TulsaNow officially opposes Vision2

[sgrizzle]

http://tulsanow.org/index.php/2012/09/official-statement-on-vision2/

TulsaNow is a non-profit group who supports forward-thinking zoning, development and public-dollar reinvestment. We were formed over a decade ago based on the desire to push Tulsa forward and immediately began helping the effort that became Vision2025. The idea of a program to follow in the footsteps of Vision2025 is very exciting to us, but we would not be a responsible organization if we did not take a critical eye to every project that effects the issues that we support.
Our organization has been studying and discussing Vision2 since the name was first mentioned only a few months ago. We have researched, considered and debated every aspect of the project and how it was put together. On September 26th, our governing board met to decide if we had an official position on Vision2, and here are the results.
On Proposition 1, for economic development, we found that:
1. There is insufficient emphasis given towards promoting diverse and sustainable industries.
2. The closing fund did not have adequate guidance over how the money should be spent, and the citizens are not fairly represented in those decisions.
3. The closing fund has no set collection limit and is projected to collect far more than originally advertised. This means the citizens lack direct influence not only on how the money is spent, but how much is spent.
Because of these three factors, our board unanimously voted to Oppose proposition 1.

On proposition 2, for quality of life projects, we found that:
1. The vote is improperly rushed as the tax collections and spending cannot begin until 2017. This time could be spent collecting public input, planning and prioritizing. In addition, the amount of time between when the project was originally proposed, and the day of election, was not sufficient.
2. The City of Tulsa, and other municipalities, can only "ask" for projects. The ultimate control over what gets funded is held by the County. Additionally, the areas where the tax money is spent and the area where the tax money is collected do not coincide well. This may be more appropriate as a City tax and not County.
3. While many of the projects proposed coincide with the priorities of PlaniTulsa, little or no focus was given towards redevelopment and transportation issues which are key components of PlaniTulsa. Additionally, little or no focus was given towards the areas of the city deemed to be the most in need of public dollar reinvestment.
While Vision2 may fund many projects that we are passionately in support of, because of these three factors our board voted to Oppose proposition 2. This vote was not unanimous.

[cynical]

http://tulsanow.org/index.php/2012/09/official-statement-on-vision2/

I suspect my comment will mirror the TulsaNow board's discussion. I appreciate the time, energy, and effort they have put into this decision but have a concern. I work with some of the individuals who are trying to develop downtown Tulsa, but I am not speaking for them. This is a strictly personal concern based on more than 50 years of experience in this community.

I completely agree with the board's decision on Proposition 1. Dumb ideas are dumb, whether they are the result of long, inclusive deliberation or are a spur-of-the-moment lark. I never liked the idea of the "closing fund." A deal will make sense on its merits. Local government with or without the Chamber of Commerce kicking in some cash at closing won't change the longer-term economics of the deal. There are already many tax relief programs in place. We don't need to establish a slush fund, which is all this is.

Even though I think Oklahoma's reliance on regressive consumption taxes (aren't they all?) is evil, I think on Proposition 2 things are less clear cut. Could the package have been  better planned and developed? Of course. What effort can't be done better? Though I would like a better picture of what is proposed, I have seen enough of the picture to be reasonably comfortable with the package. I fear in this case that the TulsaNow board may have indulged in Tulsa's favorite sport - taking an idea's imperfections without adequately crediting its assets and using the imperfections as an excuse to shoot down the entire proposal. Rather than having three-quarters of a loaf we end up with none at all and in the process poison the political well for years to come. In the discussion here on TulsaNow the failed River Project keeps coming up. Tulsans have very long memories, especially of things that didn't turn out well.

Tulsa is finally emerging from decades of stagnation caused by its perfectionist tendencies. Vision 2025 was the last time Tulsa dared. It was an amazing success. The last time before that was its approval of the Performing Arts Center in the mid-1970s. Tulsa is very conservative. That doesn't have to doom Tulsa to stagnation. Successful conservative cities find a way to prudently keep moving ahead without letting their fears overrule their hopes. Unsuccessful conservative cities become adept at pointing out flaws and maintaining the status quo without ever facing the fact that the status quo is not one of the options they have. We either move forward or move backward.

Don't get me wrong. Bad ideas such as the proposal to build islands in the river for private residential development at public expense (what was the name of that proposal?) were bad ideas that deserved to be rejected out of hand. But proposals with merit, though they are flawed, deserve consideration on their merits as well as on their deficiencies. That proposal was not part of the River Project, though.

Like Casey, we can wait for our pitch and strike out, or we can swing at at pitch that is good enough.

[guido911]

http://tulsanow.org/index.php/2012/09/official-statement-on-vision2/

Good call.

[sgrizzle]

Though I would like a better picture of what is proposed, I have seen enough of the picture to be reasonably comfortable with the package.

Proposition 2: What is being proposed - succinctly
Voters are being asked in 2012 to extend a tax from 2017-2029. That tax money will be spent on roughly $100M in projects in the county, $159M in projects in the Tulsa City Limits, and other projects in the other cities that are part of Tulsa County. The ultimate decision on where the money goes will be decided by whoever the county commissioners are in 2017-2029. The cities can only request how the funds are spent in their city. Any overages in the tax collection will be sent to Proposition 1. The money the Tulsa City Council asked for to fix up the river, help build the Children;s Museum, add a generator to Morton, etc. are all just requests and not binding. In addition, approximately 2 months of tax collection will be spent on fees accrued due to the fact the tax is being voted on 4 years early.

[Weatherdemon]

Bravo!

Good call with solid reasoning.

[Teatownclown]

You people suck for opposing anything in Tulsa especially when it comes to downtown and the river .


Wait a minute....

[Hoss]

You people suck for opposing anything in Tulsa especially when it comes to downtown and the river .


Wait a minute....

I could start about how the arena was needed to compete with other venues sucking entertainment dollars away, but I won't.   

Still a moneymaker now 4 years later.

[Townsend]

I could start about how the arena was needed to compete with other venues sucking entertainment dollars away, but I won't.   

Still a moneymaker now 4 years later.

It appears to have spurred a bit of development around it as well.

[Teatownclown]

Has it been 4 years?

Well, the cliff approaches. I did not factor the Thunder at the Ford event helping. They've definitely thrown the concert selections our way. Mayor Bill did a smart thing in hiring SMG.

What development around the BOK? Those ugly new office structures stand on their own.

[Hoss]

Has it been 4 years?

Well, the cliff approaches. I did not factor the Thunder at the Ford event helping. They've definitely thrown the concert selections our way. Mayor Bill did a smart thing in hiring SMG.

What development around the BOK? Those ugly new office structures stand on their own.

Several new places in the Blue Dome?  That's within walking distance.  Other places on the horizon?

But I won't get into that with you.  I've assumed (incorrectly obviously) that you've figured yourself wrong in this case and moved on.

[Teatownclown]

Several new places in the Blue Dome?  That's within walking distance.  Other places on the horizon?

But I won't get into that with you.  I've assumed (incorrectly obviously) that you've figured yourself wrong in this case and moved on.

Time will tell.... like I've always said.

If Tulsa maintains this facility like their air and water and streets then it's just a matter of time before costs outpace the income.

btw, Blue Dome? Oh, the Carny District...

[swake]

Has it been 4 years?

Well, the cliff approaches. I did not factor the Thunder at the Ford event helping. They've definitely thrown the concert selections our way. Mayor Bill did a smart thing in hiring SMG.

What development around the BOK? Those ugly new office structures stand on their own.

It opened four years last month.

[Townsend]

But I won't get into that with you.  I've assumed (incorrectly obviously) that you've figured yourself wrong in this case and moved on.

Rain dances worked because they danced until it rained.

People ragging about one thing or another will eventually consider themselves right because they will rag until something goes wrong and then they will launch the "told you so" rockets.