Vote Yes Commercials

[rwarn17588]

Conan wrote:

One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams.

<end clip>

I agree.

It's not like Vision 2025 was passed its first time out. Similar initiatives bit the dust several times, until the powers-that-be tinkered with it enough to make it palatable for a majority of voters (well, more than a majority -- 60 percent is a doggone mandate).

So the "last chance" pleas ring hollow, especially when you look at Tulsa's recent history.

If the idea for river development is viable, it will be brought up again with a better-thought-out plan. Or someone rich will simply do it himself.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

They really need to show what they want us to be voting for. People are like, little kids, say yes to the river, and then think... I am not paying for some stupid islands.

And so far they either have not been able to properly communicate it or are reluctant to do so.  

They need a better PR firm handling this.  There are also too many gov't/bureaucrat  proponents behind this who are not overly popular with the electorate.  John Piercy really creeped a lot of people out the other night.  I've heard the term "used car salesman" and "televangelist" thrown around.

We already have issues with the lack of transparency in government and a lot of people I've talked to say this is a classic example of doing nothing to try and regain the trust of the voter.

Or it could be as I wrote on anther thread, that perhaps they are having a hard time defending this plan in public because they don't have enough details to make it defendable as of yet.  I'm amazed at how little debate has happened to this point.  I couldn't find anything about yesterday's TCC debate in the World this morning.  Must not have been anything the World wanted us to hear.

It's a shame because there really might be some realistic details which could make this happen.

One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams.  

Balderdash!

I was frankly surprised the Kaiser River Tax promoters picked John Piercey as one of their debaters.

Mr. Piercey has a very long association with the Tulsa County Ring, and is a very old, "dear" friend of former County Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick.

With Dirty Bob's close patronage, he sole-sourced financial advisor deals with the County, as well as his County TIA financed low-income FANTASTIC housing coups, making him purportedly one of Tulsa's wealthiest residents.  

His house is a Mega-MegaMansion.

It may have been someone's strategy to counter a serious numbers guy, Councilor John Eagleton, who has suggested using the Vision sales tax collection "overages" to finance the majority of the Kaiser River Plan.  Mr. Piercey's good working knowledge of what he is REPORTING on the County Vision 2025 program finances may have been the Vote YES strategy to deflate Big Bad John Eagleton's moxey.

You know Councilor Eagleton's right, because the Lorton's World editorials have him targeted as Tulsa's Public Enemy #1, supplanting Chris Medlock.

Is John Eagleton being measured for a Lorton's World correographed Recall Lynching?

See today's www.batesline.com for today's very detailed analysis of what Piercey is reporting on Vision 2025 collections and debt service.

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/09/vision-2025-fin.html

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

They really need to show what they want us to be voting for. People are like, little kids, say yes to the river, and then think... I am not paying for some stupid islands.

And so far they either have not been able to properly communicate it or are reluctant to do so.  

They need a better PR firm handling this.  There are also too many gov't/bureaucrat  proponents behind this who are not overly popular with the electorate.  John Piercy really creeped a lot of people out the other night.  I've heard the term "used car salesman" and "televangelist" thrown around.

We already have issues with the lack of transparency in government and a lot of people I've talked to say this is a classic example of doing nothing to try and regain the trust of the voter.

Or it could be as I wrote on anther thread, that perhaps they are having a hard time defending this plan in public because they don't have enough details to make it defendable as of yet.  I'm amazed at how little debate has happened to this point.  I couldn't find anything about yesterday's TCC debate in the World this morning.  Must not have been anything the World wanted us to hear.

It's a shame because there really might be some realistic details which could make this happen.

One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams.  

Balderdash!

I was frankly surprised the Kaiser River Tax promoters picked John Piercey as one of their debaters.

Mr. Piercey has a very long association with the Tulsa County Ring, and is a very old, "dear" friend of former County Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick.

With Dirty Bob's close patronage, he sole-sourced financial advisor deals with the County, as well as his County TIA financed low-income FANTASTIC housing coups, making him purportedly one of Tulsa's wealthiest residents.  

His house is a Mega-MegaMansion.

It may have been someone's strategy to counter a serious numbers guy, Councilor John Eagleton, who has suggested using the Vision sales tax collection "overages" to finance the majority of the Kaiser River Plan.  Mr. Piercey's good working knowledge of what he is REPORTING on the County Vision 2025 program finances may have been the Vote YES strategy to deflate Big Bad John Eagleton's moxey.

You know Councilor Eagleton's right, because the Lorton's World editorials have him targeted as Tulsa's Public Enemy #1, supplanting Chris Medlock.

Is John Eagleton being measured for a Lorton's World correographed Recall Lynching?

See today's www.batesline.com for today's very detailed analysis of what Piercey is reporting on Vision 2025 collections and debt service.

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/09/vision-2025-fin.html

Oh, they hammered Eagleton on the op-ed page this morning.  It's an un-signed editorial, but I'll give you two guesses.  You'd have a 50/50 chance if you pick one of the guys he debated against Tuesday night.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Conan wrote:

One on-going thing which is offending me is hinting that if we don't take this now, they will never give us the river of our dreams.

<end clip>

I agree.

It's not like Vision 2025 was passed its first time out. Similar initiatives bit the dust several times, until the powers-that-be tinkered with it enough to make it palatable for a majority of voters (well, more than a majority -- 60 percent is a doggone mandate).

So the "last chance" pleas ring hollow, especially when you look at Tulsa's recent history.

If the idea for river development is viable, it will be brought up again with a better-thought-out plan. Or someone rich will simply do it himself.

I think the county believes it's got better clout than the city since they finally got V-2025 passed and the city got one of it's most ambitious single projects ever out of it.  

Therein lies one of the bigger mistakes.  

They've created somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50,000 "no" voting bloc in the other suburbs (just a wild stab at how many vote in Owasso, Collinsville, Sperry, BA, etc.).  Don't think because the city management in Owasso is for the development that all the citizens there will vote for it.  I'm not making the assumption that since the power in BA has come out against that everyone in BA will vote no, but it doesn't help.  

One common complaint I've heard is that it's a development which is 30 or so miles from where they live and prefer to eat and shop (speaking of Owasso & C'ville).  So much for the "county-wide" aspect of the benefits.

I think they figured enough people around the county would view Tulsa as the hub and "donate" via sales tax.  Unfortunately, only Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby have property on the river bank (well BA does, but it doesn't seem relevant to them).  This is the kind of vote which might get some surprising numbers to the polls in the 'burbs.

I predict it will fail miserably in the communities not directly (or not taking advantage of) on the river, and might have a slim margin of favor in Tulsa precincts.  There's been a pretty good job of covering up the negatives and making sure there's plenty of eye pollution to get the "yes" message out.  They have also worked very hard at quashing and dis-crediting the harshest critics and skeptics.

I think overall it will fail by a slim margin.  Then I think they should re-group, re-package, gather more information and let Tulsa, Jenks, Sand Springs, & Bixby vote for their own improvements.  Make the elections simultaneous so it doesn't have a domino effect if it fails in one place.  Or, get honest with the numbers and figure out if we really can or cannot do LWD's out of V-2025 surplus (hey think of all the extra sales tax revenue the new arena and bombing Bell's will attract).  If we can't, let Tulsa's tax cover the LWD's up and downstream and let Jenks, SS, & Bixby fund their own improvements along the banks.

One of the bigger boondoggles is the $50-some million we "need" for property acquisition.  I overheard one of the "yes" people explaining after the debate that it involves only the concrete plant.  Why on earth would someone like the Branson Landing people want to pay an inflated price for the concrete plant dirt when they could likely buy it for half or less in a direct transaction with the present owner? Other than that, the city property in the area is nothing more than a paper-shuffle to likely make the move to OneTech legal finally.