Street Tax: Spec. Assessments for Widening

[FOTD]

Back in the late 60's, City leaders believed the area was going to take off ala Southland and wanted to insure good traffic flow. Eastland Mall was destroyed by a developer and engineer not foreseeing the enormous expense associated with duplicating Southland's underground delivery docks. The city had agreed to enhance accessability from the region with good streets. There may have been a housing explosion in the early 70's out east were there not big outcroppings of limestone in the immediate area. Adjacent areas would be ideal for batting cages, golf ranges, go carts, amusement park, etc but not for anything needing excavation. Construction came to a dead stop for many years. Development costs were too high compared with the school district and the demographics and that is why the growth went elsewhere. The timing was never that good either. Had there been a perfect world, Eastland would have been the second Mall in Tulsa and helped to drive better schools and better neighborhoods in that corridor.



It all took place before the days when rock, limestone, was seen as an issue. That is what cost the developer and the city the eastside potential of adding to our economic base. When Mel Simon or Debartelo made a deal on the mall in like 84(?). Terry Young coupled it with a road improvement. The first neighborhood street south of Eastland wins worst street in Tulsa year after year. Its like a ski mogul slope with holes.

On a final note, Rob Phillips seems to be doing a really good job with resurrecting Eastland into a multi use facility. That would justify good streets leading down 21st.

[Red Arrow]

Chicken Little - I haven't figured out the quote thing yet (see newbie status).  I cannot totally disagree with your statement that the assessment would be the same as an initial impact fee but I cannot totally agree either.  Most home owners in our area near 111th and Memorial are not the original owners. An assessment now would be similar to a car manufacturer coming to a buyer of a used car saying the original buyer of the car did not pay enough, would you now like to pay more for the privilege of protection of recalls due to original design defects?  When my parents bought here (1971), the lots were big and not conducive to heavy traffic.  Since then, the lots have become smaller and the streets severly overloaded. In fact, Memorial was two lanes south of the RR tracks near 41st Street and it was not a big deal.  Large traffic volume businesss have been added. The design has changed to small lots. Had the design stayed at large residential lots, the streets may have been adequate. This is not the "high density downtown goal" of this forum in general but that is not what my parents bought into. They wanted to live a bit farther out and were willing to drive 7 miles to the nearest big grocery store. It's now 1/2 mile to the WalMart traffic jam.

In spite of all this I am in favor of a good mass transit system, especially rail where the ridership will justify the initial expense. Let me know when the real (steel wheels on steel rails and electric motors)trolley will provide transportation to the (coming)attractions downtown from this part of town. I won't hold my breath.  

If you care to research my background, Google "Septa route 101"

It appears I gained citizenship with a subsequent post.

[Chicken Little]

You are right Redarrow, paying a special assessment is not EXACTLY like an impact fee.  There are several differences on both the plus and minus side.

A vote for an assessment district would be voluntary, whereas impact fees would be passed on to a buyer automatically.  It sounds like a choice, and in some ways it is.  But it's also probably true that if your initial purchase price reflected the TRUE costs of new roads (and schools, and sewer plants, and fire stations, etc.) then you might have seriously considered purchasing in an older, "built up", part of town.  

You are right that an assessment today would be a surcharge levied after the fact, sometimes years after the house was built and on people who had nothing to do with the "sprouting" of this area.  But the reality is this:  a) What you see is what you get.  If you bought in an area with traffic problems and crowded schools and then expected the city to come along and fix those problems at no additional charge, then I think you might have had some unreasonable expectations; and, b) Expecting ALL Tulsans to bear an equal share to fix your problem is only reasonable because it is consistent with past bond issues.  Is it fair?  Many Tulsans made home buying decisions that consciously considered schools, traffic, commute times, etc.  Do they deserve to be charged extra to fix problems in a distant place that is not well-planned?

You often hear things like, "I looked in this part of town, but bought in another part because I could get MORE house", i.e., square footage costs were lower.  Well, is that because the cost of housing construction is 30% LOWER in a certain part of town?  Or is it because, in part, the infrastructure investments needed to make your booming neighborhood sustainable have not yet been made.  You could've spent a lot more and bought around Elliot or Lee and been five minutes from work.  I'm not scolding, all I'm saying is that there are REASONS why south Tulsa is cheaper than midtown and it has little to do with how cute the houses are.

Lastly, I think that mass transit options are needed, too.  And the $100 million or so we'd spend on road widenings in this bond issues is, ironically, almost exactly the amount of money we'd need to startup and grow a better transit system for ALL of us.  If it's a choice between widening streets in distant part of town and getting a better bus system, I'm going to vote for buses.

[Red Arrow]

Tulsa had a (real) trolley system until about 1936.  Decisions which can now be determined to be incorrect dismanteled that system. A special assessment district could be assigned to the areas which would directly benefit from improved mass transit. As you said, what you see is what you get, no mass transit. You want it, you buy it.

I don't work downtown. I don't attend sporting events. I am not a theater fan. I prefer to eat at home. I know someone will tell me to get a life but I enjoy what I do. It just doesn't involve downtown. There were no traffic problems here 30 years ago. Memorial south of 51st street was 55 MPH with one stop light at about 81st street. My parents wanted a big lot, cuteness of the house had nothing to do with it. In fact, they bought less house for 30% more money than the one we left in PA.  People told us the cost of living was less in Tulsa than near Philadelphia. We determined the standard of living was less.  I have to admit that Bixby schools had a better reputation than Tulsa. Based on my sister's experience, I am glad she didn't go to Tulsa schools, Bixby was a year behind what we left in PA. I would hate to think of the (lack of) education she would have received in Tulsa School District. I was already in college so local schools were not an issue for me. In spite of some initial complaints, the Tulsa area is now my home and I have no desire to return to PA. Using your reasoning, do I deserve to be charged extra to fix problems in a distant place (downtown) that made bad mass transit decisions decades ago? I think not. Life stopped being fair in 1st grade.

A mass transit system that benefited "all" would have to inlcude "distant" southeast Tulsa. Routes would need to include major employment centers like American Airlines, not just downtown Tulsa.  Buses are generally considered to be a ride of necessity, not choice. Rail is a ride of choice. Gasoline prices are making mass transit a necessity for ever higher income levels. Rail is a better choice when the ridership will support the higher initial investment. Over the long run, rail can be less expensive than buses. Consider the cost of fuel for buses v.s. electric powered rail and the life expectancy of buses compared to rail vehicles. Air pollution and noise are another factor in favor of electric powered rail. I know that most local electricity is generated using natural gas. If you want to use buses to benefit "all", you will still need to widen the streets in S.E. Tulsa to make the buses a viable alternative to automobiles. Given a choice between being stuck in traffic in a bus or my car, I will probably choose my car.  I believe that $100 Million of buses will not solve the Tulsa transportation problem, especially not for "all". The proposals I have seen so far are just an expensive "toy" for downtown.  I will support them as long as the rest of Tulsa supports improvements to my life. FWIW, most of my shopping is within Tulsa city limits even though I actually reside in the northern limits of Bixby.

Finally, I want to thank you for keeping this an honest discussion of differences of opinion rather than the name calling I have seen on other threads.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


Using your reasoning, do I deserve to be charged extra to fix problems in a distant place (downtown) that made bad mass transit decisions decades ago? I think not. Life stopped being fair in 1st grade.

Both arguments make some sense. But the above quote illustrates the problem. Neither do those of us near downtown care to pay for the excesses of developers who built two lane roads with ditches on each side that don't allow for emergency vehicles to even respond safely but reduced the cost of construction allowing housing to proliferate in those areas. I haven't been to shop in Woodland Hills area for at least a decade.

And we don't care to keep maintaining, improving and adding to the nuisance expressways that carry many of you to our long ago paid for amenities and job opportunities downtown. Even though you personally don't go downtown, many use the hospitals, government buildings, office buildings, and shopping areas we provide access to. We don't need an expressway to reach them. If more suburbans lived your lifestyle we could then eliminate the ribbons of crumbling asphalt altogether.

So we sink or swim together. I am guessing that the expressways will remain paid for in part by my neighborhood and hoping that far south neighborhoods will pony up for basic infrastructure that they need to be safe and convenient. But the realist in me says we'll continue to pay for the poor planning out south AND the ribbons of crumbling asphalt.