area. If Tulsa does well, its neighboring communities benefit as well. But that is mostly a one way street. A surge of development in Broken Arrow does little for the City of Tulsa.
In fact, development in outlying areas seems to do more harm to the City of Tulsa than anything else. People move to the burbs, do their shopping out there, etc., and are employed in Tulsa. The city gets very little, if any, of their tax dollars, yet their vehicles contribute to our road deterioration, etc.
Enough is enough.
Please get off your "Tulsa is sooooo much more important than its bedroom communities" high horse and explain to me why Broken Arrow voters were less likely to oppose the River Tax when compared to north Tulsans or east Tulsans...
Splain that one, please.
Besides, when companies look at a possible location in Tulsa, doesn't the option of offering their employees low-crime suburbs with good public schools come into the mix?
Or is it ALL about midtown? [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Please get off your "Tulsa is sooooo much more important than its bedroom communities" high horse and explain to me why Broken Arrow voters were less likely to oppose the River Tax when compared to north Tulsans or east Tulsans...
Splain that one, please.
Besides, when companies look at a possible location in Tulsa, doesn't the option of offering their employees low-crime suburbs with good public schools come into the mix?
Or is it ALL about midtown? [}:)]
Question wasn't directed at me but I'll tackle it.
Simple- I think the vote landed along income lines. BA is a fairly affluent suburb. I think lack of proximity and hog-tying funds which might impede city projects in BA, Owasso, Skiatook, Sperry, & Collinsville killed it in those 'burbs. It also looks like it was more "old" Bixby which voted against the tax than the areas with new housing developments w/in the Bixby school district.
I think it was an overwhelming failure in Tulsa precincts which typically aren't inhabited by YP's and the wealthy. The exact income break-point, I don't have a clue.
Sounds like we're both guessing... but my guess is this has less to do with income levels...
IMO, it has more to do with a deep mistrust many Tulsans have of any sales-tax financed city projects. After all, it was only 4/10's of a cent... but for these people, it's the whole principle of a sales tax hike...
My guess is that the rent-paying young tenants in my apt complex were actually more likely to vote yes than the middle aged folks who live in reasonably nice homes around East Central HS... there's some bitter, disgruntled people there. Not sure how you fix it...
Also not sure if my math is correct, but I'm reasonably sure that if 56% of the city of Tulsa voted in favor instead of 52%, this still could have passed at the county level...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Sounds like we're both guessing... but my guess is this has less to do with income levels...
IMO, it has more to do with a deep mistrust many Tulsans have of any sales-tax financed city projects. After all, it was only 4/10's of a cent... but for these people, it's the whole principle of a sales tax hike...
My guess is that the rent-paying young tenants in my apt complex were actually more likely to vote yes than the middle aged folks who live in reasonably nice homes around East Central HS... there's some bitter, disgruntled people there. Not sure how you fix it...
Also not sure if my math is correct, but I'm reasonably sure that if 56% of the city of Tulsa voted in favor instead of 52%, this still could have passed at the county level...
Dunno Ruf... education, income- why do people in mid-town have more trust of county management of a tax than those in east or north Tulsa? Could be they are used to getting prompt attention when it comes to public works while east and north Tulsa seem to be afterthoughts. Might be coincidental that the higher income section of the city gets more visible response like new widened intersections, bricked street medians, fresh asphalt.
Even people who otherwise questioned the contents of the plan and some of the players still didn't have trouble voting for it.
I don't think it's education either.
--- personally, I blame the Tulsa Beacon... why?.... because I said so, that's why.
Lawsuit tossed:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071023_1__Theci13735
There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge. Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.
At this point it's a control issue.
If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).
If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.
(http://www.cousinspark.com/cousinspark.jpg)
www.cousinspark.com (//%22http://www.cousinspark.com%22)
Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge. Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.
At this point it's a control issue.
If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).
If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.
(http://www.cousinspark.com/cousinspark.jpg)
www.cousinspark.com (//%22http://www.cousinspark.com%22)
Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.
Then I think you have to give kudos to Taylor on this: She is protecting the city of Tulsa's best interests by NOT making it easy to send tax dollars across that bridge. She's doing as good a job protecting Tulsa's interests as the Jenks mayor is doing his.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge. Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.
At this point it's a control issue.
If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).
If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.
(http://www.cousinspark.com/cousinspark.jpg)
www.cousinspark.com (//%22http://www.cousinspark.com%22)
Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.
Then I think you have to give kudos to Taylor on this: She is protecting the city of Tulsa's best interests by NOT making it easy to send tax dollars across that bridge. She's doing as good a job protecting Tulsa's interests as the Jenks mayor is doing his.
Let's build a wall! And a moat!
Sorry, but I see nothing good in imposing limits on positive growth. Why can't she propose somthing worth-while? Mayors need to work together to help the people. It's not a competition. It's public service!
By the way, anyone seen the Governor in a few months? I haven't seen him since his via-sattelite attendance of the Centennial celebration. He should get out more often.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge. Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.
At this point it's a control issue.
If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).
If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.
(http://www.cousinspark.com/cousinspark.jpg)
www.cousinspark.com (//%22http://www.cousinspark.com%22)
Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.
That park is just as likely to happen regardless of who builds the bridge or where the bridge goes. Regardless it is no threat to midtown at all. If "she signs off and gives control to the people" as you say, its still going to be a toll bridge. The people will still have control of whether they want to pay to go across it or not. The only difference will be that hundreds of millions collected in tolls will go to a private business versus to the city if the city builds the bridge. That is revenue that could be used to fix our roads for instance. If the private business builds the road, the taxpayers, aka the people of Tulsa will be left with paying to widen the roads and intersections to the bridge. How is that going to help the people?
Scenario 1. One business reaps hundreds of millions in profits, Jenks gets a share of the profits as per the agreement with that business building the bridge, leaves the people of Tulsa paying for widening roads.
Scenario 2. Tulsa and Jenks makes the profits from the toll some of which can be used to maintain and widen roads in Tulsa if desired.
Butterfly park can get built either way lol.
Vreeland must be crying himself to sleep since his frivolous lawsuit got laughed out of court.