This may have all been said but i have to say something.
1) I didn't see a good answer in the thread below so exactly where is the money to fix the streets going to come from?
2) How did voting yes on the river somehow prevent the street improvements from getting funded?
3) How in the world does BA have the sack to ask Tulsa businesses for money after their city officials denounced the river plan saying it wouldn't help them?
4) What percentage of the suburbs population work in Tulsa? How many of those big brand new houses in Jenks, BA, Owasso, Collinsville, Bixby, and elsewhere have people living in them who actually work in the suburb their house is in?
5) The plan wasn't the best but it was pretty good. Now, Tulsa has lost out on over $500M in private investments from $117M local and the Arkansas developer.
6) Please tell me how 3/4 of a billion investment in river developement would NOT help the suburbs? Do people really think the Jenks Riverwalk is sustained only by people that live in Jenks?
7) Why did the north Tulsa councelors use the Albertsons not reopening for their battlecry? Owasso's Albertson's didn't reopen either?
8) Does north Tulsa think they can oppose the county and city of Tulsa and then expect more help?
9) Why are Tulsa's citizens so against change when all the do is complain about the status quo?
10) Tuesday was sad
1. They don't have one.
2. River Tax begets retail begets axes begets road $$$
3. Brass cojones
4. A lot
5. Everything shown is still possible, public funding will still be required and it will take longer, but hopefully 2008 will bring "nuestro río sí numero dos"
6. Riverwalk is sustained by people form all over but only Jenks gets the tax$$. That is good for Tulsa is good for BA, but not in an immediate direct economic sense.
7. They also used the new police chief as a battlecry. Apparently they thought we should pay someone to move into that spot.
8. See #3
9. It's a tried-and-true fact that most of them don't want change, they just want the result. Kinda like wanting a paycheck, but not really wanting a job.
10. True
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
This may have all been said but i have to say something.
1) I didn't see a good answer in the thread below so exactly where is the money to fix the streets going to come from?
Same place it would have come from if the river tax had passed -- some sort of city tax increase, either a general obligation bond (property tax) or sales tax or some combination.
Despite MAPS 1 and 2, Oklahoma City still has to vote on an $835 million bond issue for streets in December.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
2) How did voting yes on the river somehow prevent the street improvements from getting funded?
There's some limit to the sales tax rate people are willing to pay, and every tax increase takes us closer to that limit. When the county raises its sales tax rate to pay for non-essentials, it limits the options for cities who are looking for funding to pay for basic public services.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
3) How in the world does BA have the sack to ask Tulsa businesses for money after their city officials denounced the river plan saying it wouldn't help them?
4) What percentage of the suburbs population work in Tulsa? How many of those big brand new houses in Jenks, BA, Owasso, Collinsville, Bixby, and elsewhere have people living in them who actually work in the suburb their house is in?
Tulsa businesses should thank the suburbs, particularly Broken Arrow citizens and officials for demanding that our city and county officials use the means already at their disposal to promote river development without raising taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
5) The plan wasn't the best but it was pretty good. Now, Tulsa has lost out on over $500M in private investments from $117M local and the Arkansas developer.
We haven't lost out on the "Tulsa Landing" development. Read yesterday's paper (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071011_1_A1_hBoth58247%22) -- a spokesman for HCW has indicated they're ready to move forward if Tulsa officials will work with them. I've heard that some city councilors are moving forward with a TIF proposal that would provide the financing needed for a west bank mixed use development to move forward. If Mayor Taylor will cooperate, this can happen.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
6) Please tell me how 3/4 of a billion investment in river developement would NOT help the suburbs? Do people really think the Jenks Riverwalk is sustained only by people that live in Jenks?
Again, the river developments weren't dependent on the tax. Jenks' River District and Bixby's South Village are moving forward regardless, using TIF districts as incentives. Those developers are paying up front for infrastructure, to be reimbursed for infrastructure spending if and when their projects begin generating revenue. Tulsa's west bank development can move forward as well, if Tulsa city officials act expeditiously to follow Jenks and Bixby's example.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
7) Why did the north Tulsa councelors use the Albertsons not reopening for their battlecry? Owasso's Albertson's didn't reopen either?
The closed Albertsons is a symbol of north Tulsa's priorities. They see the basic necessities that their community lacks as more important than recreational facilities in the affluent part of town.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
8) Does north Tulsa think they can oppose the county and city of Tulsa and then expect more help?
North Tulsa opposed a tax increase; they didn't oppose the county or the city. In fact, they voted along with the majority of the county's voters. East Tulsa and the older part of west Tulsa voted against the tax as well.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
9) Why are Tulsa's citizens so against change when all the do is complain about the status quo?
Tulsa County voters didn't vote against change. They voted against a tax increase for this particular package.
City and county officials could have given us a range of options on the ballot, the chance to vote separately for each independent component and to choose whether we want the standard or deluxe version of each. (I wrote something last week suggesting what that ballot might have looked like (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/saying-no-in-order-to-say-yes.html%22) -- a county vote on the dams, and five City of Tulsa ballot items for the west bank, living river, 41st St. bridge, 61st St. bridge, and downtown connector.)
Given a range of choices, I believe voters would have voiced their approval for some form of river development.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
10) Tuesday was sad
I'm encouraged that Tulsa County voters were able to muster the sales resistance to buck $1.3 million in advertising.
You could choose to look at Tuesday's vote as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I choose to look at it as the opening round in negotiations. An initial offer was made. The voters rejected the initial offer. Opponents of the original offer have made a counter-offer. (In fact, they made those suggestions before this deal was put on the ballot.)
Back in July, if the county leaders, city leaders, and philanthropists had been willing, we could have put together an approach to river development that would have been supported by 75 or 80 percent of the public. Instead they chose to move forward with a flawed plan and to try to drown the voters' objections in a million dollars worth of TV ads and four-color mailers.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I'm encouraged that Tulsa County voters were able to muster the sales resistance to buck $1.3 million in advertising.
You could choose to look at Tuesday's vote as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I choose to look at it as the opening round in negotiations. An initial offer was made. The voters rejected the initial offer. Opponents of the original offer have made a counter-offer. (In fact, they made those suggestions before this deal was put on the ballot.)
Back in July, if the county leaders, city leaders, and philanthropists had been willing, we could have put together an approach to river development that would have been supported by 75 or 80 percent of the public. Instead they chose to move forward with a flawed plan and to try to drown the voters' objections in a million dollars worth of TV ads and four-color mailers.
At the risk of sounding like your b!tch, I gotta say, you are spot on with those last few paragraphs, especially the part I put in bold face.
mbates, unless i'm delusional (or drunk- its early but hell, its friday)) i thought one of the reasons to vote no was you said our dams were already paid for and we could get the money out of v2025... want to go back over that again for me?
The thread is titled "More River".
I am in favor of more river.
Mo'h cowbell!
(http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10513/More%20Cowbell.jpg)
Bates, as one of the most outspoken NO supporters I was hoping to hear the new plans from you. I agree that generally one can not tax their way to prosperity, but surely you agree that very few people see Tulsa as a vibrant community. Aspects of it certainly are, but by and large it has been stuck with the status quo for 20 years - if not slowly in decline.
and as per the Tulsa Landing, they have so much invested of course they are going to keep looking at it. I REALLY hope something comes to fruition, but certainly his rhetoric is not encouraging:
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.
And as for BA, they did not act of of some greater purpose. They merely saw that Tulsa would have something they would not and voted it down. The mayor even said as much - that it would give Tulsa an advantage in attracting new business while taking money away from BA. While facially logical, it certainly is not noble.
I was hopeful that Kathy would be the "business leader" she made herself out to be. Unfortunately, the couple of call centers that have relocated here have not really excited me too much. And I'm not one of the notorious nay sayers.
- - -
Per North Tulsa; frankly, you opposed spending money to help make my part of town nicer. So I'll oppose any effort to make your part of town nicer. Spiteful? Petty? Probably, and I would never actually do it. Having North Tulsa tell Mid-Town what good development is or what should be a priority is a bit of a joke, but I will still favor any development that will make the CITY as a whole better.
Enjoy your crime infested, run down, stagnant crap hole for another generation. I'm sure you'll blame everyone else for it instead of realizing it's your kids running around shooting each other in parks and dilapidated properties that keep your community blighted. Even if Tulsa built a new park on every block and paved the streets with gold, North Tulsa would remain blighted. The community has to solve its problems before the government can do much to help out.
(and, FYI, no new grocery store came in because it was not profitable. Not because the city hates minorities)
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
mbates, unless i'm delusional (or drunk- its early but hell, its friday)) i thought one of the reasons to vote no was you said our dams were already paid for and we could get the money out of v2025... want to go back over that again for me?
The dams were promised in Vision 2025, and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.
If we get the permits in three years and the county officials don't think they have the funds from Vision 2025 or federal sources, that would be the time to make their case to the voters that a tax increase is the only option to fund the dams.
Here's what the ballot should have looked like (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/10/saying-no-in-order-to-say-yes.html%22) for a county vote on the dams.
quote:
1. TULSA COUNTY VOTE: The low-water dams -- two new, one old. (I'll take their word that the three dams work as a system.)
(A) Use the Vision 2025 money you already have to fix Zink Lake and to proceed with engineering and the permitting application on the other two dams. Once you get the permits (if you get them), you can come back and ask us for more money (assuming we don't have enough in Vision 2025 and haven't received that Federal $50 million).
(B) Raise our county sales taxes now by four-tenths of a cent for 18 months to fund the dams.
(C) Raise our county sales taxes now by that annoying 1/12th of a cent for seven years to fund the dams.
While we're proceeding with permitting, county officials need to get a handle on Vision 2025 finances, so it knows what its full range of options are for funding the completion of the dams. PMg does an admirable job of tracking expenditures, but my attempts to get answers to financial questions leaves me with the impression that no one on the County Commission seems to have the complete picture, at least not in a form that lets decision-makers know what their options are. What I'm talking about is really above PMg's level of responsibility.
The complete picture would include information that doesn't appear in the monthly Vision 2025 reports: how much money remains (if any) of the bond proceeds, how much money is in the sales tax reserve fund and any other trust fund holding Vision 2025 money. Those items, plus revenue projections, would address the income side. On the expense side, a "spend plan" is needed to lay out, at least on a year-by-year basis, but preferably by quarter or month, what expenditures are already committed, and whether there is any flexibility as to when the expenditure could be made. With this information in hand, county officials could decide to prioritize spending on the Vision 2025 dams, and move spending on other Vision 2025 projects later, while honoring any spending commitments that have already been made.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The dams were promised in Vision 2025
You sir, are a liar.
quote:
and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.
Sure, priority over projects that literally ARE and always have been funded by Vision 2025. Let's break Real promises, so we can run after your fictitious one. You're not just a liar, you're also delusional.
Asking where the funding for fixing streets is coming from as it relates to a failed river tax is illogical in the first place.
This was a promise stuck into the campaign after campaigners became aware they had to placate the "fix the streets first crowd."
They had already seated a committee chaired by S.K. Davis and Dewey Bartlett, Jr. to study the street issue prior to the election. Their report is due Dec. 1. I suspect at that time the funding mechanism will become clear, as was intended seeing that this committee was put together before the vote.
Saying that additional tax revenue generated by commercial/retail development on the river was going to be sufficient to fix the streets is incredibly premature. It's like the promises of the Oklahoma lottery being a huge bonanza to education. School systems implemented additional benefits and raises based on these projected increases from a revenue stream which was not yet defined. The result has been school systems struggling to come up with the promised funds because they have not materialized as promised.
Without any sort of track record to see whether or not sales tax collected on the river would have been cannibalistic nor whether it would have really generated 9000 new jobs to increase the tax base, nor knowing what this would have really meant to tourism/convention business, fixing the streets on the back of the river is nothing but conjecture and fantasy.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
The dams were promised in Vision 2025
You sir, are a liar.
quote:
and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.
Sure, priority over projects that literally ARE and always have been funded by Vision 2025. Let's break Real promises, so we can run after your fictitious one. You're not just a liar, you're also delusional.
Yes they were. Proposition IV of the V-2025 ballot. He's not lying, your liar-meter is broken, or either you haven't bothered to look into what the man is saying.
Oh great, here we go again. We must chase every stupid thing Bates says all over the place just because Conan loves him in a way that requires latex.
Bates says they were "promised", then Bates continuous to talk about how the hell we're going to fund them with or without Vision 2025. You literally have to be an idiot to continue following this line.
"Liar, idiot, liar, idiot, sleeping with Bates, needs latex..."
Glad to see you are back to your old self MC.
I love rehashing old things, it frees me from any real thought:
River development was over marketed in 2025. The actual impact on the river promised was smaller than what it was sold as. AND the ballot was poorly worded.
I agree with Bates in that it appeared to most people that river development was included in 2025 but can see a defensible position that it was not actually promised.
You got called out defending a bald-faced lie, and that's the best you got?
What was the River Tax for, if full funding for dams was promised as Bates claims in Vision 2025? Why would we need to alter Vision 2025 to fund the dams, as Bates suggests, if full funding is already promised? Why the hell would we need anything else? Do we or do we sure as hell not need more funding for the dams? Which one is it?
It can not possibly be: Let's break promises that we know are true to chase fiction. It can not be: The funding is already there, so we need more.
If you continue on this line, calling you an idiot would be mild. And if you don't like the stink, stop defending this crap.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I love rehashing old things, it frees me from any real thought:
I don't like it at all. This is plain stupid. Bates says promises abound, yet, Bates say we have to alter Vision 2025 to make the "promises" true, or we have to have some other funding. What kind of logic is that?
quote:
I agree with Bates in that it appeared to most people that river development was included in 2025 but can see a defensible position that it was not actually promised.
Who is most people? How do you know that? On this thread, this very thread, Bates has already admitted there has to be some alternate funding for the projects. How do you know who was and who was not aware of what? How do you know who was aware of this three years ago?
As far as I'm concerned, Bates is intentionally running a scam.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I love rehashing old things, it frees me from any real thought:
I don't like it at all. This is plain stupid. Bates says promises abound, yet, Bates say we have to alter Vision 2025 to make the "promises" true, or we have to have some other funding. What kind of logic is that?
quote:
I agree with Bates in that it appeared to most people that river development was included in 2025 but can see a defensible position that it was not actually promised.
Who is most people? How do you know that? On this thread, this very thread, Bates has already admitted there has to be some alternate funding for the projects. How do you know who was and who was not aware of what? How do you know who was aware of this three years ago?
As far as I'm concerned, Bates is intentionally running a scam.
Time to move forward, bro. We are where we are. Bates is who he is, and there are many like him. About 52.5% of the county, to be approximate. The only way forward is to see the terrain clearly and navigate it in the proper manner to get to the goal. Go around the mountain, not through it.
All your vitriol does is harden their positions. Just sayin' . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Go around the mountain, not through it.
All your vitriol does is harden their positions. Just sayin' . . .
Done.
Thank you.
Thanks for some of the replies.
Bates had some good points and not so good points.
In the TW article that you linked were these quotes and items that talk about more than $125M
not being spent due the failure of the tax initiative.
quote:
Randy Miller, "There's no Plan B. River development is over."
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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," Levit said. "The voters reached their conclusion."
quote:
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.
I do agree on your tax point in terms of county taxes limiting what individual towns could tax lcoally for their necessaties. Probably the only 100% valid point of any river tax opponent I have heard from or spoken too.
It also concerns me on how uneducated some of the vote no crowd was. IIRC, about 70% of surveyed county voters loved The Channels idea but thought it was too much. Which was likely true but you have to impressed with their vision. Back to topic, KOTV/TW poll showed %30 of voters thought they were voting for The Channels. %30 is a BIG, BIG number of people who can't read or chose not to read the ballot. %30 more thought they were voting for downtown improvements. Those are a ton of votes that, IMO, likely would have swayed the vote the %3 needed to win. How did SO many people NOT know what they were voting for?
As for, "Asking where the funding for fixing streets is coming from as it relates to a failed river tax is illogical in the first place."
If that is the case, then why in the world did the "fix the streets" arguement come up in every No River Tax speech?
Why do the people in Owasso, BA, Skiatook, Bixby, Sperry, etc want to pay to fix Tulsa streets? How does the vote no crowd see this panning out? A city tax? That wasn't on the ballor and I can promise you each of these suburbs are going to want a few courtesy mil out of the whatever funding is established for the roads to repair a bridge, paint new lines, or four lane 3 miles of road that hass 2K a day traffic(see Coweta for reference).
The river developement isn't over because of Jenks arguement is very poor. Jenks voted for this and probably had the most to lose. Now they are rolling in the developement and tax money.
Like I said, your county/local tax limit point is great. By far the best I have heard.
Some of the vote no crowd says Tulsa river development isn't over. Cool.
How and when will it happen with the biggest push of private funding every being cut so dramatically?
Mr Bates, How do we get Mr Kaiser and Mr QTrip back in a happy place with their hands on their wallets? How do we get these people to build and donate piers that stretch out over sand?
Forget the county; Tulsans want river development and the majority of Tulsans (and Jenks Americans) that voted Tuesday are willing to pay for it.
I think we need a Coalition of Arkansas River Towns (CART) and get back to the table as soon as possible. I believe that without Broken Arrow, Bixby and Owasso the rest of us have a better chance of passing a much smaller tax.
We should also explore/search for as many types of additional funds as possible, including federal and state money, private donation, fund raising (anyone for a glass of Arkansas River Lemonade?) We should ask groups that stand to benefit from river development (Creek Nation) or are on the river (Sunoco, Sinclair) to donate to public spots in their proximity. We should also thank Mr Kaiser and ask him to get back on board to help us with a scaled down plan.
I dont want to wait several more years, I want action now.
TulsaWD:
It's all about information and disinformation. If 30% believed they were voting on the "Channels", there's likely two issues. 1) Odds are, someone was purposefully spreading that falsehood as true. And 2), quite frankly, and most importantly, the gov't and the Yes side did a pathetic job of explaining what exactly the River tax would do, and why the River Tax should be passed. Sure there were plenty of advertisements, there were a few public meetings, but they didn't take much time to really explain the details to the bulk of the citizens.
I believe our window to do this "county-wide" will close within a few years if we don't get on the ball. At some point, we're going to lose Jenks. Jenks will eventually build the dam themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
TulsaWD:
It's all about information and disinformation. If 30% believed they were voting on the "Channels", there's likely two issues. 1) Odds are, someone was purposefully spreading that falsehood as true. And 2), quite frankly, and most importantly, the gov't and the Yes side did a pathetic job of explaining what exactly the River tax would do, and why the River Tax should be passed. Sure there were plenty of advertisements, there were a few public meetings, but they didn't take much time to really explain the details to the bulk of the citizens.
I believe our window to do this "county-wide" will close within a few years if we don't get on the ball. At some point, we're going to lose Jenks. Jenks will eventually build the dam themselves.
Here's the point Michael: The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place. If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%. We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.
Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it. I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.
What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow?????
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the point Michael: The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place. If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%. We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.
Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it. I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.
What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow?????
Ummmmmm, nothing? *shrug*
There are benefits to doing this on the county level, but it's perfectly fine with me to throw this out there as a city tax, if it's doable. I think it is. We should go after land acquisition, and maybe the Tulsa Wave, only. Possibly add more partial funding for the dam at Jenks (under the prerequisite that Jenks kicks some cash in), make no spectacular upgrades to the current dam.
I don't see any argument there. Unless you're trying to argue that you hate the county, in which case be my guest. Hate away. You're not the only one.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the point Michael: The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place. If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%. We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.
Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it. I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.
What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow?????
Ummmmmm, nothing? *shrug*
There are benefits to doing this on the county level, but it's perfectly fine with me to throw this out there as a city tax, if it's doable. I think it is. We should go after land acquisition, and maybe the Tulsa Wave, only. Possibly add more partial funding for the dam at Jenks (under the prerequisite that Jenks kicks some cash in), make no spectacular upgrades to the current dam.
I don't see any argument there. Unless you're trying to argue that you hate the county, in which case be my guest. Hate away. You're not the only one.
Nope no argument. Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Nope no argument. Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.
Oh, I think you'd be on the receiving end of that exchange. [:P]
Where the hell is the exit to this gutter?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Nope no argument. Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.
Oh, I think you'd be on the receiving end of that exchange. [:P]
Where the hell is the exit to this gutter?
You tell me you dug the trench in the first place! [}:)]
Slow down now, I'm just a country boy with a limited range of focus. One thread around here wants to do the Pearl. One group will fight any effort to change the river other than blowing up the Zink dam. One group says we can't do anything unless every single corner of the county gets something. One group says fine as long as its private money. One group says its no tax, no way...check with us in three years and if you still want it we'll talk. There are as many groups as there are threads!
This thread seems to be pretty reasonable and accomodating. The mortars should be arriving pretty quickly.
It seems many new posters are late in arriving but have a real clear view of what just happened and frustration about it. One wishes there were some sort of movement afoot to make something happen. You know like a forum group, a web page, a concentration of enlightened, persuasive folks who could make contact with the wealthy and politically connected. Kind of like a neighborhood of people who saw through all the bs on both sides and were determined to do better....Hmmm. Wonder how that would work....
Some sort of forum for present day Tulsa matters? What would it be called?
The City can do this by itself, I think. Not 100% certain, but as far as I know, we still have a little room between us and burbs as far as sales tax rates. The key is to keep Tulsa's rates slightly under the burbs if possible. That's where going county instead of city pays off.
The bulk of the county tax would have been paid for by the city of Tulsa anyway. A City replacement might have to be less than 0.4% to stay under the burbs, but if you drop the Sand Springs Dam and any other shoreline projects you'll get the total cost down some. The tax increase may or may not be smaller than 0.4%, and it may or may not have to be stretched over an extra couple of years. But, it can probably be done.
Now we're talking, but I do think we want to include Sand Springs in some way because the best way to keep water in the river is either to regulate the flow from Keystone there or to build another lake creating dam at say 71st St (to serve a public gathering area) and I think the Corps is not keen on having a dam there. If Jenks builds their dam, we'd get some benefit up to about 71st anyway.
So if we leave the river dry, throw away the pedestrian crossings (sob), leave the Zink dam alone, all we're talking about is improvements to the existing pedestrian bridge and land acquisition for Tulsa Landing. No need to collect a tax for that.
I really think we need to come together with Sand Springs and Jenks and put together a slightly scaled down plan that gets the private donation back in play. Include the pedestrian crossing(s), include land acquisition, and include the river channel and some sort of support for the low water dams in the burbs that includes the $5M from V2025 going to those burbs with no improvements to Zink at this time.
I agree, it's probably a good thing to include Sand Springs. What kind of bugs me about BA's resistance to this whole deal is that the master plan includes dams all the way through BA to the county line. And if these expensive projects aren't paid for by county, separate towns will have to pick this up. Meaning, they'll never get done except in Tulsa and Jenks.
If we don't give an assist on Sand Springs, it may not happen. And at least a couple of Sand Springs precincts were in favor of the River Tax. And by far the biggest expense would be land acquisition anyway, trimming SS dam wouldn't trim much of the tax.
If there were a way for Tulsa to designate say 50 to 75% of the funding for Jenks Dam and Sand Springs Dam, for say 10 years, under the provision that if the towns don't complete funding after 10 years the money is dumped into the Gilcrease Expressway or excess 3rd Penny projects: I think that would be more than fair. Jenks would come through, Sand Springs would likely complete their project.
I think this can be done.
I think we should just try to do something with Sand Springs and not Jenks for a couple of reasons.
One, Jenks can probably afford to do a dam and they likely would if we didnt help. So why help them, (especially with this bridge rowe, with which btw, they stand to get over a hundred million from the company if they stand by the company and help it go through, that pays for the dam and more right there)
Two, the Jenks dam does have the most problems associated with it, environmentally and potential smell wise. If you listened carefully to the environmental specialists who had reservations about this plan, the Jenks dam was the main stickler with the most potential problems and wildlife habitat concerns. Let Jenks quibble with the environmentalists and worry about sewage overflows, keep Tulsa out of that.
As for BA. I have a prediction, you heard it here first. The growth in BA is going to slow. Growth is going to continue going South of Jenks and start following 75 south. BA is going to start having problems with crime as more of its neighborhoods continue to get older and poorer. It was the first suburb to grow a lot and those first neighborhoods already are not that good and will continue to decline. They are going to start facing some of Tulsas problems with aging infrastructure, slowing tax base as well. Jenks with its river development and more attractive growth patterns will become a wealthier, and much better looking community in contrast. BA will not be able to compete with it as the "better" suburban market. BA will become more working class, Jenks middle and upper middle class. The River District with its denser more attractive development and a completed Riverwalk will be a killer blow to BA's sparse, ugly, sprawl.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think we should just try to do something with Sand Springs and not Jenks for a couple of reasons.
One, Jenks can probably afford to do a dam and they likely would if we didnt help. So why help them, (especially with this bridge rowe, with which btw, they stand to get over a hundred million from the company if they stand by the company and help it go through, that pays for the dam and more right there)
Two, the Jenks dam does have the most problems associated with it, environmentally and potential smell wise. If you listened carefully to the environmental specialists who had reservations about this plan, the Jenks dam was the main stickler with the most potential problems and wildlife habitat concerns. Let Jenks quibble with the environmentalists and worry about sewage overflows, keep Tulsa out of that.
As for BA. I have a prediction, you heard it here first. The growth in BA is going to slow. Growth is going to continue going South of Jenks and start following 75 south. BA is going to start having problems with crime as more of its neighborhoods continue to get older and poorer. It was the first suburb to grow a lot and those first neighborhoods already are not that good and will continue to decline. They are going to start facing some of Tulsas problems with aging infrastructure, slowing tax base as well. Jenks with its river development and more attractive growth patterns will become a wealthier, and much better looking community in contrast. BA will not be able to compete with it as the "better" suburban market. BA will become more working class, Jenks middle and upper middle class. The River District with its denser more attractive development and a completed Riverwalk will be a killer blow to BA's sparse, ugly, sprawl.
I think we need the Jenks dam to back up the river to (about) 71st St past the Creek Casino, plus they have the most skin in the game at this point (they would sell their most prized belonging for the dam at 91st). In order to get Kaiser back and to include casino money, we need the Jenks dam in the plan. Without it, water taxis, gathering areas, piers and the rest won't happen.
That may be true, I am not against the dam going in there, but what I was getting at is that I think Jenks will likely do it themselves without Tulsa taxpayers chipping in. Plus if they do it, it wont leave Tulsa with the criticisms and problems that dam will have, yet we can get any benefit if Kaiser goes ahead with his the 71st plan. May not sound all that fair, but thats pretty much what Jenks is doing with the bridge deal. Someone else is footing the bill, they are getting some money out of it, while Tulsa is being left paying for widening roads and intersections to the bridge.
I like your insight about BA vs. Jenks growth. Absolutely correct. I might note that BA is and always will be a bedroom community because of their leadership. The housing quality from the 70's-90's is suspect and there is no core. Jenks has more interest topographically and more inspired leadership.
But, listen. The dams at Jenks and S/S are the real problems to the development. Swake laid out a great plan on another thread which includes partnering with Tulsa on the bridge which frees up stuff. Regardless of the plan framework, the dams are going to be fought by interests unrelated to development. They will do so under the guise of environmentalism and will ultimately tie up any efforts. I'm not trying to throw cold water, I just think there should be a focus on how to negotiate with these interests for the good of the entire area much like the solution to the private toll bridge will be effected.
To that end, the Zink dam must be remodeled to include a stepped design that allows fish spawning and openings for small craft to pass.
Perhaps the living river section can be scaled back or done incrementally. At minimum a channel needs to be enhanced and maintained between the dams that can later be modified as per the living river concept.
I like the living river concept. But if we have to be careful about how much taxes we raise and need to be frugal about it, I would say that in the immediate future I would leave off the 90 million living river concept and go with the 55 million dollar Pearl District instead. The Pearl will do more for the economy, be a better quality of life improvement, do more for the city on many levels at a much lower cost than the Living River would. If we are going to propose a city tax in the future that focuses on: quality of life/water venue/ economic development potential... It likely would be wise to make that tax less than the last one that failed, since it will only be Tulsans paying for it, and have more to show impact wise dollar for dollar.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Mo'h cowbell!
(http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10513/More%20Cowbell.jpg)
Yowsa!
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The City can do this by itself, I think. Not 100% certain, but as far as I know, we still have a little room between us and burbs as far as sales tax rates. The key is to keep Tulsa's rates slightly under the burbs if possible. That's where going county instead of city pays off.
The bulk of the county tax would have been paid for by the city of Tulsa anyway. A City replacement might have to be less than 0.4% to stay under the burbs, but if you drop the Sand Springs Dam and any other shoreline projects you'll get the total cost down some. The tax increase may or may not be smaller than 0.4%, and it may or may not have to be stretched over an extra couple of years. But, it can probably be done.
Why don't all you cry babies have a fund raiser and ask all those who want river development to make a contribution to the fund. Maybe the donors who walked away from the table could be persuaded to matching what you raise. Hell, if you raise enough money maybe Inhofe and Sullivan will make good on the federal dollars they hinted at. Brad Henry endorsed it, maybe the state will match some cash. Could money be used from the newly created state opportunity fund? We need a State program for waterways like the Main Street program to encourage cities with water features to improve their recreational and commercial development along their waterfronts. Why don't you explore some other potential funding sources, before jumping on the bandwagon for another regressive sales tax.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaWD
It also concerns me on how uneducated some of the vote no crowd was. IIRC, about 70% of surveyed county voters loved The Channels idea but thought it was too much. Which was likely true but you have to impressed with their vision. Back to topic, KOTV/TW poll showed %30 of voters thought they were voting for The Channels. %30 is a BIG, BIG number of people who can't read or chose not to read the ballot. %30 more thought they were voting for downtown improvements. Those are a ton of votes that, IMO, likely would have swayed the vote the %3 needed to win. How did SO many people NOT know what they were voting for?
The voters out in the hinterlands we all Tulsa County did enough research to find out that they were being asked to pay for the City of Tulsa to get improvments. Those same hinterlands discovered they would get no direct benefits for their investment. They were educated enough to know they were getting a raw deal.
quote:
As for, "Asking where the funding for fixing streets is coming from as it relates to a failed river tax is illogical in the first place."
If that is the case, then why in the world did the "fix the streets" arguement come up in every No River Tax speech?
Why do the people in Owasso, BA, Skiatook, Bixby, Sperry, etc want to pay to fix Tulsa streets? How does the vote no crowd see this panning out? A city tax? That wasn't on the ballor and I can promise you each of these suburbs are going to want a few courtesy mil out of the whatever funding is established for the roads to repair a bridge, paint new lines, or four lane 3 miles of road that hass 2K a day traffic(see Coweta for reference).
The river developement isn't over because of Jenks arguement is very poor. Jenks voted for this and probably had the most to lose. Now they are rolling in the developement and tax money.
Like I said, your county/local tax limit point is great. By far the best I have heard.
Some of the vote no crowd says Tulsa river development isn't over. Cool.
How and when will it happen with the biggest push of private funding every being cut so dramatically?
It will happen with a different, more logical financing option, or private industry will do it without a tax increase.
If you will go back and read the articles in the Tulsa World over the last week, you will see that these scenarios are already playing out.....without Randi Miller and Kathy Taylor, and without a tax increase.
All the county wanted to do with this plan was get their grubby little hands on that last .4 cents they think is theirs because we voted it in for Boeing in V2025. They think they are entitled to our money. The money can be available for these projects if we could get more people in local government to manage the budgets more responsibly, heck we can't even get them to mow the medians and fill the pools we currently have....why should we trust them to fill the river. Leave it to private industry.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Mr Bates, How do we get Mr Kaiser and Mr QTrip back in a happy place with their hands on their wallets? How do we get these people to build and donate piers that stretch out over sand?
Forget the county; Tulsans want river development and the majority of Tulsans (and Jenks Americans) that voted Tuesday are willing to pay for it.
I think we need a Coalition of Arkansas River Towns (CART) and get back to the table as soon as possible. I believe that without Broken Arrow, Bixby and Owasso the rest of us have a better chance of passing a much smaller tax.
We should also explore/search for as many types of additional funds as possible, including federal and state money, private donation, fund raising (anyone for a glass of Arkansas River Lemonade?) We should ask groups that stand to benefit from river development (Creek Nation) or are on the river (Sunoco, Sinclair) to donate to public spots in their proximity. We should also thank Mr Kaiser and ask him to get back on board to help us with a scaled down plan.
I dont want to wait several more years, I want action now.
First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached? I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.
If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead. But why should Sperry pay for it?
I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Mr Bates, How do we get Mr Kaiser and Mr QTrip back in a happy place with their hands on their wallets? How do we get these people to build and donate piers that stretch out over sand?
Forget the county; Tulsans want river development and the majority of Tulsans (and Jenks Americans) that voted Tuesday are willing to pay for it.
I think we need a Coalition of Arkansas River Towns (CART) and get back to the table as soon as possible. I believe that without Broken Arrow, Bixby and Owasso the rest of us have a better chance of passing a much smaller tax.
We should also explore/search for as many types of additional funds as possible, including federal and state money, private donation, fund raising (anyone for a glass of Arkansas River Lemonade?) We should ask groups that stand to benefit from river development (Creek Nation) or are on the river (Sunoco, Sinclair) to donate to public spots in their proximity. We should also thank Mr Kaiser and ask him to get back on board to help us with a scaled down plan.
I dont want to wait several more years, I want action now.
First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached? I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.
If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead. But why should Sperry pay for it?
I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.
Ever split a pizza with someone? Ever think the river projects were just a $400M pizza that Kaiser agreed to pay 1/3rd of.
Everyone calls it the Kaiser river tax and Kaiser is blackmailing us. Ever think he was just picking up part of the tab of a Randi Miller pie?
quote:
Originally posted by chesty
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Mr Bates, How do we get Mr Kaiser and Mr QTrip back in a happy place with their hands on their wallets? How do we get these people to build and donate piers that stretch out over sand?
Forget the county; Tulsans want river development and the majority of Tulsans (and Jenks Americans) that voted Tuesday are willing to pay for it.
I think we need a Coalition of Arkansas River Towns (CART) and get back to the table as soon as possible. I believe that without Broken Arrow, Bixby and Owasso the rest of us have a better chance of passing a much smaller tax.
We should also explore/search for as many types of additional funds as possible, including federal and state money, private donation, fund raising (anyone for a glass of Arkansas River Lemonade?) We should ask groups that stand to benefit from river development (Creek Nation) or are on the river (Sunoco, Sinclair) to donate to public spots in their proximity. We should also thank Mr Kaiser and ask him to get back on board to help us with a scaled down plan.
I dont want to wait several more years, I want action now.
First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached? I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.
If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead. But why should Sperry pay for it?
I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.
The tax package was a litmus test to see if the county wanted river development. The county answered loud and clear that they did not want river development and that the "gift" was an ugly sweater they were going to throw in the back of the closet.
It's probably too late to change the donors' minds, but I'd sure like to try. Tulsa overall wants river development. Can we find other sources of income beyond a tax increase?..maybe. Will the west bank still get developed?...if we can find a way to acquire the MidContinent land, yes. Would a TIF pay off?..probably but we need to dole out TIF's carefully.
Chesty, I really don't know why you care. You don't like Tulsa, you hate its streets and you think it's crime ridden. It's not. Come out of Owasso and visit us again with an open mind. Tulsa is on its way to a new age. Drive through any old neighborhood and see all of the homes that are being restored. Notice the diversity of people living there. Enjoy the classic architecture, look at the improvements to downtown underway (BTW we have a downtown in Tulsa with buildings that are taller than the highway). Have a picnic in one of our great old parks, go to one of our world class museums. See a concert, go to the PAC for a show.
You won't do any of those things though.
I guess some people just like living in suburbs where everyone is just like they are.