Martinson Mayhem

[FOTD]

Boy, this guy is out of it. GO Bonds AND making the third penny permenant are the only vehicles for fixing our NEGLECTED streets. To raise water rates 141% and other utility rates is either a red herring or total disregard for those that can least afford it.

He not only is dead wrong but needs to resign.

[sgrizzle]

tell us how you really feel...

I'm all for alternative funding sources but this may be too alternative.

[TulsaSooner]

As far as I can tell, it's one of many potential revenue sources put on the table by Martinson and the group saddled with addressing this enormous problem we have.  We are going to have to pay for it one way or the other, so saddle up.  It should be a no brainer for all of those folks voting down the river tax and free money...I think this was the major issue that was cited as a reason for the no vote.

Why would anybody be expected to resign for an idea?

[FOTD]

Ok....not resign. But this proposal is loopie. Double dipping. The stormwater fee has outlived it's original intent. Boils down to a poorly run city. Several Mayors are to blame. Primarily, Savage and LaFortune who had other priorities and less discipline.

Again, GO bonds and third penny manipulation are the alternatives. But putting more burden on those whose wages are actually decreasing nullifies a change at all IMO.

First, shouldn't we fire those that got us here and then remedy the situation? As long as "they" have a say, we will not get the right solution.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Boy, this guy is out of it. GO Bonds AND making the third penny permenant are the only vehicles for fixing our NEGLECTED streets. To raise water rates 141% and other utility rates is either a red herring or total disregard for those that can least afford it.

He not only is dead wrong but needs to resign.

Martinson's point is to make each utility enterprise fund pay for the full cost of operating the utility. In the past, the Third Penny has been used to subsidize water, sewer, etc., paying for their capital improvements rather than having the ratepayers (including those outside the city) cover the cost of the system they use.

[FOTD]

Double post:

Tulsa has been becoming a tale of two cities for several years now. This additional tax would increase the disproportional disposable incomes and make that tail longer between the two societies. And then what are the consequences? More jail space? Much higher costs to supplement social services?
The hardships on those that can least afford it makes the authors look either insensitive or ignorant. Do they not realize inflation is running at %12!

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Double post:

Tulsa has been becoming a tale of two cities for several years now. This additional tax would increase the disproportional disposable incomes and make that tail longer between the two societies. And then what are the consequences? More jail space? Much higher costs to supplement social services?
The hardships on those that can least afford it makes the authors look either insensitive or ignorant. Do they not realize inflation is running at %12!

I like the idea of making an enterprize of govt., namely providing water, pay for itself. You assume that raising the rates for everyone equally is the answer and that WOULD be hurtful to lower incomes and fixed incomes. But it could be raised at different rates for different users, once again according to the expense of providing the service. If we have to pipe it 10 miles to serve Owasso, then Owasso should pay a relatively higher cost for that service.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Martinson's point is to make each utility enterprise fund pay for the full cost of operating the utility. In the past, the Third Penny has been used to subsidize water, sewer, etc., paying for their capital improvements rather than having the ratepayers (including those outside the city) cover the cost of the system they use.

I like the idea. True cost of service.

Go Martinson!

[Chicken Little]

I like it, too.  It will effect poorer residents disproportionately, but that is true of everything in the City's purview.  Most of their money comes from sales tax, which is a regressive tax, and pretty much everything else is billed as a direct service.  There's really not much the City can do to help those on fixed incomes except offer a rebate, and they do typically do that.

FOTD, before you get in too deep with this apparently unfair tax on the poor, take a look at your State legislature.  They get a much bigger share of regressive sales taxes than cities.  They get 4.5% as opposed to Tulsa's 3%.  They've been asked, repeatedly, to cut or give back sales tax, but they cut income tax instead.  Oklahoma's income tax rates are claimed to be highly progressive, but our legislature is apparently not.

This year the legislature is trying to limit the collection of the other progressive tax, property taxes.  Again, to protect their wealthy benefactors, they appear willing to make schools, libraries, health departments, and technical colleges suffer.  

And if that's not enough, the cherry on top of the State's shenanigans is that Tulsa is a net donor.  We give them more than we get back in service.  Brilliant.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

I like it, too.  It will effect poorer residents disproportionately, but that is true of everything in the City's purview.  Most of their money comes from sales tax, which is a regressive tax, and pretty much everything else is billed as a direct service.  There's really not much the City can do to help those on fixed incomes except offer a rebate, and they do typically do that.

FOTD, before you get in too deep with this apparently unfair tax on the poor, take a look at your State legislature.  They get a much bigger share of regressive sales taxes than cities.  They get 4.5% as opposed to Tulsa's 3%.  They've been asked, repeatedly, to cut or give back sales tax, but they cut income tax instead.  Oklahoma's income tax rates are claimed to be highly progressive, but our legislature is apparently not.

This year the legislature is trying to limit the collection of the other progressive tax, property taxes.  Again, to protect their wealthy benefactors, they appear willing to make schools, libraries, health departments, and technical colleges suffer.  

And if that's not enough, the cherry on top of the State's shenanigans is that Tulsa is a net donor.  We give them more than we get back in service.  Brilliant.

I can't argue with that CL!

But two wrongs don't make it right.

[cannon_fodder]

FOTD:

Please explain to me why a poor resident shouldn't have to pay for their water.  Or why any utility that can be self funded shouldn't be.  For that matter, explain to me how this tax is more regressive than any other (keeping in mind that "regressive tax" is the "slippery slope" phrase for taxation, it applies to everything).

Water is something that can be conserved.  Rich people fill up pools, wash SUVs, water larger lawns, and run fountains, hot tubs and other things that use large amounts of water.  Currently, Joe Poorman is helping subsidize their swimming pools.  If water goes up 140% Joe Poorman can cut back on his lawn watering and take shorter showers, Daddy Warbucks probably will keep filling his pool and washing his Escalade - and now he will have to pay the true cost of doing so.

The extra money freed by Daddy Warbucks increased water bill helps pay for roads for Joe Poorman to drive on.  Really seems like Joe comes out ahead in this game.

The other viable alternative is increase sales tax, registration, or gas tax - which would all hit Joe Poorman as much as big Bad Daddy Warbucks.

[T-Town Now]

I think Tulsa needs to look into a city employment tax. I've lived other places where this was done. A flat tax is charged to each employee who works in the city, and is taken out of each pay check.

That way, the folks who work in the City of Tulsa but live and spend their tax dollars in Broken Arrow, Jenks, Owasso, etc., would pay for road maintenance, infrastructure, etc. In short, they would help to pay for the things that they use and currently don't support with their tax dollars.

I know there's more to it than this, but it seems like it could work. I know quite a few people who are employed in the city, but they live, shop, and do everything else outside of the city, yet they have no thought about driving their heavy pick ups and SUVs on our streets, contributing to the wear.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

I think Tulsa needs to look into a city employment tax.

That would just raise the cost of doing business in Tulsa and probably quicken the rate at which not only people but business leaves Tulsa.  The actual effect would not be that bad, a .5% payroll tax would be $200 a year on $40K, but the impact of knowing that Tulsa had an "income tax" could be severe.  I could locate my business/take a job in Tulsa with a payroll tax, or next door in Bixby (where you can't even tell you crossed into a different town) and NOT have the tax.

I wouldn't want to give business another reason to avoid Tulsa, especially if we are raising relatively little money off of it.

[PonderInc]

While I love Tulsa's low cost of living, I have no problem with charging people the full cost of utilities.  I agree that more people will conserve when the price goes up.  No need to turn your lawn into a golf course...or take 40 minute high-flow showers.  When I lived in Colorado, I got busted for leaving the water running while brushing my teeth!  People think about these things when they're actively trying to conserve...b/c water is expensive in the west.  

We should also have to pay for our trash.  In Tulsa, I can put out an unlimited amount of trash (and up to 6 bags of yard waste) every trash day.  I should be charged by the volume of trash I create.  More trash, more cost.  At the same time, I should get a rebate for the volume of my recyclables.  More recyclables, more credit on the utility bill.

All of these concepts would benefit everyone long term.  It's just common sense...I don't know why we don't already do it this way.