Tulsa Councilors to vote on River Tax

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by shadows
At least you find amusement in the reality that there are people who have suffered and will continue to suffer because of the politics that have been involved.

Please explain how you continue to suffer from flooding on Mingo creek.

I think I have figured out why you hate government so much. When the city bought out the flooded houses along Mingo Creek in the 1980s, they didn't buy yours. You are still pissed that the city bought out some of your neighbors at a good price and wouldn't buy your home.

One could not be more wrong in the assumptions that you associate with the buyout of property in the flood area.   It was long ago paid for and the current taxes are paid and there is no need for selling.

The flood of 84 was on the forecast of a 20% chance of rain so any predictions of such chance of rainfall makes persons who are subject of flooding keeping a eye on the sky.  

As posted it is very easy to sit at a desk and not see the way the creek has been abused which is passed on to the other owners by more flooding.

As to the vote: any councilor that comes out against the city hall bureaucracy has a hard time finding the funding equal to that of his opponent at election at time.   Ask the councilor who tried to recycle in her district or Medlock  

[waterboy]

This was interesting:
Trinity River Corridor Project Survey Now On-Line: Take part in the Trinity River Corridor Project Survey, designed to gauge public awareness and obtain resident input on the project.

An ongoing effort to receive input from the public as well as guage the success of current activity.

I notice they have boat launches. How bizarre.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Thats tiiiiny compared to Tulsas river and what Tulsa is trying to do.

Tiny?  The web site states it encompasses about 44,000 acres, or 20% of the total land area in the city of Dallas.

How big is the river they are trying to work with?  How much water flow and water flow range do they have to contend with? How big and costly will their dams be? How wide an expanse do their bridges have to cross?

If its the river I have seen its more like what we would call a creek here. The size of our river, the type of river, and many other factors we have to contend with, can make many of the things we do on our river more expensive. Thats what I meant.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Shameful. I also find it very ironic that Maria recently was part of a panel in a forum on ethics, yet she did not abstain from this vote, due to the fact that the Kaiser foundation is very involved with Kendall-Whittier. I wonder if conflicts of interest were discussed at that forum? I wonder if that influenced her vote?

Ridiculous and unfounded slander against the councilor. The neighborhood association she is a member of went to the city and asked for a assistance in code enforcement. The city had no money, but the Tulsa Community Foundation stepped in (and in many other places) and helped. Maria did not receive anything personally. She did her job as a councilor and worked for a solution for her constituents. Everything she did was completely open and in public.  

I also heard that you were yelling at her at the neighborfest in front of her kids on Tuesday night. Very classy.

How can you serve as an officer in the Oklahoma Democratic Party and write such untruths and allegations against democrats?

You are out of control and should resign your party post.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Shameful. I also find it very ironic that Maria recently was part of a panel in a forum on ethics, yet she did not abstain from this vote, due to the fact that the Kaiser foundation is very involved with Kendall-Whittier. I wonder if conflicts of interest were discussed at that forum? I wonder if that influenced her vote?

Ridiculous and unfounded slander against the councilor. The neighborhood association she is a member of went to the city and asked for a assistance in code enforcement. The city had no money, but the Tulsa Community Foundation stepped in (and in many other places) and helped. Maria did not receive anything personally. She did her job as a councilor and worked for a solution for her constituents. Everything she did was completely open and in public.  

I also heard that you were yelling at her at the neighborfest in front of her kids on Tuesday night. Very classy.

How can you serve as an officer in the Oklahoma Democratic Party and write such untruths and allegations against democrats?

You are out of control and should resign your party post.

Maria and I did talk at Mayorfest, no one was yelling. Why would you you make it sound like you heard this from someone else when you were standing nearby? I haven't lied about a damn thing, this stuff is common knowledge. All I've done is point out the obvious. Besides, why else would she vote in support of something she had such misgivings about, and I qoute "I wish we could be the ones driving this, not the county. That, to me, is dangerous". If that is indeed her opinion, why would she vote to express her opinion of support for this? Her comments and corresponding contradictory vote open up these questions of ethics and whether those connections might have influenced her vote. The dishonesty lays squarely on the shoulders of the Councilors who tried to misrepresent this vote as a vote to deny the voters the right to vote on the county river tax. Maria herself admitted this fact, right before she voted against the resolution citing that misrepresentation as a reason for voting against the resolution, and I quote "The tax, I have nothing to do with that tax, they(the voters) will vote on that tax, it's out of my hands". Then she stated "I won't support the resolution because I think we should give it to the people, they should decide how we do this". This was a vote to support river development and opposing a county controlled sales tax to support it, which judging from Maria's own remarks seems to be what she says she supports, why vote against it?

[waterboy]

I am confused by Maria's vote. If she doesn't like the idea of the county running this project or the substance of the project, then why did she vote against the motion? If this was its meaning-"Council Chairman Roscoe Turner has called for an agenda item to be a vote to support or not for the proposed county tax", then it had nothing to do with the people having a chance to vote for or against the project. Merely an opinion by the council members of the merit of the project presented.
I don't suspect any undue influence though, just her fear of looking anti-river development when she is obviously not.

The bottom line seems to be that since the city did not take the lead in presenting a package of INCOG plans and a method of executing them, then the county was more than willing to do so.  Tulsa leadership, both city and county, is killing any momentum for river development. Everyone should peruse the Trinity river project in Fort Worth that Rico found and note the differences in presentation. It has real and ongoing public input and looks really inviting. www.trinityrivercorridor.com

Five years ago, a local attorney rode on one of my boat tours and was pretty frank in saying, "When the right players are lined up to profit from river development, it will happen. I love your operation, but you aren't one of them." I think they're lined up pretty well now.

edit: I realize now he meant the correct aligning of political/social/commercial interests.

[RecycleMichael]

There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty.  Stop saying there is.

All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?

I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.

It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty.  Stop saying there is.

All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?

I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.

It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.

                                              You can keep repeating the mantra that this resolution would somehow deny the public the right to vote, no one believes that bald faced lie. It is completely asinine to suggest that opposition to this river tax is the equivalent of voter intimidation. What I expect from my Councilor is a clear answer on whether or not she supports this tax. I expect her to have the intestinal fortitude to make that distinction instead of riding the fence and then giving a dishonest answer to explain why she would vote against the resolution. If the voters of District 4 wanted a walking contradiction for a Councilor, we wouldn't have driven Baker out of the seat.

[Wrinkle]

Face it, Councilors weaselled out of their responsibilities.

A County measure which removes normal protocol of the Council approving construction projects stomps on their territory in a big way.

They had no spine to stand up to it, or for their constituancies.

Bye-bye councilors.
When we finish off the County on this deal, we'll be back to replace them, too.

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is no "question of ethics" or dishonesty.  Stop saying there is.

All that councilor did was to speak her mind and try to explain her understanding of both sides of the issue. Would you rather have the councilors not discuss, just vote?

I am sure she heard from constituents who said they wanted to vote on this river improvement tax. You don't want a vote, instead you want to bully and complain and create a soapbox.

It is ok for you to be opposed to this ballot measure. Having people like you against it pushes people like me to be more likely to believe the other side. You remind me of the street preachers who just stand on a corner and yell biblical phrases. I doubt very many of them lead people to attend church, and probably instead make the undecided be afraid of even starting.

                                              You can keep repeating the mantra that this resolution would somehow deny the public the right to vote, no one believes that bald faced lie. It is completely asinine to suggest that opposition to this river tax is the equivalent of voter intimidation. What I expect from my Councilor is a clear answer on whether or not she supports this tax. I expect her to have the intestinal fortitude to make that distinction instead of riding the fence and then giving a dishonest answer to explain why she would vote against the resolution. If the voters of District 4 wanted a walking contradiction for a Councilor, we wouldn't have driven Baker out of the seat.

Double A, as an initial matter, I am someone who believes very strongly in the need for ethics and transparency in government, and I think we have a long way to go on many levels of government.  I also think you probably feel the same way and don't have any intent to further unethical behavior.  But, the reality is that the situation you are talking about has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with a politician serving her constituents (whether you agree with that action or not).  By using the "ethics" card, you are not only starting false rumors, but you are also playing right into the hands of unethical people who seek to cheapen the idea of ethics by blurring the lines between ethical and non-ethical behavior, thereby allowing them to profit by making decisions that can steer money in their direction.  

Regarding the vote, while I respect your right to vote against the county river tax, I think it is wrong to expect the city councilors to stand in the way of a county initiative submitted to the vote of the county voters.  First, it would be presumptuous for the City Council to tell the voters that they should vote "no".  If the voters don't like the proposal, they will vote "no".  That is especially the case if the councilor believes that her constituents would vote "yes" or at least would support the implementation of the plan.  Moreover, the councilors have to work with the county on many things, and it is in our best interests that their relationship not spiral into a wholly-antagonistic affair.  I don't think that the councilors' statements reflected anything other than these eminently reasonable points.

I know that you are a zealous advocate for your cause, and I respect that.  But you have to be careful with your assertions because, by crying "wolf" on everything you disagree with, your calls will have less effect on the truly important things.