From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/463270.html%22)
quote:
Tulsa - Negotiations continue for a huge development project in one of Tulsa's historic neighborhoods.
The Greenwood Chamber is working on a 28-million dollar plan to add a hotel, restaurants, office space and apartments around the Greenwood District northeast of downtown Tulsa.
Part of the development will preserve the past, including a memorial to the Tulsa Race Riot, historical walking tours and shops reminiscent of old Greenwood.
Thursday, members of the Greenwood Chamber met with the Tulsa Development Authority to try and work out the price of some land needed for the project. They decided to extend contract negotiations to mid-November to work out the details.
This would be great -- if it can pull it off.
Tulsa definitely needs more points of interest. I think this would be great if it happens.
I'm glad to see this might finaly move forward.
But the project is now called "reconciliation" rather than "riot"
That area has a lot of potential. Hope they make the new buildings match the old ones that are still there. Would definitely be nice to see that happen.
They need to apply for a Starbucks Urban Coffee Opportunity.
This should be Tulsa's second Urban Main Street program. Unified for the Northside. Langston Now!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Mike Shelton
Capitol: (405) 557-7367
Shelton Says Board of Regents Interfering with Langston-Tulsa Project and Project Funding
OKLAHOMA CITY - (October 12, 2007)--Money earmarked for Langston University-Tulsa to build a new campus building has been overextended by the Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges and needs to be repaid immediately with interest, state Rep.Mike Shelton said today.
"Some actions of the A&M Board of Regents are absolutely despicable and have greatly placed Langston University-Tulsa at a position of disadvantage relative to the position of OSU-Tulsa," said Shelton, D-Oklahoma City. "Conflicts of interest on the part of the board have led to purposeful and blatant decision making that has damaged Langston University. It needs to be made right immediately, and those who are
culpable need to resign from the board of regents."
In 2004, Langston University-Tulsa was given $8 million to build a 100,000-square-foot building on the corner of historic Greenwood Street and King Street in Tulsa. The money was generated from the successful 2003 tax increase campaign called the "Vision 2025: Foresight 4 Greater Tulsa" plan. Voters of Tulsa County approved a one penny, 13-year increase in the Tulsa County Sales Tax for regional economic development and capital improvements.
Today, that $8 million sum has been reduced to approximately $4 million and is losing roughly $100,000 each month through required procedures by the A&M Board of Regents that have increased the costs of construction and planning, said Shelton. As a result, construction plans have also been scaled down and now call for a much smaller 35,000-square-foot building.
Shelton also said he believes A&M Board of Regents member Jay Helm has a conflict of interest that has resulted in millions of dollars being lost in the project.
Helm is also a member of both the OSU-Tulsa Board of Trustees and the Tulsa Development Authority, according to Shelton. Shelton said all three boards have been instrumental in obstructing progress at Langston University-Tulsa in the past, including the Tulsa Development Authority's authorization of a walking trail that was constructed in the very spot on which Langston University-Tulsa intended to build.
"There are too many obvious conflicts of interest here to write off as coincidental," said Shelton. "Jay Helm's conflicts of interest are a big part of the problem. I am calling on him to resign from each of these boards immediately. He has neither the temperament nor the aptitude to make decisions in the best interest of those whom he has been entrusted to serve."
Shelton has long been critical of the makeup of the A&M Board of Regents, saying the board's decisions are often biased toward benefitting Oklahoma State University and its affiliated colleges because, until recently, all nine members were OSU graduates.
In September, Gov. Brad Henry appointed Andrew Lester, a non-OSU graduate, to fill a vacant position on the board, leaving eight OSU graduates as members.
"That was a step in the right direction, obviously, but more needs to be done," said Shelton. "This board has been tasked with making decisions on behalf of many colleges, yet all their decisions are weighted in favor of OSU. That is unfair and leaves the non-OSU affiliated schools with neither recourse nor representation."
Thats a shame. There is such a large need for college courses and programs in Tulsa that surely there is enough to go around for several colleges to still grow. OSU Tulsa and Langston can have different focuses and degree offerings. They can easily compliment each other they dont have to compete.
Though the regents are mostly OSU alumni. They still bias growth towards the Stillwater campus over the Tulsa campus. So I can only imagine the difficulty Langston must be having. The real disghust and shame is that 2025 money for Langston was what WE the citizens of Tulsa are raising for the college, its not money we are getting for the university from the state like other colleges do. Its not the states money its ours. It frustrates me to say the least that this much needed college money is being frittered away by these hassles.
So for the layman, the board of regents got the money, but spent half of it on OSU-Tulsa?
B.S.
First the Palmer incident...
That may have been on the mend.
Now this... Marvelous simply marvelous.
Tulsa is the "New Land of = Opportunity"?
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Welkoman_.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Thats a shame. There is such a large need for college courses and programs in Tulsa that surely there is enough to go around for several colleges to still grow. OSU Tulsa and Langston can have different focuses and degree offerings. They can easily compliment each other they dont have to compete.
The BIG deal for Langston is Nursing. And it's really lacking in Tulsa. OSU doesn't offer it anywhere in the state, and Langston also picks up other courses and programs that OSU has chosen not to offer at the Tulsa campus. They have always been complimentary, non-competitive. Goes back to the days of UCAT.
It's a sad deal. Right now, Langston is needed in Tulsa. If they can't do it, OSU might need to see about teaming up with some other U. OU offers nursing at Norman (but not in Tulsa), maybe RSU offers Nursing at Claremore, don't know.
Are you starting to understand why North Tulsa is so upset?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Are you starting to understand why North Tulsa is so upset?
So, you're trying to say North Tulsa is upset because Langston is run by idiots. Fair enough.
I really don't care if North Tulsa is upset. I just don't. They have more police patrolling that area of town per capita, than any other area of town, more tax dollars going into basic services there, than any other area of town per capita. North Tulsa is a net receiver of the tax base. And all you hear is a bunch of complaints mostly from half-retarded politicians.
Come to the table with a creative idea, or ****, that's my opinion of North Tulsa. There is plenty good going on there and plenty of good folks working hard to make North Tulsa better. Mostly, people who are too damn busy to be posting here.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Are you starting to understand why North Tulsa is so upset?
Langston-Tulsa and OSU Tulsa (where the money was purportedly spent) are geographically very close so I don't think it is a "North Tulsa" issue. The racial demographics of each school is different however, if that is what you're trying to say.
I've never agreed with OSU and Langston sharing a board of regents. It's like having one manager for the arena and a McDonalds. One of the two is going to get more concentration than the other. I'm not saying Langston is fast food, but they are smaller and lower-profile in the news.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Are you starting to understand why North Tulsa is so upset?
Langston-Tulsa and OSU Tulsa (where the money was purportedly spent) are geographically very close so I don't think it is a "North Tulsa" issue. The racial demographics of each school is different however, if that is what you're trying to say.
I've never agreed with OSU and Langston sharing a board of regents. It's like having one manager for the arena and a McDonalds. One of the two is going to get more concentration than the other. I'm not saying Langston is fast food, but they are smaller and lower-profile in the news.
The money wasnt spent at OSU and I dont think the article in any way suggested that. As for the board of regents, they are over all state funded universities in Oklahoma. They approve which school gets what funding from the state, which programs and classes each school and campus can have.
As for north Tulsa being frustrated. I dont think this has anything to do with it being in north Tulsa, its more what the article says. OSU is in north Tulsa as well. I will eagerly support any good plan that is put forward for redevelopment, job growth, education, etc. that is put forward by any community. I am excited to see good things happen anywhere in Tulsa. However I need to see some plan or, plan of action, in order to support it. When I hear people in the north side or west complaining about not having a grocery store, thats not a good thing, but market and demographic forces are at play. The north side has a tiff area where a grocery store can go. There are jobs all over town and to complain that there arent jobs in the north side is a bit odd. I hear a lot of complaining but dont know quite what they want us to do? At some point people have to help themselves.
What exactly is it the people on the north side want and what is their idea to make that happen?
I remembe some lady in the north side commenting on a run another lady had organized for the river vote. The lady on the north side was angry that a run had been organized for the river, at the river. She said something to the effect, "Why did they organize this run there, why dont people organize a run in north Tulsa?" I thought that pointed to two different things. A. The river is an obvious choice to have a run, it a beautiful place, has trails, is the Tulsa communities public gathering place, etc. People dont have runs down 71st or other parts of town because they arent attracive places nor suitable. There are reasons why runs and other things happen by the river versus other places. B. This wasnt a city sponsored run, it was just a local lady who decided to do something. If the other lady wanted to organize a run, or to organize a run in support of something north Tulsa she was perfectly capable of doing so. IT was as if there was automatically some conspiracy theory to not do something for north Tulsa. It kind of goes back to that "doing things for yourself" notion. It seems that whenever someone or a group of people get together to do something in one part of town, we hear people in the north side complain that things like that dont happen in north Tulsa.
Again, if the people in north Tulsa have a plan of action for something, I will be there to support them. If someone else does something in another part of town like Jamie and his area neighbors are trying to do for the Pearl, I will be there to support them. For any plan that will benefit those areas will help all of Tulsa. But when one group says they will not support another group BECAUSE it will NOT do anything for them.... Thats not right. Its wrong to then ask for others to support you. Why should they?
Just like the Langston issue. That money was raised by the citizens of Tulsa. It wasnt us asking the state for money, it was money we raised and plans Langston made. We were doing for ourselves, and have paid out more to other colleges than we have received. As for OSU Tulsa, we pay into the state for college education funds, we should get our fair share and yes it should be balanced out with the over all needs of the State and its other universities in order that our states universities be competitive. But when its obvious that enlarging the Tulsa campus will benefit OSU, Tlusa and the State, more focus should be shifted to the Tulsa campus. Especially when we have been paying out for generations, more than we have received.
I hope this development gets some momentum. That area is ripe for development. Close enough to downtown, U Tulsa, the Brady, the Blue Dome... they can all feed off each other! One thing that area REALLY needs is a hotel. I have friends coming for Oktoberfest and they are staying at the Crowne Plaza because that is the ONLY hotel in town within walking distance of a bar district.
Cherry Street, Brookside? No hotels! Argh!
Anyway, hope this goes over well and jump starts development on the N. Side. Clearly more public money is not going to do any good. No matter how much Langston University gets...
and Double A, are you suggesting North Tulsa is run down because funding was held up for Langston University? If only it were that simple.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I hope this development gets some momentum. That area is ripe for development. Close enough to downtown, U Tulsa, the Brady, the Blue Dome... they can all feed off each other! One thing that area REALLY needs is a hotel. I have friends coming for Oktoberfest and they are staying at the Crowne Plaza because that is the ONLY hotel in town within walking distance of a bar district.
Cherry Street, Brookside? No hotels! Argh!
Anyway, hope this goes over well and jump starts development on the N. Side. Clearly more public money is not going to do any good. No matter how much Langston University gets...
and Double A, are you suggesting North Tulsa is run down because funding was held up for Langston University? If only it were that simple.
Government institutionalized neglect and economic segregation in North Tulsa(especially for AA Tulsans) is a fact, not a suggestion.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Government institutionalized neglect and economic segregation in North Tulsa(especially for AA Tulsans) is a fact, not a suggestion.
Except, that's not so much the case now. Besides the improvements at OSU-Tulsa, the North side picked up TASM, more Airlines jobs, Morton, trails, and I'm not sure what else from Vision 2025. They got a rebuilt BTW, and a TIF that failed. Arguably, outside of Downtown, North Tulsa has probably seen more gov't intervention than any other area of town by square mile or by population.
Economic segregation, unfortunately, goes very much hand in hand with gov't intervention. An area of town that is particularly poor, will get more gov't assistance. The more direct assistance a gov't gives to a specified area, the poorer it will be. The poorer an area is, the more likely it is that business will fail or not show up at all. Changing course requires creativity.
There is also an assistance mentality, where both gov't and grassroots non-gov't organizations are more interested in providing or creating services rather than working towards the construction of a new North Tulsa. The gov't has thrown quite a bit of cash at the North side, but there seems to be very little creativity from the North side grassroots. It's almost non-existent. Chuck Cissel can't do it all by himself.
Seriously, how creative has the grassroots for North Tulsa been? All I've heard is mostly complaints.
What is the population of North Tulsa anyway? It can't be more than about 35K to 50K can it?
It depends what you consider north Tulsa. I looked at a zip code map and deduced that the zip codes of 74106, 74110, 74116, 74115 and 74130 are north Tulsa.
I added the population of those zip codes from 2000 census figures. The total is 63,300.
Tulsa's population at the time was 393,000, according to the census. So north Tulsa represents about 16 percent of Tulsa's population.
For me, North Tulsa has always been anything North of Admiral and east of Tisdale. But, that's just me. West of Tisdale has always been more "Osage Hills" or Northwest Tulsa.
It's one of those things. 16% considering themselves thoroughly pissed off and separate from the rest is sad, but primarily ignorable. If they want to be a part of Tulsa, let's talk. And if they don't, the number is low enough, I'm going to have a hard time caring.
Pissed and objecting to everything, is par for North Tulsa at least politically. Maybe even with a majority of the population. But, it's probably not the right direction for North Tulsa. Not if they want assistance with substantive change.
It would be great if the Greenwood district and Langston U. could help revive the North Tulsa community. Greenwood was once one of the most successful AA neighborhoods in the country, and should be viewed as an example of success in the face of oppression. Langston, as a traditionally predominantly AA school, could potentially resonate with the predominant AA population of North Tulsa. People need a sense of community, and Langston and Greenwood are two great places to start in providing that. Many people in rough neighborhoods turn to crime and gangs when they don't see any other alternatives or feel any other sense of community. Langston could really be a community leader in North Tulsa, supporting education and encouraging young people to finish high school and look to the future. While not necessarily in the heart of North Tulsa, Langston and Greenwood have the potential to greatly benefit the region.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
It would be great if the Greenwood district and Langston U. could help revive the North Tulsa community. Greenwood was once one of the most successful AA neighborhoods in the country, and should be viewed as an example of success in the face of oppression. Langston, as a traditionally predominantly AA school, could potentially resonate with the predominant AA population of North Tulsa. People need a sense of community, and Langston and Greenwood are two great places to start in providing that. Many people in rough neighborhoods turn to crime and gangs when they don't see any other alternatives or feel any other sense of community. Langston could really be a community leader in North Tulsa, supporting education and encouraging young people to finish high school and look to the future. While not necessarily in the heart of North Tulsa, Langston and Greenwood have the potential to greatly benefit the region.
I agree. One of the big "points" I learned as a psych major was the "power of expectations and examples". A lack of positive expectation and examples is basically an expectation and example to fail. Having a thriving Langston and Greenwood district could serve as positive expectations and examples from the community. It seems like many of the more "well to do" in the black community often move south.
I remember one story that was told pertaining to two groups of high school students. One a poor group another middle class. They both did pranks and petty crimes, (though often of different types owing to their economic status). However when it came time to graduate and go to college. There was a large amount of expectation for the middle class kids to go to college while the poor kids did not have that expectation and many didnt go on to college. There was an expectation to put aside the antics of high school and grow up and go to college for the middle class, yet the poorer kids "stayed on the streets". Even peer pressure and the expectations set up there play a large roll. (there was a lot more to the story, was quite interesting)
Interesting article in the news recently that showed that even with similar income levels and education levels, blacks were much less likely than whites to invest in 401ks. There doesnt seem to be a mindset or attitude for taking money now and investing it for the future. Over all this continually deprives that group of a source of income and wealth generation.
I don't get the economic segregation. Is the government telling people that they have to live there or that they can not get jobs outside their area?
I've NEVER, in my whole life - had a job in my neighborhood. Never within 5 miles of my home. Certainly the residents of North Tulsa are no different and can drive/bus/bike to their jobs as well.
Why does it matter if a new job is created downtown or in North Tulsa? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really don't get it.
Job location helps keep related businesses vibrant. It would be difficult to keep open a restaurant that is only open for dinner and support industries such as office supply retailers are often non-existent in many parts of a community.
I also think that creating employment near where the employees live has many other positives like reducing vehicle miles driven. Less wear on roads, less pollution, etc.
i agree with those points RM. But Jenks seems to be doing fine, how many "new jobs" have been brought to Jenks compared to residents? Or BA. Or Owasso for goodness sake!
Having an office nearby is not the harbinger of a great neighborhood. It must be something else that is at fault and not the lack of office jobs. Not too mention, I'm fail to see how that's the cities fault.
Economic segregation is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an institution. Obviously, it used to be institutionalized, it's closely related to geography.
If you're in a locale where there are a lot of different apartment complexes, you get a lot of different types of people, a lot of different types of income, and apartments are forced to compete on a massive level, odds are greater that one will go THA. If one goes THA, the odds that a second one will go THA increase dramatically. Then the surrounding condos and housing deteriorate, and become substantially low cost: Hence, 61st and Peoria.
The city hasn't does anything particularly wrong at 61st and Peoria, it's just fulfilling a need. The city was needed, no one else could fill that spot, besides absolute blight you get THA. From the outside, it could appear to be a tool of segregation, even though it's more about geography and the economics that already exist there. Even though it's a small pocket, the difference between 61st and Peoria and 61st and Lewis is considerable. Spread that out over maybe 20 square miles, and you've got North Tulsa.
The trick is, what do you do to remedy these things? There seems to be no simple answer thats for sure. Even if you get economic development in an area you can end up simply displacing the poor and shuffling them to another area as the area they were in becomes too expensive. I read another study just a while back that showed that if you took poor, poorly performing students and placed them in wealthier high performing schools and moved the parents as well to a better area, that those poor students actually didnt really do any better. The study found that those students and parents took their attitudes about education, work, etc with them. Some teachers noted that those students actually needed specific help and that in the new school they did not receive the specific type of help they needed because that was not a concern or what those schools were geared towards addressing.
There really has to be a grassroots effort. All the city can do is assist in maintaining a reasonable status quo, keep the streets reasonably maintained, provide a reasonable amount of services. You can't really impose a life style or values or educational level on any specific group or category of people. It's impossible.
In North Tulsa, the more vocal groups seem to be churches. No offense to churches, but there are people that will never submit to an imposed moral authority, or church. And churches are equipped to handle some things, but not everything. It takes the more "secular" inventive side to get certain things done. If you want to change the morality, it can't be simply imposed on all people by some group or authority. But, if people see development and creativity and variety popping up, if North Tulsa becomes a good place to live, people will adjust their own values.
You mentioned that "run" deal on the last page, why hasn't somebody in North Tulsa kicked something like that off? It doesn't take that much, but the churches aren't really equipped for it and no one else has stepped up. There would likely be huge support from South Tulsa, if someone just got the ball rolling and started talking to people.
But it all goes back to creativity and the grassroots. If they don't exist, nothing changes.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've NEVER, in my whole life - had a job in my neighborhood. Never within 5 miles of my home. Certainly the residents of North Tulsa are no different and can drive/bus/bike to their jobs as well.
Why does it matter if a new job is created downtown or in North Tulsa? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really don't get it.
Certainly all quality job growth in the metro area has the potential to benefit the entire metro area, but the fact is, communities with a mix of uses are more sustainable. If there are jobs in North Tulsa, the region has a greater chance of sustaining itself over time. Many regions within cities that are devoted to one single purpose often decay over time as existing home owners or businesses look for new space to expand or as infrastructure becomes obsolete. Mixed use communities are more sustainable because they are more balanced, and provide more reasons for continuous reinvestment into the community. It's similar to the benefit of having a diverse investment portfolio- you don't want to have to throw out an entire bushel because of one bad apple.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've NEVER, in my whole life - had a job in my neighborhood. Never within 5 miles of my home. Certainly the residents of North Tulsa are no different and can drive/bus/bike to their jobs as well.
Why does it matter if a new job is created downtown or in North Tulsa? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really don't get it.
Certainly all quality job growth in the metro area has the potential to benefit the entire metro area, but the fact is, communities with a mix of uses are more sustainable. If there are jobs in North Tulsa, the region has a greater chance of sustaining itself over time. Many regions within cities that are devoted to one single purpose often decay over time as existing home owners or businesses look for new space to expand or as infrastructure becomes obsolete. Mixed use communities are more sustainable because they are more balanced, and provide more reasons for continuous reinvestment into the community. It's similar to the benefit of having a diverse investment portfolio- you don't want to have to throw out an entire bushel because of one bad apple.
Absolutely, mixed use areas can be better. But we can see examples of "non mixed use" areas that are doing better and mixed use areas that become just as bad economically. Nobody is stopping mixed use from happening in the north side. Except for the criminals. Development is actually being encouraged with tiff districts, beautification efforts, etc. When the pizza delivery guys wont even go there its hard to convince other businesses to open there. Why bother if you have better demographics in another area of town. Its a matter of choice for businesses and where you are going to put your risk. You look around and decide, Where am I most likely to make the most money? Which area of town, or suburb, will most likely deliver the best return on the investment I can afford?
But North Tulsa is lined with jobs. There are a lot of industrial jobs and commercial jobs around the Admiral and Pine corridors, there are the Airlines and all that entails, and all the side businesses and industries around the Airlines, there's the Zoo, Cherokee Industrial Complex, Osage Casino, and there's Downtown right off the bow of North Tulsa...It's not "sustainable", or "mixed use", but's it's not much different from South Tulsa (except that there's probably a higher concentration of industrial). It still, for the most part, requires transportation.
If they had that key component of "mixed use" to their argument, they might have a point. But, just like today, you'd still have to find someone willing to take up the commercial aspect, and no one seems to be making that case anyway. Henderson, recently, stated he didn't know what "sustainable" means, and Turner's an idiot. They both complain, that's almost all that they do. It's a one pony show. "We need more jobs, throw more cops at us, throw more money us, we hate you for not giving us more South Tulsa", it's a mindset that needs to be overcome.
If they put themselves where their mouths are, they'd start trying to secede from Tulsa. But they know damn well who pays the bills there. Hint: it's not them.
^^
I agree with you guys. I did not mean to imply that a mixed-use community is automatically screened from blight or that is able to necessarily overcome years of economic segregation, as the north side has. I think some of the keys to improving North Tulsa are: greater access to education, greater access to affordable health care, and an overall sense of community. Langston U. Tulsa CC, and Tulsa Tech Ctr should be keys in providing educational access, while clinics such as the Morton Health Ctr. can greatly improve access to health care. Development of Greenwood and possibly even Mohawk Park's expansion should be targets for community cultural revivals. The mixed-use rule of thumb should be utilized whenever possible, perhaps a few years into the future if the area becomes safer for walkability. The Greenwood District is a good place to start because of its proximity to Downtown and past success.
I may be coming off as a little harsh, but IMO, North Tulsa is in need of a serious attitude adjustment. I don't mind throwing services into the area, that area needs them. But shutting everything down just because North Tulsa wants a handout...REALITY CHECK...North Tulsa gets more than it's fair share from this city.
Where are the non-profits, where are the neighborhood associations? When is enough, enough? You want an ally, try asking. I'm certain tons of people would jump on board.
When is North Tulsa going to contribute to the success of North Tulsa? Thus far all indications are that they might just wait it out until city services and market forces finally improve the place. If that's the plan, good luck with that, I have other things to do besides care.
I would really like to see someone in North Tulsa step up and start bringing minds together.
NO!
Don't they realize they can't spur private development without the need for tax dollars? Someone needs to tell them these silly, progressive ideas of theirs don't make any sense.
Congrats Greenwood. If you build it, I will patronize it and support it with my dollars willingly.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
^^
I agree with you guys. I did not mean to imply that a mixed-use community is automatically screened from blight or that is able to necessarily overcome years of economic segregation, as the north side has. I think some of the keys to improving North Tulsa are: greater access to education, greater access to affordable health care, and an overall sense of community. Langston U. Tulsa CC, and Tulsa Tech Ctr should be keys in providing educational access, while clinics such as the Morton Health Ctr. can greatly improve access to health care. Development of Greenwood and possibly even Mohawk Park's expansion should be targets for community cultural revivals. The mixed-use rule of thumb should be utilized whenever possible, perhaps a few years into the future if the area becomes safer for walkability. The Greenwood District is a good place to start because of its proximity to Downtown and past success.
You are pointing to assets north Tulsa already enjoys and utilizes, the only one you didn't mention was upgrading public housing. Yet none of it seems to make a difference in crime and under-performing schools.
None of that will curb crime and make people take pride in their area until their individual paradigms change and tell them to support their kids in finishing school, pursue higher ed opportunities (TCC's tuition gift is wonderful) get and keep a job, and realize drugs, theft, and gang lifestyle are a dead-end. That's a family and spiritual issue. Infrastructure, clinics, schools, new grocery stores, better streets, better housing doesn't cure that.
We can throw all sorts of assets at a community, but it's like building a brand-new prison in McAlester. Just because you have new facilities and a wide range of intervention/re-hab programs, unless there is a shift in personal paradigms, you can't change an individual or groups of individual's behavior.
Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson aren't spiritual leaders, they are city counselors- it's really not within their job description to be preachers.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson aren't spiritual leaders, they are city counselors- it's really not within their job description to be preachers.
It is in their job description to pander, and to be liked by their constituents.
Turner and Henderson will NOT lead North Tulsa out of this hole, they pander to the hole. Besides being incompetent, they're incapable. And very little that they say, should be taken seriously. North Tulsa will change with grassroots effort, or continue on it's slow and steady path to wherever it's going.
Touchy subject, but it seems like alot of the business that do thrive there serve to perpetuate the problem. Payday loan shops, plasma and blood banks, pawn shops (not to mention a near by casino). I agree with MC that the only way for the neighborhood to prosper is for the neighbors to take it back, but I disagree that there is nobody doing that. There is just no direction or cohesion.
I'm on the same page. It's all localized. North Tulsa has some great assets, and some really solid Neighborhood Associations, just not enough. The Churches seem to be doing more or less all they can do. There's no overriding "coming together", no single defensible idea of what needs to change. There's no big picture. No plan.
Everything you hear out of the North-side requires outside intervention, which I don't oppose. I'm all for pitching in and doing a good job for North Tulsa, it needs to be a good idea instead of follow the same well traveled paths.
Someone needs to get on a page, any page. Something besides "it's terrible here, and it's all your fault." Bring people together, often, and figure this out.
It's pretty hillarious, a bunch of ostensibly white south Tulsa (and otherwise non-residents of NoTul) males discussing the root of problems on the north side, but I digress.
The one thing I do disagree with most is the mind-set that it's "the man holding us down" or "we aren't getting ours". That is the most self-defeatist attitude which can be taken on the north side.
We do have social programs which seem to only increase dependence instead of encouraging independence and self-reliance to improve one's own quality of life.
It's that thing that makes it hilarious to some, that keeps most of Tulsa out of North Tulsa. I'd like to see somebody stand up, but it can't be me. I'm in Midtown, a white guy, and no one would take me seriously. On the other hand, if a local North Tulsan got this thing kicked off, I might be able to slide in the back door. Someone needs to step up.
I'm not opposed to services, and they aren't exclusive to North Tulsa. And they aren't the problem per se, their intense existence in the area is more symptomatic. There's something else going on here, and it needs to be addressed.
Ah yes, but then Henderson and Turner, as community leaders, are mocked instead of being taken seriously. Just like many black community leaders in all parts of the country. We say they are idiots because we don't agree with their positions? Maybe the problem is we really don't understand.
It's pretty hard for me to impune those guys when I know zilch about their upbringing nor much more than andecdotal stories about their community.
FWIW- I've heard that a majority of the people who vote in Roscoe's district are white, to the tune of about 65% to 70%. So I don't think he speaks just for black Tulsans.
He's one the "it's sucks and it's your fault crowd." That's all I need to know. I haven't seen Turner make a thoughtful decision, he's always pandering to whatever group will keep North Tulsa pissed.
Who said anything "black" Tulsa anyway? Does it have to be a race issue?
I remember reading in the paper after TCC offered its free tuition how someone at TCC was a bit disheartened that most of the people applying for it were dispraportionally in South Tulsa. They were hoping more in North Tulsa would apply.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ah yes, but then Henderson and Turner, as community leaders, are mocked instead of being taken seriously. Just like many black community leaders in all parts of the country. We say they are idiots because we don't agree with their positions? Maybe the problem is we really don't understand.
It's pretty hard for me to impune those guys when I know zilch about their upbringing nor much more than andecdotal stories about their community.
FWIW- I've heard that a majority of the people who vote in Roscoe's district are white, to the tune of about 65% to 70%. So I don't think he speaks just for black Tulsans.
Judy Eason Mcintyre backed the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty hillarious, a bunch of ostensibly white south Tulsa (and otherwise non-residents of NoTul) males discussing the root of problems on the north side, but I digress.
They need a holiday in Cambodia (//%22http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/holidayincambodia.html%22).
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty hillarious, a bunch of ostensibly white south Tulsa (and otherwise non-residents of NoTul) males discussing the root of problems on the north side, but I digress.
They need a holiday in Cambodia (//%22http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/holidayincambodia.html%22).
Hey, if you think North Tulsa can do it by themselves, let's give them a go. We should de-annex that eyesore now, let's see those complaining SOB's run North Tulsa with only it's own tax base providing the funds.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's pretty hillarious, a bunch of ostensibly white south Tulsa (and otherwise non-residents of NoTul) males discussing the root of problems on the north side, but I digress.
They need a holiday in Cambodia (//%22http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/holidayincambodia.html%22).
Hey, if you think North Tulsa can do it by themselves, let's give them a go. We should de-annex that eyesore now, let's see those complaining SOB's run North Tulsa with only it's own tax base providing the funds.
Not a bad idea. Tulsa's Mohawk water treatment plant would be in the de-annexed area. I wonder how that could be utilized as a funding source? Maybe they could get east Tulsa to join them in de-annexation to form one new community that where both the A.B Jewel and Mohawk treatment plants would be located. Be careful what you wish for.
Be my guest, don't let the door hit ya where the lord split ya. Don't want to be a part of Tulsa, surprise, I couldn't care less. Just go. Please, the sooner the better.
Do you live in North Tulsa Double A? If so, would you be interested in doing some brainstorming, getting some people together, and coming up with some ideas?
Rico lives over near Owen Park, he might have a few ideas. I think Hometown lives up in the North side somewhere.
I know a few ex-Northsiders, but I can't think of anyone else that currently lives in North Tulsa, off-hand.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
^^
I agree with you guys. I did not mean to imply that a mixed-use community is automatically screened from blight or that is able to necessarily overcome years of economic segregation, as the north side has. I think some of the keys to improving North Tulsa are: greater access to education, greater access to affordable health care, and an overall sense of community. Langston U. Tulsa CC, and Tulsa Tech Ctr should be keys in providing educational access, while clinics such as the Morton Health Ctr. can greatly improve access to health care. Development of Greenwood and possibly even Mohawk Park's expansion should be targets for community cultural revivals. The mixed-use rule of thumb should be utilized whenever possible, perhaps a few years into the future if the area becomes safer for walkability. The Greenwood District is a good place to start because of its proximity to Downtown and past success.
You are pointing to assets north Tulsa already enjoys and utilizes, the only one you didn't mention was upgrading public housing. Yet none of it seems to make a difference in crime and under-performing schools.
None of that will curb crime and make people take pride in their area until their individual paradigms change and tell them to support their kids in finishing school, pursue higher ed opportunities (TCC's tuition gift is wonderful) get and keep a job, and realize drugs, theft, and gang lifestyle are a dead-end. That's a family and spiritual issue. Infrastructure, clinics, schools, new grocery stores, better streets, better housing doesn't cure that.
We can throw all sorts of assets at a community, but it's like building a brand-new prison in McAlester. Just because you have new facilities and a wide range of intervention/re-hab programs, unless there is a shift in personal paradigms, you can't change an individual or groups of individual's behavior.
Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson aren't spiritual leaders, they are city counselors- it's really not within their job description to be preachers.
That is true about the personal paradigms-- the catalyst to a renaissance in North Tulsa will likely have to come from within. One of my favorite quotes is "culture eats strategy for lunch," which basically means that you can make all the plans in the world and even carry them out, but in the end it comes down to the values of the people. From an outside perspective, it is difficult to build culture. However, I do think the Morton Health Clinic and TCC's northside campus are doing positive things for the area and should continue to be supported. Another idea I've always had is to involve Tulsa Tech. Center as much as possible with the northside schools. A lot of kids on the north side don't grow up in a culture that expects them to go to college, and Tulsa Tech. is an obvious great alternative to working minimum wage jobs. I think there is a stigma in the US that people either go to college or work at McDonald's, when in reality, there are many technical jobs in high demand that require a two-year degree or less. I think the northside schools should start educating students as early as middle school about TCC and Tulsa Tech Ctr.'s programs, including the concurrent high school enrollment programs provided by both institutions. The city can provide the strategy and perhaps foster a culture of success, but the building of that culture will indeed arise from North Tulsa residents.
In the grand scheme, North Tulsa really hasn't been ignored. The city has thrown money and services that direction. The city has provided improvements to infrastructure. The city sends a disproportionate amount of police coverage that direction.
If anything is going to change with North Tulsa, I think you have start with the nuts and bolts. The seemingly minor details, in seemingly insignificant places. More neighborhood development programs, develop more stronger neighborhood associations, coordinate services, get NPOs talking to everyone and every other NPO including churches. Find out what different areas of town want or need, and find out how to get it. Search for philanthropy. Get crazy with research, and exploit federal services to a fault.
After the nuts and bolts, there are the big fish. Lobby for a special designation within the MTTA to get more expansive transportation options. Survey MTTA routes, and redesign routes so that they're more valuable to residents. Lobby for a special tax to complete the Gilcrease Expressway and create a TIF district for commercial development. Lobby for the expansion of TPD by increasing property taxes or utility rates. Keep constant pressure on the city to enforce building and property codes, and to repair infrastructure. Support any potential development in Greenwood. Explore the value of zoning.
I'm sure there's more.
Drove down Peoria yesterday and was noticed how nice it looks. There is a new lighted trail (no acorns patric) and lots of new trees and landscaping.