He is for river developement even though it doesn't help his district!
Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071017_1_A1_NoArt50405%22)
City Councilor Roscoe Turner wants councilors to approve a resolution Thursday that asks the administration to move forward on developing the west bank of the Arkansas River.
The action comes a week after the defeat of a $282 million Tulsa County river development tax proposal, against which Turner campaigned.
"I get sick of people asking me about the river," Turner said Tuesday during a council committee meeting.
"I've always said I wanted to do the river anyway," he said. "I think we need to send something to the administration saying we're in favor of this and we need to be involved in it."
He's trying to patch a PR wound that since he was against the vote, he was against the river. Of course this from the person who implied that if you were for the vote, you were for empty north Tulsa grocery stores and Ron Palmer.
Granted the resolution has no weight to it, but I would like to see it pass anyway.
Nice.
Roscoe changes his mind and now Christiansen says we need to focus on roads.
LOL,
Roscoe:
Two weeks ago - We don't need tax to support the river. We need to open Albertsons, develope North Tulsa, and fix the roads.
This week - All we need to do is spend 34M on some land on the west bank. It's cheap. Let's unite and develope the river.
Christiansen:
Two weeks ago - This is a one shot deal. Matching private funds, lot's of potential private developement on tap. Vote Yes!
This week - We had the chance to unite and passed it up. Let's move on to put our full focus on the streets and other needs.
It seems for as long as I can remember there has always been a "jackas" clause with the city council. The clause states their must always be at least one jackass on the council and that at least three councelors much take a jackass stance, make a jackass decision, or get into a petty arguement with another jackass on the council once every three months or potentially be removed from the council.
I think I may have misunderstood the possible use of a tiff for a Tulsa Landing type development. We are actually in a bit of a catch 22 situation.
A good sized development would need some of the city property above and beyond just the concrete plant property. In order to use city property the city has to put out a "request for proposal". But if the developer does not own the concrete plant property, you cant really show a "whole" development only that part on the city property. You cant very well show a proposal that is on property you dont own or someone else could buy.
A developer cant just buy the concrete plant property and then ask the city to put out a request for proposal, because the city isnt really in a position to "choose" since he would really be the only one that could do a good sized development. However, that could be a way out of the mess, but you are basically left with whoever buys the concrete plant property and hoping that they have a good plan. Though a lot of people are going to cry fowl and that its an unfair set-up.
This is no surprise. Roscoe stated plainly that this should be city not county business all the way back in July. The voters spoke and they did not like this as a county-wide initiative.
River development and roads don't have to be mutually-exclusive.
I think people were of the misunderstanding that all improvements would happen simultaneously and everything would be over-hauled in three or four years. Just not the case had the tax passed. It was quite likely it would have taken longer than the seven year tax collection period. We could have a nice MUD on the west bank within three years.
V-2025 owes us some beautification projects on Zink Lake which were not subject to matching funds, Jenks may forge ahead with their own dam, let's see what it takes to help Sand Springs build one.
You really should post the entire article. It states he wants westsiders to PAY for the tax. What a moronic plan. How can you encourage growth if you tax the the district that wants to grow? Roscoe has his head buried in the sand.
Roscoe has got to go!
Seems like 98% (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=137656%22) of the voters were for river development but not everyone was for a nebulous plan hurriedly cobbled together to do it...
I dont see Turner's action as being anything but cautiously optimistic and responsible.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
You really should post the entire article. It states he wants westsiders to PAY for the tax. What a moronic plan. How can you encourage growth if you tax the the district that wants to grow? Roscoe has his head buried in the sand.
Please quote the paragraph where he says he wants west-siders to pay for the tax. I've read it twice and didn't see it.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Seems like 98% (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=137656%22) of the voters were for river development but not everyone was for a nebulous plan hurriedly cobbled together to do it...
I dont see Turner's action as being anything but cautiously optimistic and responsible.
I am beginning to hate the term "river development", its almost too general. It should be broken down into "River Development" meant only as private business, "River Infrastructure" meant as dams, pedestrian bridges, shoreline hardening or modification, and "River Parks improvements", park space, nature preserve, trails, fountains, restrooms, etc.
Seems the average person has different ideas of what River Development in the general sense means and that effects how they perceive how "it" should be done. You end up getting responses like. "I dont want my tax dollars paying for a strip mall along the river"
"I think private developers should do all of it" no private developer is going to build a dam. "the donors should do all of it" they arent going to pay for a private developer to make money. etc. etc.
The question to me is, How is the city going to get that cement plant property? You know danged well that if they try to buy it, all heck will break loose. Will make the rants about the new city hall look like sweet nothings. "What about the roads, crime, schools!?" "How can they spend money on this when we have other pressing needs?"
I could be wrong but, TDA routinely buys and sells property and offers it for RFP to developers. If they could unload the Towerview site and several others downtown, maybe they could grab this one. Not certain if this developer wants to buy or lease or if the price tag is too high for TDA or if they even have that kind of cheddar. TDA was involved in the parcel collection for TU's land acquisition on route 66 (I hate those apartments), and they have the power to invoke ED for the greater "public good". It would be a hard sell to prove that the mixed use development is better for the public than a cement farm.
AJ would know what the options are, but he has been missing for awhile.
Artist- all good points. I think those are some of the lessons learned.
Perhaps if they would have broken it down better for the average voter AND had more time to fully educate the public instead of sappy ads... eh, let's not re-tread that.
I just want to hear someone say, "we heard you, we've listened, we've learned" from this instead of ramming spite up the tail pipes of people who were uncomfortable with this.
I hope/think that will come. Maybe not at the moment, probably in the spring.
It's in THIS ARTICLE...
City Councilors support river development
Reported by: Chris Cordt
Email: cordt@kjrh.com
Last Update: 10/16 9:27 pm
Three Tulsa City Councilors that opposed the river tax now back a resolution to support river development. The resolution calls for developing the west bank by 21st and Jackson without raising taxes.
Councilors Jack Henderson and Roscoe Turner support river development. They previously opposed a countywide sales tax increase to pay for development. Henderson says, "I've always contended that river development was a great idea. I've never had a problem with that and a lot of people are confused thinking I did. I had a problem with the taxes they were trying to associate it with." Turner added, "They gave me a tax I didn't want to vote on. And they gave me a county running our tax. I didn't want that." Henderson and Turner co-authored a resolution to support development on the west bank.
HCW, the company that developed Branson Landing, is talking to the city about building a similar concept at 21st and Jackson. Tulsa resident Patty Dake voted for the river plan. She's glad to hear the river might still be developed. Dake says, "We go other places like Branson or Texas for places to go shop and enjoy ourselves. And we don't have anything, and we need to bring more people to Tulsa." The city now has to figure out how to buy land on the west bank.
Councilors Turner, Henderson, and John Eagleton say the way to pay for this project is to use property taxes collected from a district that would be formed on the west side. The city council is expected to vote on the resolution Thursday.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
It's in THIS ARTICLE...
City Councilors support river development
Reported by: Chris Cordt
Email: cordt@kjrh.com
Last Update: 10/16 9:27 pm
Three Tulsa City Councilors that opposed the river tax now back a resolution to support river development. The resolution calls for developing the west bank by 21st and Jackson without raising taxes.
Councilors Jack Henderson and Roscoe Turner support river development. They previously opposed a countywide sales tax increase to pay for development. Henderson says, "I've always contended that river development was a great idea. I've never had a problem with that and a lot of people are confused thinking I did. I had a problem with the taxes they were trying to associate it with." Turner added, "They gave me a tax I didn't want to vote on. And they gave me a county running our tax. I didn't want that." Henderson and Turner co-authored a resolution to support development on the west bank.
HCW, the company that developed Branson Landing, is talking to the city about building a similar concept at 21st and Jackson. Tulsa resident Patty Dake voted for the river plan. She's glad to hear the river might still be developed. Dake says, "We go other places like Branson or Texas for places to go shop and enjoy ourselves. And we don't have anything, and we need to bring more people to Tulsa." The city now has to figure out how to buy land on the west bank.
Councilors Turner, Henderson, and John Eagleton say the way to pay for this project is to use property taxes collected from a district that would be formed on the west side. The city council is expected to vote on the resolution Thursday.
BFD, no different than any other development district.
Property tax? I thought a TIF was deferred sales tax.
A TIF can be a property tax TIF, a sales tax TIF, or both.
Wouldn't a property tax TIF be better on higher dollar developments with higher construction qualities?
Like Tulsa Hills for instance, it is a vast array of big boxes and expansive parking lots. The construction quality is very low, hence the property taxes taken from there wouldn't be that substancial. The sales taxes generated by all of those retail giants would, however, be substancial.
Tulsa Landing on the other hand, would be high quality upscale construction, lots of non-sales-tax-generating residential and office included. A property tax TIF would be the best solution in this case, I would guess.
Not to mention the fact that Tulsa Hills will be pulling new taxes out of the suburbs. Tulsa Landing might, to an extent, but the majority of its sales tax dollars will just be moved from another part of Tulsa. The property values will be brand new revenue for Tulsa though. A property tax TIF wouldn't hurt Tulsa's tax base at all.
And T-Town Mike, you are mistaken if you think that means they are making west-siders pay for it. That is a TIF on ONLY the land that Tulsa Landing would sit on. They build new property which has new high property values. Brand new revenue that Tulsa would just set aside to help pay for the land acquisition/infrastructure the first few years of the development's life. People living down the road in West Tulsa will not see their property taxes raised, nor siphoned, for Tulsa Landing.
But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal. Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?
I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.
I still dont get it lol.
Got it, we'd only lose taxes collected on the MidContinent property at its current value (not really going to the city anyway) and nothing would be lost on the properties that the city already owns.
But this means that some entity would have to buy the property and I think Tulsa Landing wants to lease, and I bet he wants a sweet deal like the never built Native American Cultural Center ($1.00 per year).
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal. Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?
I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.
I still dont get it lol.
If a TIF is used to finance the purchase, Bonds are sold to raise money to fund the land acquisition. The bonds are issue by some city instrumentality (the developer isn't on the hook to repay the bonds) and the idea is that the increased sales tax or property tax or both, depending on what kind of TIF it is, repays the Bonds. The Bonds can only be successfully marketed and sold if the market believes that the increase in sales taxes, property taxes, or both can repay them.
I like this plan. It would be a good use of a TIF. The only property that will be affected is the property located in the TIF district. THIS WOULD NOT INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES FOR WEST TULSANS OUTSIDE THE TIF DISTRICT.
I don't own a home in Tulsa (yet), but unless there's some sort of exceptions made for properties outside the TIF district...
Why wouldn't the development increase property taxes for those who live outside the development? Why would the city make an exception in
this case?
The Tulsa Landing TIF development could LITERALLY increase property taxes collected while the tax rate would stay the same... because it is assumed that property values, including those outside the TIF district, could go up-- ALOT. The more successful the development, the higher the property values...
And would the development itself be successful enough to finance a 22,000 seat "mixed use AAA baseball stadium"???... wink, wink... nudge, nudge... say no more... [;)]
The up-side would be that west Tulsa residents could actually benefit by having higher property values. That means if they sell their homes and "cash out," they could make a good profit. But if these are folks who don't want to move from the 'hood for the rest of their lives, I assume they will pay higher taxes.
With property taxes frozen at a certain level for 10-15-20+ years? depending on the terms of the TIF... the more successful the development becomes, the more tax dollars above that "frozen level" are put back into the "community", or used to finance part of the project. The property taxes outside the TIF would go to the city...
Let's say your modest $45k outdated fixer-upper west Tulsa bungalow home rises in value to $150k in five to ten years--at some point the land may actually become more valuable
without the house... do you pay higher property taxes or do you take the money and run?
This seems to be Mayor Daley's way of increasing tax revenues in the city of Chicago while at the same time saying he hasn't raised property taxes... upscale younger couples and "empty nesters" from the affluent suburbs are drawn to a nice, urban setting and... drumroll, please... gentrification.
I'd feel sorry for older folks in west Tulsa who may feel squeezed and have to move someplace else, but Tulsa really hasn't seen much/any real gentrification that I can see at all. As long as it becomes the exception and not the rule, it could be a win-win.
IMO, it got outta hand in Chicago... but... some of the older folks who "cashed out," got to retire in Arizona and Florida...
Here's a taste of the debate from my old stomping grounds...
http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2005/09/whos-tif-is-it-part-2.html
quote:
So, a local developer boils down his motivation, strategy, and expected outcomes in a short quip to a reporter, "Gentrification occurs, the yuppies move in, and all of a sudden you have Starbucks and Trader Joe's."
Mmm. Trader Joe's. How is that a BAD thing?... that's a loaded question, btw... [:D]
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/061006/
I think the refinery area seperates the main West Tulsa residential area from where Tulsa Landing would be enough so that there wouldn't be any gentrification going on. Might increase values slightly by having a lively entertainment district in short distance, but it will hardly be connected as one community.
quote:
Originally posted by Book of Three
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal. Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?
I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.
I still dont get it lol.
If a TIF is used to finance the purchase, Bonds are sold to raise money to fund the land acquisition. The bonds are issue by some city instrumentality (the developer isn't on the hook to repay the bonds) and the idea is that the increased sales tax or property tax or both, depending on what kind of TIF it is, repays the Bonds. The Bonds can only be successfully marketed and sold if the market believes that the increase in sales taxes, property taxes, or both can repay them.
Aaah, thanks for the info.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I like this plan. It would be a good use of a TIF. The only property that will be affected is the property located in the TIF district. THIS WOULD NOT INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES FOR WEST TULSANS OUTSIDE THE TIF DISTRICT.
The way they said it, that's not a TIF, AA. If that statement went forward as a resolution, it would indicate to me that they want a west side assessment to pay for something that would benefit all of Tulsa. Tax the poor is NOT a good idea, you know that. You better get with your golden dude and tell him if he wants a TIF, then he'd better call it a TIF.
From an email I sent my city councilor, Cason Carter yesterday.
______________________
Cason: I hope you support councilor Turner's pro-river resolution.
Your statements in this mornings Tulsa World imply that because "the community" rejected the recent tax proposal they have rejected river development and funding. Nothing can be further from the truth!!!!!!
A majority of the citizens of Tulsa voted for the tax, reversing a trend for such elections during the Savage administration. It was the voters outside Tulsa that defeated this proposal. Please look at how the people voted in District 9--I believe it was an overwhelming YES vote.
Even those in Dist. 9 that voted NO were for the most part not against river development or funding. Most often they voted no because they questioned the process, the county's leadership and usurpation of the tax structure and/or the use of a regressive sales tax rather than a bond election or a TIF district.
I worked for the YES vote but agreed with many of the concerns of its critics. We can now do better. Its failure gives us a new opportunity to work together to get obvious river development like the concrete plant, something that has been proposed and promised since the 1980s.
For me the use of a TIF district is a no-brainer. This captures for the City of Tulsa property tax revenue that we have no other means to access. It is in effect a voter approved tax restructuring that gives cities like Tulsa the opportunity to tap much need (and relatively progressive) revenue. There is no real loss to the county and schools as this development and increased revenue would never happen, but for the TIF. It is WIN/WIN for all concerned.
_________________________
And for those who wonder how a TIFF plan would purchase the property--there are numerous options, the most obvious one would allow the developer to finance the purchase of the land with committed future tax revenue from the TIFF district. Revenue bonds could also be sold financed from the anticipated increased tax revenue that can now be committed by the TIFF.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
From an email I sent my city councilor, Cason Carter yesterday.
______________________
Cason: I hope you support councilor Turner's pro-river resolution.
Your statements in this mornings Tulsa World imply that because "the community" rejected the recent tax proposal they have rejected river development and funding. Nothing can be further from the truth!!!!!!
A majority of the citizens of Tulsa voted for the tax, reversing a trend for such elections during the Savage administration. It was the voters outside Tulsa that defeated this proposal. Please look at how the people voted in District 9--I believe it was an overwhelming YES vote.
Even those in Dist. 9 that voted NO were for the most part not against river development or funding. Most often they voted no because they questioned the process, the county's leadership and usurpation of the tax structure and/or the use of a regressive sales tax rather than a bond election or a TIF district.
I worked for the YES vote but agreed with many of the concerns of its critics. We can now do better. Its failure gives us a new opportunity to work together to get obvious river development like the concrete plant, something that has been proposed and promised since the 1980s.
For me the use of a TIF district is a no-brainer. This captures for the City of Tulsa property tax revenue that we have no other means to access. It is in effect a voter approved tax restructuring that gives cities like Tulsa the opportunity to tap much need (and relatively progressive) revenue. There is no real loss to the county and schools as this development and increased revenue would never happen, but for the TIF. It is WIN/WIN for all concerned.
_________________________
And for those who wonder how a TIFF plan would purchase the property--there are numerous options, the most obvious one would allow the developer to finance the purchase of the land with committed future tax revenue from the TIFF district. Revenue bonds could also be sold financed from the anticipated increased tax revenue that can now be committed by the TIFF.
I'll only say this. When I first came to this forum just after v2025 passed, I made the argument that there was no consensus among Tulsans of just what river "development" was. That still holds true. You, and many others appear to see river development as the exploitation (not in a bad way) of land surrounding the river. That to me is only one element of development and one that will come naturally and be privately accomplished, once the infrastructure of the river is "developed".
What Tulsa County did or did not vote down and why, will be argued for a long time, but one truth, is that until we define and agree upon what development consists of and in what order we intend to accomplish it, we won't have a successful comprehensive effort. INCOG planning attempts to do that. Sporadic development of land like the concrete plant doesn't.
I think we should beware of following the Riverwalk example of cart before the horse planning. It works in Jenks because of its nature as a fast growing, well funded suburb. If it would work here, the concrete plant wouldn't be a concrete plant.
Even in OKC they built the canal first didn't they? They also had long term plans on the books for a "string of pearls" along the Canadian. After the resulting success of Bricktown proper, they started on the infra-structure of the Canadian.
Waterboy--I generally agree with your comments and most of your past comments on this subject. I guess I would make an exception for the concrete plant. As far as I know, its redevelopment into a commercial/mixed use location or an extension of River Parks has been in every plan (big or little) for the river for more than 20 years.
I remember when Mayor Inhoff built Zink Lake he told us that buying the plant was just around the corner. At that time they were talking about an even trade for land at another location so that a concrete plant could continue to operate.
Now we have foreign ownership and a 35 million $ price tag, but also an interested developer(s).
Securing this land for Tulsa should be a priority. I think it is also central to the present INCOG plan. It is a limited goal that most Vote No folks can agree on--(Bates, Hewgley, KFAQ, Eagleton, Turner, Henderson, North Tulsa).
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
Waterboy--I generally agree with your comments and most of your past comments on this subject. I guess I would make an exception for the concrete plant. As far as I know, its redevelopment into a commercial/mixed use location or an extension of River Parks has been in every plan (big or little) for the river for more than 20 years.
I remember when Mayor Inhoff built Zink Lake he told us that buying the plant was just around the corner. At that time they were talking about an even trade for land at another location so that a concrete plant could continue to operate.
Now we have foreign ownership and a 35 million $ price tag, but also an interested developer(s).
Securing this land for Tulsa should be a priority. I think it is also central to the present INCOG plan. It is a limited goal that most Vote No folks can agree on--(Bates, Hewgley, KFAQ, Eagleton, Turner, Henderson, North Tulsa).
Really, no one wants a concrete plant in the middle of River Parks. Or a low income housing project either. I do worry that this parcel of development will be some sort of litmus test for future development. Do you remember why the swap never took place, or any more development after that time? It was the combination of the river flooding and the economy tanking that made everyone second guess the wisdom of further river development. It simply lost momentum.
Meanwhile, the basic infrastructure improvement efforts like channelization, bank hardening, debris removal, utilities improvement, storm sewer filtering, abandoned pipeline removal, lowater dam improvements...all slowed or ceased. These are the things that ensure nearby river bank developments will proceed with confidence. Collapsing bluffs and exposed bridge debris around Riverwalk are a good example of developing the land without developing the river infrastructure.
I know there are fewer options available, but I would hate to see a single development effort run into difficulties and end up blunting development for another 25years.
While the city was devloping all gung ho out south I can imagine that area on the west bank didnt look all that appealing. Now that times have changed and we are getting "full up" on where we can develop in the city out south, plus the new urbanism movement and the desire to have nice urban environments to live in has kicked in, etc. There are other reasons as some have mentioned for why it wasnt developed and why river development in that area is on the radar again. The time is right to develop that piece of property. And its the logical place to start. If it goes well now and takes off. It will set the stage for further development in the next generation in other areas, possibly like building a bridge at 41st and development around there.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While the city was devloping all gung ho out south I can imagine that area on the west bank didnt look all that appealing. Now that times have changed and we are getting "full up" on where we can develop in the city out south, plus the new urbanism movement and the desire to have nice urban environments to live in has kicked in, etc. There are other reasons as some have mentioned for why it wasnt developed and why river development in that area is on the radar again. The time is right to develop that piece of property. And its the logical place to start. If it goes well now and takes off. It will set the stage for further development in the next generation in other areas, possibly like building a bridge at 41st and development around there.
Full agreement here. I wish they'd make the 41st St. bridge a higher priority than the Tulsa/Jenks/Bixby bridge.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While the city was devloping all gung ho out south I can imagine that area on the west bank didnt look all that appealing. Now that times have changed and we are getting "full up" on where we can develop in the city out south, plus the new urbanism movement and the desire to have nice urban environments to live in has kicked in, etc. There are other reasons as some have mentioned for why it wasnt developed and why river development in that area is on the radar again. The time is right to develop that piece of property. And its the logical place to start. If it goes well now and takes off. It will set the stage for further development in the next generation in other areas, possibly like building a bridge at 41st and development around there.
Full agreement here. I wish they'd make the 41st St. bridge a higher priority than the Tulsa/Jenks/Bixby bridge.
Especially when you consider that this bridge was on the books long before the IVI/Vreeland troll bridge.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While the city was devloping all gung ho out south I can imagine that area on the west bank didnt look all that appealing. Now that times have changed and we are getting "full up" on where we can develop in the city out south, plus the new urbanism movement and the desire to have nice urban environments to live in has kicked in, etc. There are other reasons as some have mentioned for why it wasnt developed and why river development in that area is on the radar again. The time is right to develop that piece of property. And its the logical place to start. If it goes well now and takes off. It will set the stage for further development in the next generation in other areas, possibly like building a bridge at 41st and development around there.
Full agreement here. I wish they'd make the 41st St. bridge a higher priority than the Tulsa/Jenks/Bixby bridge.
Especially when you consider that this bridge was on the books long before the IVI/Vreeland troll bridge.
My understanding is that's why the Hwy 75 bridge over W. 41st was built as a four lane underpass. Survey crews were out there a few months back.