The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:

---

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

---

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

My conservative side sez, "reduce the size of the city government until it will drown in a detention pond."

My liberal side sez, "way to go Hawkins."

Ask the Tulsa World when their owners are going to show us the money.

Yoo Hoo! We're all saved! Socialism kicks butt!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:

---

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

---

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

---

Giving businesses subsidies to locate in an area is not socialism. Your quote stated that socialism is when business is controlled by the community or the state and these are private enterprises.

They city recognise the power of critical mass, if enough businesses, people and activities move into the downtown it will create a vibrant and dynamic centre that will create enough growth to drive itself forward. The city is just nurturing the downtown at the moment.

Other cities give subsidies in the form of infrastructure, but in downtown it’s already there. It might work out cheaper to give the odd grant to locate businesses where they will have the biggest impact and require the least new infrastructure rather than drive new roads and sewage to increasingly remote areas.

Right now we are in a situation where we have almost no choice but to subsidize downtown.  The problem is that the government "socialist" subsidies have for decades been going out into the suburban sprawl-fest.  While subdizing development in downtown seems a little more blatant, it is no different from the city investing in infrastructure south and east of town while letting the inner city deteriorate.

While the mantra should be "no government handouts across the board", we are now in a precarious situation with a downtown on the verge of death.  Just standing by and letting development all escape to Jenks, Owasso, and Bixby will have even worse consequences in the long term.

I consider myself extremely conservative when it comes to federal spending, but I am also fairly liberal when it comes to local spending.  When it comes to our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our community, the private sector does not handle all of that.  We need intelligent planners in government who know how to spend money to create more opportunities, and how to increase the quality of life for everyone.

Local design and planning, when done right, can almost be like a work of art.  When the local community works together with the city planners, a beautiful community can result.  When the city planners fall asleep at the wheel and only oblige to the special interests of "the money", you get endless sprawl, poorly design communities, a downtown on the verge of death, and deteriorating infrastructure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:

---

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

---

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

---

I think the city has a vested interest in making sure that it doesn't start to decay from the inside out.  If downtown and midtown start to crumble, it will spread like a cancer.  You call it socialism, I call it encouraging redevelopment of blighted areas and reinvesting on the infrastructure that was long ago paid for, not adding MORE to stretch the city limits further south and east, which only fuels growth of other cities like Bixby and Broken Arrow.

I think you are thinking too much on this. So any financial incentive leads to socialism?

How is offering a better price on land purchases or helping with infrastrucure controlling wealth?

My neighbor has three times more trash than me, but we get charged the same amount. Is that manipulating a system of distributing wealth?This same neighbor is forced to pay proprty tax to support my kids school, yet has none of his own. Is that socialism based on your definition?

Why do you feel the private sector would do everything necessary without any government oversight?

If we didn't, for example, we could have out-of-state builders making unsafe housing. If they catch fire, people will stop renting them? See the private sector rules will fix all that. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the remains...the private sector has left town.

Who pays for fire protection anyway? Charge every home a charge when the fire truck shows up. You better have cash...your house will be burning while they make sure your check or credit card will clear.

Oh, that road the fire truck took to get to your house? The private sector may have only built it to be wide enough for passenger vehicles, they didn't want the extra expense of making it wide enough for a trash truck. Better yet, make the fire truck pay a toll to get into your neighborhood.

You anti-gubmint folks crack me up. You don't want any interference, yet use government services throughout your life.

There is no goal of developing a socio-economic system where government controls the actions of private enterprise.  Government is merely trying to influence said entities into doing what it deems proper. The same as zoning ordinances, tax schemes, or any other government activity - government activity in and of itself is not socialist.

The best proof that it is not socialism is in your own statement:

quote:

---

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

---

In spite of best efforts, the private enterprise is ignoring the bequest of government and doing what they please.  Mussolini would be pissed.

Though one can not deny that the activities are interference in the free market.  The debate should not be phrase as "is this socialism" but rather is this interference a proper roll of government (government interference in free enterprise can be proper in free markets in a large variety of ways).  In essence, are we correcting some flaw in the market that government is preeminently qualified to do?

The best I can come up with is... maybe.  Directing orderly development has been a roll of government since Roman times and is often appreciated by the free market (residential zoning, for instance) with no other force as suitably able to dictate such policy.  In this instance the "move on" mentality of development is financially driven to continuously turn to greener pastures (literally) as repairing/redeveloping costs more than bull dozing a new field.

I am of the opinion that it better serves the community to encourage infill and redevelopment to offset the market forces that make it more profitable to abandoned and rebuild.  Thus, a firm argument can be made that it is a proper roll of government to interfere with the market to the smallest extent necessary to achieve that goal.

Damn it, CF, you stole my thunder!  Great explaination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Just read the post about the hotels coming to south Tulsa.

Now, that seems to be where the large national retailers want to locate. This area, including parts of Broken Arrow, seems to be enjoying solid growth.

The City, however, wants to spend money, and give tax breaks to businesses that locate downtown. They are spending millions on a stadium, and plan to spend more to move the Driller's downtown.

The City leaders seem to be fighting the economic trend here, in an attempt to revitalize a poor development area.

The quote below is taken from the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:

quote:

---

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

---

So I ask you, how is the uphill battle that is "Downtown Revitalization," not socialism?
 
Why can't our city government just let the private sector develop our community without pouring taxpayer money into a run down area?

--

---

The private sector is developing our community in the south. But whats going to happen when that area is "full up" and becomes old itself? Do we just leave the city of Tulsa all together? Why pour taxpayer money into a run down area?

Broken Arrow, like you mentioned is growing as well. But that doesnt grow Tulsa or fund tax dollars for Tulsas streets, police, etc.

You mention that Tulsa want to spend money to move the Drillers downtown. Jenks is spending money through a tif to bring the Drillers there, fix up its main street with planters, lights trees, widen and fix roads. Money was also spent to bring the aquarium there, the Bass Pro to Broken Arrow along with them spending money to build a new Convention Center, museum, Farmers Market, Parks and recreations facilities, NSU Broken Arrow Campus, etc.

There is this thing called "Competition". Competition between cities and what those cities have to offer.  We are beginning to compete with the suburbs. They want to grow and an easy target to grab tax dollars and growth from is Tulsa itself. Tulsa also has to compete with other cities and what they choose to build, other cities that have lively downtowns. If the people of one city decide to get together and build say a great riverfront, trails systems, lakes, beautiful downtown, museums, performing arts venues, arena, colleges, etc. And another city doesnt have those things. The city that has will have a competitive advantage over the one that doesnt unless there is something special about that city otherwise, (aka, tourist attractions, ocean front property, booming economy, world class_____"fill in the blank".) And usually those things are either a fluke of locality, chance, or something that takes some investment.
Plus unless you can stop other cities or states from offering tax incentives to businesses its going to be a bit hard to say no, we should never do it ourselves.

If you dont want to live in a city like Tulsa that is growing, adding jobs, not seeing huge declines in housing, has some of the lowest over all tax burden in the nation, and has booming suburbs.... Your welcome to move.  Let me know when you find some place that is less "Socialist" doing better I will help ya pack.

What? Its not socializm? Damn. Wikipedia is usually so spot on with this stuff. How in the world could you people justify spending a full page on this post. We went to school, listened and read the texts. He didn't. And you dignified a stupid remark. I've made better posts and been totally ignored! What is it ...my breath? No personal offense, Hawk, but you might have thought that out a bit.

This is how actual socialists describe  socialism.  I found it rather interesting, and helped clarify for me what is and is not "socialist."  I cribbed this from, where else, The Socialism Website (http://"http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/nutshell.htm#FN1")

 

quote:

---

Socialism in a nutshell

 In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.

At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.

Footnote [1]. The means of production comprise everything, except labor, that is used in production, namely, factories, plant, equipment, offices, shops, raw materials, fuel and components.

---

Unfortunately, it didn't really say much about how a small city in Oklahoma might, for the good of its citizens and the health of its economy, use its resources to create a favorable market for development in an ailing area of town. But then, I didn't really read the whole thing.

You can be as socialist as you want in our society. Its a choice. You can either buy stock "owning the means of production" and or pay more taxes, "collective sharing".

The problem with pure socialism is that it decreases productivity, creativity, initiative and entrepreneurship. The reason I have worked so hard to start my own business, working weekends, nights, doing without for years and struggling is so that in the end I could make a good profit.  I know danged well that there are plenty of people who wont do that and if I were in a purely socialist society, no matter how hard I worked someone else would not and thus I would never get what I wanted. However the more money I make the more taxes I now pay, the more wealth I generate,"I employ people" the more I buy helping to raise others up, the more stocks I buy enabling other companies to employ more, creativity increases productivity "productivity means less work per unit of output, in other words it takes less labor to produce a bushel of wheat, a TV, clothing, a house, etc. so everyone can now live better by doing less to get the same amount they would have had to have worked before" ... Its basically socialism on steroids. Each person potentially gets MORE than what they deserve. Plus if you make very little you pay less taxes. By earning more and spending more I pay more taxes than I used to and hope to pay more next year, and the year after...

Fair responses from everyone.

Its not obviously all-out socialism, but it is to some degree. Take the new stadium for example.

The City decides to build it in a blighted area. Will this work? Maybe. Will it bring more business downtown? Certainly.

The stadium (and the Drillers ballpark too) will generate positive economic growth for surrounding businesses.

Business in South Tulsa loses out on the benefits of this new stadium. Although they have hotels, restaurants and other establishments ready to capitalize on a nearby stadium, much of the buck gets passed to a poorer neighborhood, to 'help it out.'

So in that degree, it is socialist, even more so because the tax dollars of the city are being used toward the building of this attempted 'economic equalizer.'

In the end though, I fear that all the money and government help in the world isn't going to make downtown Tulsa the downtown some of you would like to see.

Tulsa is a unique place, and one of its unique little quirks is that it is built on an easy to understand grid, and people do not like navigating through one-way streets and searching for parking, or taking multiple expressway ramps and turns to get somewhere.

Even IF downtown Tulsa loses its 'run down' image, its still not going to become the favored destination of the city's consumer.

--

If you don't like socialism, then you'd better not drive on tax-supported roads, shut off your tax-supported water, decline the use of your tax-supported sewer system, decline to call the tax-supported police department when you have a break-in, or refused to alert the tax-supported fire department when your attic fan wiring goes on the fritz.

A lot of people complain about socialism, but would be loathe to not have admittedly socialist services such as these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Tulsa is a unique place, and one of its unique little quirks is that it is built on an easy to understand grid, and people do not like navigating through one-way streets and searching for parking, or taking multiple expressway ramps and turns to get somewhere.

---

Downtown, too, was built on a grid.  Sure, there are one-way streets.  If you drive past your destination, just take the next turns to go back.  Just like ANY other destination anywhere else.  If "multiple turns" discourage people from coming downtown, it in turn should also discourage them from leaving their home.  Turning left onto Harvard, right onto 71st St., Left on Memorial and right into the Mall's parking lot... That's just wayyy too confusing for me to handle.

quote:

---

Even IF downtown Tulsa loses its 'run down' image, its still not going to become the favored destination of the city's consumer.

---

Says you.  And it's not IF, as you say, but When.  Downtown Tulsa will retake its rightful place as a center of activity, shopping, nightlife and will indeed become a desired place to live.  It's already heading in that direction, but it's slow-going, just like everything else in this town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

It's already heading in that direction, but it's slow-going, just like everything else in this town.

---

God ain't that the truth....

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

If you don't like socialism, then you'd better not drive on tax-supported roads, shut off your tax-supported water, decline the use of your tax-supported sewer system, decline to call the tax-supported police department when you have a break-in, or refused to alert the tax-supported fire department when your attic fan wiring goes on the fritz.

A lot of people complain about socialism, but would be loathe to not have admittedly socialist services such as these.

---

There is a very clear difference between "socialism" and a society providing social services.    Socialism is an attempt to put the control of most aspects the economy under government control.  The things you describe are classic examples of appropriate rolls of government in a free market system as described by Adam Smith.

Do you really not know the difference or are you trying to be clever?

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

Business in South Tulsa loses out on the benefits of this new stadium. Although they have hotels, restaurants and other establishments ready to capitalize on a nearby stadium, much of the buck gets passed to a poorer neighborhood, to 'help it out.'

---

Businesses don't benefit from a ballpark surrounded by surface parking. You drive to the park, go to the game, get in your car and leave.

Downtown will benefit because people will have to walk by restaurants/bars.

If businesses benefitted from a ballpark surrounded by parking then 15th and Yale would be booming with bars and restaurants.

Who will step up to the batters box to build a stadium? The city can only be a facilitator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

---

Bite your tongue! I've never come out against river development. I was saddened by the loss of the River Tax vote.

There was a provision in there for a low-water dam near the Riverwalk. I was all for it.


--

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

---

Bite your tongue! I've never come out against river development. I was saddened by the loss of the River Tax vote.

There was a provision in there for a low-water dam near the Riverwalk. I was all for it.


--

---

Then my apology for that. Nonetheless, your arguments against downtown don't cut the mustard. I have no problem with suburban expansion being subsidized by my inner city taxes, even though I believe most of it to be gaudy, poorly planned and wasteful. Still, if that's what people want then the government facilitating it is no problem.  Why is improving my area so anathema to the 'burbans (improvements other than buying our homes and replacing them with replicas of their 'burban dreams)? Swake lives in 'burbia and still understands the need for saving our core.

Like I have said before. I believe that by 2012 downtown Tulsa will have enough stuff going for it again that it will then take off and grow healthily on its own, without so much "socialist intervention" lol. It will soon be something that will become a money maker and positive draw for all of Tulsa. The trend around the country is for downtowns and urban living. Tulsas downtown just needs a bit of a jump start to get it going and to also help it compete with other cities. Once we get her going, she will take off quite nicely.

 Even the growth of our suburbs is something that will help. Lots of those young families will have kids that will want to live in the "big city". Believe it or not, a lot of empty nesters like living in dense, urban, walkable communities as well. Having downtown and mid-town Tulsa helps give Tulsa the complete offering of living and lifestyle choice.

Hawkins, not everyone likes to live the suburban lifestyle. In order for Tulsa to compete as a city or just plain offer the urban lifestyle that a lot of people insist on... well, where better than downtown? If we dont offer an urban lifestyle, other cities will.  

Just as we should have a good urban environment to offer people, we should have good suburban offerings as well. Those cities that have lots of young people, aka the kids of those families that are now flocking to our suburbs, will do well because they will have the workforce needed once the baby boomers start retiring. We are lucky to have booming suburbs so close in to Tulsa. We should encourage good growth in those suburbs. The River District in Jenks is a perfect example of the kind of suburban growth that will make our suburbs desirable for a long time. Broken Arrow has some problems in this respect, but I think they are realizing this and taking steps to change their development habits. Including "socialist, downtown, revitalization" efforts of their own. lol

Tulsa would do well to be a full fledged city, a real city, that offers both great surburban and great urban lifestyle choices.

I don't know, Hawk, I tend to see it in an entirely different light.  

The city's trying to use the levers it controls to create a market for development downtown.  In other words, create desirability for private enterprise to invest and improve it.  If this were  a planned socialist economy, the city would mandate improvement and investment and the developers wouldn't have a choice about it. They would be forced to make the investment, whether it was a good risk or a bad one. As it is, the city's just trying to keep its hand in the game by making downtown a competitive investment vs. southern hills, or Riverside Dr, or Jenks, or BA, etc.  

------

And if we go by your expansive definition of what constitutes socialism, any group of individuals -- governmental or not -- which comes together to advance an economic cause is "socialist."  That includes the Chamber of Commerce (lobbying for better business environment!), The Girl Scouts (selling cookies!), and the Shriners (soliciting me for charitable donations with silly hats and tiny cars!)  That's why I tried to post a better definition back upthread aways.  It's a very specific thing, socialism is, and not really at all how you defined it.

It does really annoy me the way that inaccurate labels are attached to ideas in a way to hamper debate.

'This isn’t socialism, but hey lets call it socialism so if you stand up for it you are a socialist.'

I think we should talk about things on their own merits rather than the petty labels people inaccurately and purposefully assign to things.

I think the city offering incentives is fine, in fact it is good business for a city that wants to have a surviving core.  

I don't believe this can be labeled socialism until the city starts imposing penalties on business that choose to go against the establishment.  Then we have Berkley and a number of other West coast cities that have very clearly embraced a socialist system.

I think that Tulsa's biggest problem is the difficulty in embracing reality.  We have a great, growing metropolitan area, and most of it is not down town.  Rather than talking about how Tulsa's core is shriveling, we need to talk about all of the diverse living communities and "cores" that Tulsa is growing.  

Wake up!  All of your talk about "revitalizing downtown" or "Tulsa's crumbling core"  or the "dilapidated buildings," don't serve as attractive language to companies that want to develop in Tulsa!

We have a lot to offer, and not all of it is downtown.  If we can focus on those positive issues and continue to incentivize downtown development at the same time, we stand a far better chance of a developer seeing downtown as a new frontier rather than a crumbling dinosaur.

Just my two cents.  I think so much conversation here is fueled by a jealous hatred of the successes we should be celebrating!

Interstate highways = socialism

Discuss.  [:D]

/sarcasm

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

---

That is an awe-inspiring theorem right there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by we vs us

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

---

That is an awe-inspiring theorem right there.

---

Awe!  We is such a cute little thinker!  Yes we are!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

---

Q.E.D.

QED???

hmmm.

Texas League =

Tulsa, OK... Springfield, MO... Springdale, AR... Little Rock, AR... Frisco, TX... Midland, TX... Corpus Christi, TX.... San Antonio, TX....

"Field of Dreams" was a good movie back in the 80s... but the voice in the cornfield didn't tell Kevin Costner to propose a hotel tax to "built it"... or a TIF, for that matter...

If you build it, who will pay???  

While I think the premise, "Downtown Revitalization = Socialism" to be kinda silly... my opinion, pure and simple, is:

Downtown Revitalization = "Special Rights"

http://ab417.org/items/index.php?itemid=36

Special rights...

Like building a performance arts center. If Tulsa is willing to build a PAC for ballet, then why wouldn't it be willing to build one for baseball? Do opera concerts count more than outdoor concerts? Do the arts have special rights that the sports do not?

This stadium is also planned for one of the most under-performing parcels of property in our community. No one works there and no one stays there. Yet if redeveloped well, it will spur new jobs, new apartments/hotels, and new life.

This location can be a great magnet. Home plate is almost exactly 500 steps from Archer and Greenwood. Call it the Greenwood Stadium as a tribute to it's importance to our history.

It is within easy walking distance of Blue Dome, Central Center at Centennial Park, and the Home Depot/Gunboat Park area. All three of these have been about the only success stories in downtown the last few years. The surface parking it eats up will spur at least one new structured parking garage.  

This new stadium has more potential on that site than the arena does on theirs. It won't require any messy public spats like the Denver Diner did. It can tie to our history, both as a tribute as a community and celebration of America's pasttime. And it builds on the recent success of it's neighbors.

Save Tulsa baseball and save Tulsa's downtown together.

Yes, "special rights," RM... downtown activists are a minority group.... minor league baseball fans are a minority group in Tulsa... pro soccer fans in the area are also a minority...

Membership has its priviledges.  Downtown has benefitted for decades... sorry a suburb or two has started to turn the table on all those proposed downtown-only projects over the years that many Tulsans get sick of hearing about and have continuously voted down until finally passing the funds for the new arena...

It's simple.

You like it, vote for it.  And for the hotel taxes it will take to build it.  You no like-ee, vote agin' it.

A performing arts center is used for both ballet and opera.... oh, and symphony concerts..... and broadway musicals... and for comedians' and children's shows and many other sorts of concerts appropriate for that space.

Public taxes can be used for public facilities; some people do NOT support taxes used for anything other than "infrastructure"... some won't even support that.

I venture to say that if the River Tax had passed, it would have had a far more beneficial effect to the City of Tulsa than a baseball park... or soccer stadium...

When former Mayor LaFortune showed "due diligence" in pursuing the opportunities Tulsa had to host a Major League Soccer team back when he was elected in 2002, a 22k stadium was on the list for Vision2025-- one of those stadiums like Pizza Hut Park in Frisco, TX that had a stage on one end and could be used for high school football games, etc..... but, IMHO, its opponents got the upper hand by referring to it as a "soccer-only" facility while a higher priced indoor arena could be used for ice hockey, arena football, concerts.... etc.

So, now we will vote on a taxpayer funded "baseball-only" facility that its proponents think will magically transform downtown.  And I figure if the powers that be start running behind in the polls, this "magic ballpark" will be touted for all sorts of uses... concerts and... even for a new pro soccer team... not unlike the cheap last minute ploy used by the river folks the week before the River tax vote (Tulsa Landing 22k "multi-use" stadium sound familiar?)

Its location looks good; in fact, I wish the arena had been built there... I'm glad the Drillers didn't have to do a political compromise and go for a site outside OSU-Tulsa or west of the river between two oil refinieries...

That said, may the best plan win.

A TIF district for mixed-use development including a stadium as "anchor tenant" is one thing.  A hotel tax for a stand-alone ballpark is... well... you fill in the blank...

^

If this "Hotel Motel Tax" is presented to the voters...properly

I see no problem at all with it passing.

It would be a silent ,if there is such a thing?, campaign.
The Hotels guests..i.e. arena and convention goer's that would foot the bill..

Can we keep Billy LaFortunate out of this? He is busy with much larger things....

"Ain't that right Lamar....?"[}:)]

Why not mention LaFortune?

If LaFortune had proposed the EXACT same thing with a TIF and mixed-use development....

the very same dems who currently support the ballpark as some miraculous plan that will invigorate downtown Tulsa....... would be agin' it..... cronyism!  Oh, the horror.

But enjoy Mayor Kathy "Window Dressing" Taylor's answers to Tulsa problems... which now includes a stand-alone ballpark built entirely by taxes...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist
And btw, wasn't the PAC built with private donations?

---

Nope. Built with bonds passed by a 1973 vote of the people.

John Williams and Leta Chapman said that if the voters would vote yes, they would match half the money with private donations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

Why not mention LaFortune?

If LaFortune had proposed the EXACT same thing with a TIF and mixed-use development....

the very same dems who currently support the ballpark as some miraculous plan that will invigorate downtown Tulsa....... would be agin' it..... cronyism!  Oh, the horror.

But enjoy Mayor Kathy "Window Dressing" Taylor's answers to Tulsa problems... which now includes a stand-alone ballpark built entirely by taxes...

---

Not me.

I started this TulsaNow thread back when Lafortune was Mayor...

http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3370&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=baseball

Here is an article that puts a lot of things both current and past in perspective..

To my way of thought, regarding Downtown, there have been no wasted opportunities. No spilt-milk... just a continuing evolutionary process..
The make "it rich" crowd could have slapped together some prefab facade and called it urban and Downtown all they liked.... it wouldn't have made it so.

from the Journal Record.

http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=46736&page=1
 

The Urban Planning Game
Stephen Hillman
2/4/2008

Urban Planner Jack Crowley is charged with envisioning a way to take all the players in downtown development and turn them into a win for revitalization.

And, that includes working out a way to bring the new piece on the board, the city’s proposal to develop a stadium for the Tulsa Drillers downtown, into play.

“It’s a giant chess game,” Crowley, who is special adviser to the mayor on urban planning, said. “It’s an opportunity of a lifetime for downtown. The trend across the country is to bring these facilities downtown. We have a 90-day window, and part of making financing feasible is determining how can you stretch it and maximize the income from related facilities. That is where we are headed.”

Mayor Kathy Taylor announced Jan. 22 the city had a four-month exclusive agreement with Drillers owner Chuck Lamson to negotiate on a city-owned stadium, which has been estimated to cost no more than $70 million.

The 6,000-seat ballpark would be on the east side of downtown between Elgin Avenue and the IDL, and Fourth and Sixth streets.

Taylor said the city is considering private funding, lease money from the Drillers and public financing for the project, but stressed whatever options are chosen will not impact street repair funding. One option includes raising the hotel-motel tax, which stands at 5 percent, for a defined term.

A Learning ‘Bump’

Crowley is the perfect person to bring on board to support Tulsa’s redevelopment.

A former Tulsan and OU graduate, Taylor and OU-Tulsa President Gerard Clancy, M.D., forged a strategic partnership to bring Crowley to Tulsa and loan him to the city as a special adviser to the mayor.

Crowley, who has served as dean of the College of Environmental Design at the University of Georgia from 1996 to 2006, joined the faculty at OU-Tulsa as a visiting professor in the College of Architecture.

His career as a planner spans three decades and began with work in Lawton and Seminole. He has been chief planner for the Oklahoma State Park System, executive director of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Crowley also served for seven years as vice president of Williams Realty in Tulsa to develop multiple public/private partnerships.

With undergraduate degrees in architecture, business and art history, a master of regional and city planning, and a Ph.D. in urban geography, all from the University of Oklahoma, Crowley’s first priority will be to coordinate the City’s revitalization efforts in downtown. He will also lend his expertise to help enhance planning for the city’s mass transit efforts. Crowley will also provide support for the development of PlanIt Tulsa, the new Comprehensive Plan for the City.

“Having been here for 18 years and then on and off for the last 12 years as a consultant for Williams, I have seen Tulsa full time and then I have seen it in time lapse, so the learning curve isn’t going to be difficult,” Crowley said.

Since he came on board in early January, he said he has been “reconnecting with the people I have dealt with and the new people that have entered” the downtown revitalization effort.

“That’s what I have been doing for the last three weeks on a fairly intensive basis, and then I work late at night and try to take these ideas and put them in graphic form,” Crowley said. “A lot of times when people are asked to support something, if there is not a very clear picture of it then it is difficult for them to support. What I find myself doing is taking these ideas and tying them all together and then drawing a very clear picture of how they can be mutually supportive.”

Crowley said the mayor’s principal challenge for him is the revitalization of downtown and the connection of downtown to the Arkansas River.

“The two are interconnected,” he said. “The success of downtown is going to be in a large part attached to how the river relates to it because that is one of the great assets of Tulsa. If you are going to get residential downtown, and a lot of other things, then you are going to have to figure out how to connect it to one of the principal green corridors”.

Dot on the Map

After years of little or no growth downtown, Crowley points to a number of areas of new development.

“You have had a pretty strong but scattered approach to developing the Brady and the Blue Dome Districts. Those have come along pretty much on their own, but it is tough for the people doing that because there is not a lot of critical mass, they are developing it themselves,” he said. “Now 2025 comes along and the Route 66 corridor, which is kind of a tourism attraction, and you have the BOk Arena and the subsequent expansion of the Tulsa Convention Center – that’s a very substantial project, a big dot on the map.”

In conjunction with those developments, Crowley sees potential for the stadium to take place.

“You can’t just assume that the day after that thing opens that there is going to be a high-rise hotel next to it,” he said. “But I think that you will see a lot of quick responses, such as the potential for surrounding it with residential and entertainment right in the immediate vicinity of the ballpark, and that may even take place as a part of the original development.”

“The key is to design that field and develop it so it accommodates surrounding development, and not design it so that you have to try to make outside development fit later on,” he said.

Crowley said part of his assignment is to help develop a master plan for downtown.

“I think the game plan is going to end up being – how do you reinforce the Blue Dome and the Brady districts, and how do you connect the arena to it so the arena visitor can take advantage of what is already there on the ground and the new restaurants that some of the developers in those districts are already planning,” he said. «

I remember that thread.
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3370

I also remember there were MANY POSTS that were later erased after you started that thread....

What a convenient coin-key-dink.  [:O]

Here's my response from 6/27/07.... over a year from the start of that thread.....

------------------------------------------------

Just pointing out that the initial post was bumped from 3/13/06... there were quite a few posts from that initial discussion that were  deleted...

Last fall, we all assumed the ballpark was going to simply replace the soccer stadium initially proposed by Global Development...

Now this?

quote:

---

Tulsa's Director of Economic Development, Don Himelfarb, is working with the Drillers on a possible move. They're considering several locations downtown and one spot on the river, but won't yet say exactly where.  “They're coming either adjacent to downtown or downtown itself."

The owner of the Drillers told FOX23 News he would prefer to move the team to a downtown location, something city officials are excited about.

Himelfarb says, “It's just going to bring alive nightlife and restaurants and other entertainment venues. It's the perfect prescription for bringing downtown alive."

---------------------------------------------

And the Drillers owner says he would love to have the new stadium built by 2010, but he's not yet sure who's going to pay for it.

---

Interesting to hear the Drillers' are "not yet sure who's going to pay for it," since we all assumed the ballpark was going to be part of a TIF district financed "anchor" for a mixed-use development.

Sales taxes are just not going to fly for the ballpark alone (Driller Park has been renovated and is not falling apart), or at the very least, they'd have to be tied to the current river proposal somehow...

And when Don Himelfarb says things like, “It's just going to bring alive nightlife and restaurants and other entertainment venues. It's the perfect prescription for bringing downtown alive," methinks he exagerates... and I'd think exactly the same way if he said this about a soccer/football stadium...

Bricktown gets a boost on event days from both the AT&T ballpark and the Ford Center... but Bricktown pre-dates all the new downtown stuff in OKC... build the ballpark in the wrong spot in downtown Tulsa and it simply won't do much of anything-- people will go to the game, buy Cinemark-priced concessions and then drive straight home... just like they do at the fairgrounds now... and once the stadium's newness wears off...?

Drillers' owner Chuck Lamson once said that a new downtown ballpark would double attendance.  I'm not sure whether attendance would actually double or not... but the more important point is that I believe a new ballpark would effectively double revenue for the Drillers for at least 3-5 years... the Drillers shouldn't have to resort to as many free tickets/seat upgrades for those years and a portion of the extra $$$ the Drillers would realize could be used to help pay for the stadium rather than the increase in salary and travel expenses for a move to triple-A.

BTW, Driller Park isn't the oldest stadium in the Texas League... that honor goes to Wichita's Lawrence-Dumont Stadium, built in 1934 through the WPA...

The two best examples of new stadiums for Texas league teams would be the brand new one in North Little Rock across from their downtown that replaced the circa 1932 Ray Winder Field... http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/minors/050630bizbeat.html

quote:

---

The team and local leaders had been at an impasse over how much the Travelers would contribute to pay off the ballpark's construction bonds. The parties reached an agreement that called for a 20-year lease with successive five-year renewal options. The Travelers will use gate receipts, concessions, advertising and luxury seat revenue to operate the club and stadium and make minor capital improvements. After those expenses, the Travelers and North Little Rock will split remaining revenue.

The new ballpark would be part of a 22-acre development with condominiums, restaurants, shops and offices. The ballpark would sit on 11.6 acres, purchased for $5.8 million by Little Rock financier Warren Stephens last summer. Stephens donated the land in exchange for naming rights for the ballpark.

Drawings show the ballpark next to the Broadway Bridge spanning the Arkansas River between North Little Rock and Little Rock, the state capitol. The 7,000-seat ballpark, with luxury boxes and an outfield berm, would open on a view of the Little Rock skyline.

------------------------------------------------

The Travelers have played in 6,083-seat Ray Winder Field since it opened in 1932, but the ballpark has long been in need of major improvements and has been granted waivers by Major League Baseball to allow the team to keep playing there.

---

... and the new privately funded ballpark in downtown Springfield, MO...
http://www.ballparkreviews.com/springmo/springmo.htm

I think that area of downtown will slowly begin to get more new stuff regardless of there being a baseball stadium there. However the baseball stadium will jump start even more development and on a quicker timeline. Some of that development and others downtown will benefit from one more attraction bringing people to downtown. The "synergy" thing. The colleges expanding, OU medical, OSU Tulsa, TU, new museum, Arena, living coming online, new park and street/sidewalk enhancements, Race Riot Memorial,PAC, Jazz Hall of Fame, Greenwood Development, Mayfest, D-Fest, Tulsa Tough, etc. etc. Downtown really is looking up folks, its already busier and nicer than it used to be even just a couple of years ago. Every single new thing just adds to that.