quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
TULSA needs to do SOMETHING about the roads. If you get all worry warty about the minute intricate details like wrinkles over here, nothing will ever get done because you are always finding some reason to not do anything.
No plan is perfect, but it would be wise to look at the merits of the proposal and the benefits as well as the costs. In this case, they are proposing a program that will leave taxes pretty much the same as they are now and still brings up roughly $700MILLION for the roads. THAT IS A NO-BRAINER! FREAKING GET IT DONE!
The Devil is in the details, Mr. Bristow.
They can easily make or break a deal. If you're suggessting Tulsans should just blindly do whatever, then that's the thing which has got us into the problem we have now.
I do have a problem which appears to have 'solutions' which directly affect the next four Mayoral terms.
These need serious evaluation and consideration. Implementation of such should be wisely scrutinized and a proper resolution achieved. Not a hurry-up, rushed to pass, compounded manipulation of our future without any thought.
To date, no one has shown us how this plan is to work. I've suggested there's serious issues, if it actually works at all.
But, the emphasis seems to be being placed on an Ad Valorem component which does nothing to pave roads and seems to place a pretty heavy weight on certain groups.
Where are the options?
There is room for more than one or two items on a ballot. Alternate plans should be addressed.
There was once a push for the State to provide municipalities a half-cent rebate to improve/repair roads. What happened to that discussion? Did it get traded for a dam, for Jenks and/or Sand Springs, no less?
If you want to call it hand-wringing, I'd call it short-sighted on your part.
A more simple approach was proposed by James Hewgely, which is mostly being ignored at this point. It still seems to me to be the most practical solution and has little long-term effect other than to repave roads.
Wasn't that the thing we needed?