The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I don't know if Tulsa could (would ) pass the vote. Tulsa voted no a few times until Bill LaFortune made his ask county-wide.

We can leave them in their current state. They've been poisoned for years. Get your priorities right. Our air and our water are foul....

You are a developer. Why don't you do something?

I don't want to give up. These properties will be wonderful when cleaned up. This issue will provide the extra money to make it all work.

Go drive by these and look at them.  

edit: If I had good property a block away from these sites, I'd be concerned about a level playing field. If the public "improved" these brownfields then wouldn't it take a socialist a community to compete against my site?

If the buildings are abandoned they can be removed by code enforcement and billed to the owner. If the owner is missing then the site can be auctioned after being cleared. Brownfield credits can be used to encourage development. I do not see the need for the city to buy these sites with the possible exception of the one by OSU. Even then I would not want TDA in charge of selling it.

Sorry, not understanding the need for this money, there are other ways to do this. We need to spend money in ways that create synergies with what we have been successfully doing downtown in order to make Tulsa a more desirable city for new employers and employees. And not just in the metro area, but actually to locate in the city, especially downtown. This project, this whole plan, does almost nothing towards making Tulsa a better place for new companies and residents. It spends scattershot money in order to buy votes try to bribe AA into staying in Tulsa, which will also enrichen some local contractors, but they are selling a few unicorns and rainbows along the way to buy votes.

What a ridiculous argument. Ifn you h d proccperty a blwzock nanway fm a blighted area and the blight cleaned up,yore..would also benefit.

Why do you think there are always winners and losers? Can't everybody benefit?

That comment doesn't address my statement.
I stay away from problems unless there's demand to justify curing those problematic issues. These poisoned lands are contained. The water and air poisons are well borne and air borne. The best you can do is remove yourself from these environments.
 I don't take on poisons unless I have to.

. 
 That sword swings both ways...you might just end up with a detrement rather than a use that creates greater value.

If V2 passes, money to rehab these brownfields will not be available for many years.  By that time, these sites will have been fixed through other means or it will likely be pointless to fix them.  If remediation of these sites is in any way a priority, V2 is not the way to get it done.

What use could be worse than abandoned buildings being vandalized with homeless squatters?

Why can't that be solved through code enforcement? That would be a lot faster than waiting 5-15 years for this money to be available.

If V2 passes, money to rehab these brownfields will not be available for many years.  By that time, these sites will have been fixed through other means or it will likely be pointless to fix them.  If remediation of these sites is in any way a priority, V2 is not the way to get it done.

Code enforcement would file a lien, wait for years and then maybe spend money to clean the properties and file another lien. It would never be paid and the city would be out millions.

Look at how they have been so successful with the Tulsa Club building. That is prime real estate and it don't work and these are all north Tulsa.

Dwain Midget, the city's director of community and economic development, said the city demolished 182 buildings last fiscal year, which ended June 30, at a cost of more than $700,000.

The year before, the city demolished 48 structures.

The demolitions are paid for out of the city's general fund and other revenue sources, including grants.

I was under the impression that cleaning these sites would cost a lot more then this provides.

If that is the case, that is something of a trend with V2.
Allocate money to go with potential matching money with the hope that we eventually get the money to use the money and if the money to be matched does not become available the V2 money will be spent based on the current needs as defined by the current mayor and council.

...and in the mean time, eliminate using this tax source for any other priorities/ideas that might arise until after 2029.

Here is a presentation about the Tulsa Brownfields.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28j_jvBJT3w

What about unused funds from river development or Boeing (I think there were funds not used for Boeing projects) from the original V-2025 to clean up the brown fields.  I still can't place the old Morton Health Center but the area just to the east of Greenwood is one I definitely would like to see cleaned up as soon as possible.

The proposed Boeing funds were NEVER collected (these would have come from a separate .4% of sales tax collections that was dependent upon Boeing placing a specific plant here, which unfortunately did not happen) and use of the river funds would, appear to, violate the Vision2025 ballot resolutions.

While I assume the supporters of V2 want to avoid the negativity of a "new" tax, I wonder if this plan wouldn't have been better had the vote been for the .4% sales tax that was in V2025 for Boeing (as I recall, that's what was done with the river tax proposal - granted, not the best example to follow).  The airport improvement components have a lot of financing costs based on the bonds.  Basic math says that a substantial part of that cost is because the moneys will be raised/spent now but the tax revenues to pay off the bonds won't start being collected for 4 years.  It doesn't change the underlying merits of the airport facilities improvments proposal, but it would better fit the narrative that these improvements are desperately needed and needed now.  If they are so important to do now, why utilize a revenue stream that doesn't start  to flow for 4 years?

Actually, that is part of a larger general criticsim of V2 - It is too big and has too many projects.  I believe we need a proposal with only a handful of projects that have broad consensus (much like the MAPPs process has played out in OKC).  Then the tax last a much shorter period and success is readily shown.  It would also set up a "promises made, results delievered" message that would resonate with the electorate.  It would also allow us to adapt to changing priorities and capitalize on past success and current momentum with new ideas.  Oh well, maybe next time.

While I assume the supporters of V2 want to avoid the negativity of a "new" tax, I wonder if this plan wouldn't have been better had the vote been for the .4% sales tax that was in V2025 for Boeing (as I recall, that's what was done with the river tax proposal - granted, not the best example to follow).  The airport improvement components have a lot of financing costs based on the bonds.  Basic math says that a substantial part of that cost is because the moneys will be raised/spent now but the tax revenues to pay off the bonds won't start being collected for 4 years.  It doesn't change the underlying merits of the airport facilities improvments proposal, but it would better fit the narrative that these improvements are desperately needed and needed now.  If they are so important to do now, why utilize a revenue stream that doesn't start  to flow for 4 years?

Actually, that is part of a larger general criticsim of V2 - It is too big and has too many projects.  I believe we need a proposal with only a handful of projects that have broad consensus (much like the MAPPs process has played out in OKC).  Then the tax last a much shorter period and success is readily shown.  It would also set up a "promises made, results delievered" message that would resonate with the electorate.  It would also allow us to adapt to changing priorities and capitalize on past success and current momentum with new ideas.  Oh well, maybe next time.

While I assume the supporters of V2 want to avoid the negativity of a "new" tax, I wonder if this plan wouldn't have been better had the vote been for the .4% sales tax that was in V2025 for Boeing (as I recall, that's what was done with the river tax proposal - granted, not the best example to follow).  The airport improvement components have a lot of financing costs based on the bonds.  Basic math says that a substantial part of that cost is because the moneys will be raised/spent now but the tax revenues to pay off the bonds won't start being collected for 4 years.  It doesn't change the underlying merits of the airport facilities improvments proposal, but it would better fit the narrative that these improvements are desperately needed and needed now.  If they are so important to do now, why utilize a revenue stream that doesn't start  to flow for 4 years?

Actually, that is part of a larger general criticsim of V2 - It is too big and has too many projects.  I believe we need a proposal with only a handful of projects that have broad consensus (much like the MAPPs process has played out in OKC).  Then the tax last a much shorter period and success is readily shown.  It would also set up a "promises made, results delievered" message that would resonate with the electorate.  It would also allow us to adapt to changing priorities and capitalize on past success and current momentum with new ideas.  Oh well, maybe next time.

The former Evans-Fintube industrial buildings in north Tulsa are vacant and rusted with numerous broken windows and bullet holes.

Mayor Dewey Bartlett knows well the 25-acre site's redevelopment challenges, but he also sees the potential.

"This could be a great asset to the city, contributing to the tax rolls and the business community," he told the Tulsa World. "We just have to get it there."

The city is in the process of finalizing a north Tulsa brownfields strategic action plan, funded with a $175,000 Environmental Protection Agency grant, that includes six targeted properties, including the city-owned Evans-Fintube complex in the 100 block of North Lansing Avenue.

The others are the city's former Morton Health Center, 636 E. Pine St.; and four privately owned properties: former gas stations at 3519 N. Hartford Ave. and 1047 E. Apache St.; Apache Circle in the 500 block of East Apache St.; and a shopping center in the 2100 block of North Cincinnati Avenue.

Tulsa was one of 23 cities across the country and the only one in Oklahoma to be part of the EPA pilot program.

Brownfields, by definition, are industrial or commercial properties that are abandoned or under utilized and have or potentially have environmental contamination that makes redevelopment difficult.

The EPA program's focus is to group multiple brownfield efforts together to spur an entire area's revitalization rather than simply an individual site, city Chief Economic Development Officer Clay Bird explained.

Tulsa's plan area encompasses Interstate 244 to 36th Street North and Cincinnati to Peoria avenues, and has been limited to a half dozen sites to keep it manageable, Bird said.

The sites were selected by the city, working with Denver-based EFG Brownfield Partners, after a lengthy process of reviewing public records and gathering input at public meetings from the people who live around them.

"We're not saying that these are the only brownfield sites in Tulsa because they exist all over the city," Bird said. "These are just the ones we are choosing to focus on right now."

Once the plan is done, the EPA has agreed to conduct targeted brownfield assessments on the four privately owned properties to determine the extent and nature of the contamination and estimate costs.

Such assessments already have been completed for the city's former Evans-Fintube and Morton Health Center properties, Bird said.

The city will seek EPA grant funding to help with cleanup efforts - acting as a conduit for the private owners, if they choose to move forward. The plan includes possible redevelopment ideas for each site to consider.

City officials are already in the process of applying for $600,000 in EPA grant funding for the Evans-Fintube site.

But with a cleanup estimated to exceed $1 million, the city is dedicated to coming up with its own money for the project.

"We're not going to quit until this is done," Bird said.

Evans-Fintube has long been seen as a site with great potential because of its proximity to downtown and the Oklahoma State University-Tulsa campus. Its location along rail tracks and U.S. 75 has prompted some to suggest it would be ideal as a transportation hub.

The mayor and City Council have allocated $471,000 of Tulsa's potential $158 million Vision2 quality-of-life share - if it is approved by voters Nov. 6 - toward local brownfield cleanup efforts.

Bartlett had wanted at least $5 million, but the council didn't agree.

Council Chairman G.T. Bynum said councilors are supportive of finding additional brownfield funding.

"The reason for the reduction from the mayor's request was purely a factor of weighing priorities," he said, noting that Bartlett had only recommended $55 million for low-water dams, while the council allocated $71 million.

The consensus on the council, Bynum said, was that this is something that can be funded through the city's own capital projects initiatives, possibly through the Fix Our Streets/third penny/general obligation bond renewal that will be sought sometime next year.

"That money would come online immediately," he said. "We won't have to wait five or more years (like with the Tulsa County Vision2 package)."

If the Vision2 funding comes through, Bird said, it would send a clear message to the EPA.

"It would certainly show that we are serious about this," he said, "and it will help us leverage dollars from them."

Ideally, the city could eventually establish its own brownfields fund from which local property owners could apply for grants or zero- interest loans for cleanups, Bird said.

After the experience of putting together a brownfields strategic plan for north Tulsa, city officials hope to replicate it in other areas, perhaps on the west side where there are numerous potential sites.

"These kinds of sites can be hard to redevelop," Bird said, "but they benefit no one by being in the state that they are in."

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121015_11_A1_CUTLIN358144