Street Tax: Spec. Assessments for Widening

[Chicken Little]

Now THIS I like:

quote: The specifics of the council's streets proposal have not been released because it is being reviewed by the city's Finance Department. Councilors must call for a special election no later than 5 p.m. May 29 to make the July ballot.

But it is known that the maintenance component will involve multiple citywide funding sources, including using existing sales tax streams and an increase in property taxes.

The widening component would work differently.

As planned, voters would decide whether to authorize the city to create a special assessment district program and provide $62 million in bond funding to implement it.

If you live in an area that needs widening then maybe you can decide if it's worth paying a little extra for the convenience.  If it's not worth it then maybe you can alter your commute times by 15 minutes and save us all a few tens of millions.

[Conan71]

What's that CL?  Common sense in government? Must've been a typo!

[}:)]

I think it's a great idea.

[Chicken Little]

Tell me about it.  It's interesting that Eagleton, by far the most conservative of this bunch (or any bunch), isn't wholeheartedly for it.

Actually, he's just looking out for the peeps in his district.  Very unCoburneseque.

[PonderInc]

I certainly like separating street widening from street repair.  Repair is necessary. Widening streets in the far reaches of the city is folly.  It benefits no one, except the homebuilders who rely on sprawl for their quick, cheap bucks.  ...All the while causing a steady and ever increasing drain of tax dollars from Tulsa.  

Street widening on the fringes increases costs to maintain more lanes.  It also increases the costs for providing police and fire protection for sprawling areas, and additional utilities to serve widely dispersed, low-density housing.  

While benefiting a small number of Tulsa residents, these roads are our gifts to the suburban communities that boom thanks to the streets we build (and maintain).

I think that if the City Council had read all the recommendations that were given them (by the Complete the Streets Committee, et al), they might have realized that widening more streets is never the solution...but increasing funding for transit is a real solution to our problems.  

We don't need more and wider streets, we need more transit options.  We need zoning laws that support pedestrian oriented and transit oriented development.  If you reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled, you don't need to widen streets.  You also don't need to repair them as often.

If this is the result of all those community meetings and recommnedations from  experts... somebody left a big chunk of the solution on the editing room floor.  

Why?

[tshane250]

quote:I certainly like separating street widening from street repair. Repair is necessary. Widening streets in the far reaches of the city is folly. It benefits no one, except the homebuilders who rely on sprawl for their quick, cheap bucks. ...All the while causing a steady and ever increasing drain of tax dollars from Tulsa.

Street widening on the fringes increases costs to maintain more lanes. It also increases the costs for providing police and fire protection for sprawling areas, and additional utilities to serve widely dispersed, low-density housing.

While benefiting a small number of Tulsa residents, these roads are our gifts to the suburban communities that boom thanks to the streets we build (and maintain).

I think that if the City Council had read all the recommendations that were given them (by the Complete the Streets Committee, et al), they might have realized that widening more streets is never the solution...but increasing funding for transit is a real solution to our problems.

We don't need more and wider streets, we need more transit options. We need zoning laws that support pedestrian oriented and transit oriented development. If you reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled, you don't need to widen streets. You also don't need to repair them as often.

This brought a tear to my eye!

[waterboy]

Wait a minute Ponder. They pay for those streets as well. We aren't shouldering the whole load. If we look at it totally that way then we all start turning against each other (moreso than now anyway). Yeah, at first glance not widening them at all makes sense but not really. The district assessment is a fair thing to me but not widening at all is not.

I would note that it is not right that 101st between Yale and Memorial has only two lanes and a deep ditch on each side for firetrucks to respond for emergencies. If traffic is heavy or an accident occurs, there is no way for them to respond. Honestly? The developers and city politicians who foisted this abomination on us should be hunted down and forced to join in the assessment.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I certainly like separating street widening from street repair.  Repair is necessary. Widening streets in the far reaches of the city is folly.  It benefits no one, except the homebuilders who rely on sprawl for their quick, cheap bucks.  ...All the while causing a steady and ever increasing drain of tax dollars from Tulsa.  

Street widening on the fringes increases costs to maintain more lanes.  It also increases the costs for providing police and fire protection for sprawling areas, and additional utilities to serve widely dispersed, low-density housing.  

While benefiting a small number of Tulsa residents, these roads are our gifts to the suburban communities that boom thanks to the streets we build (and maintain).

I think that if the City Council had read all the recommendations that were given them (by the Complete the Streets Committee, et al), they might have realized that widening more streets is never the solution...but increasing funding for transit is a real solution to our problems.  

We don't need more and wider streets, we need more transit options.  We need zoning laws that support pedestrian oriented and transit oriented development.  If you reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled, you don't need to widen streets.  You also don't need to repair them as often.

If this is the result of all those community meetings and recommnedations from  experts... somebody left a big chunk of the solution on the editing room floor.  

Why?

Tulsa's borders where growth occurs are now constrained.  I don't think that is going to be an issue.  And really out on the outskirts of town you run into a lot of county roads, which Tulsa can't do anything about.  Dist 8 still needs a ton of roads widened though, and we'll get them.

this road tax needs to be tied to a state bill to earmark funds to fix the BA and IDL.  It is those roads that most people complain about and Tulsa can't fix.  I'm SICK of hearing about OKC getting entire highways REROUTED and Tulsa's main state and federal highways are literally turning to gravel.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Wait a minute Ponder. They pay for those streets as well. We aren't shouldering the whole load. If we look at it totally that way then we all start turning against each other (moreso than now anyway). Yeah, at first glance not widening them at all makes sense but not really. The district assessment is a fair thing to me but not widening at all is not.

I would note that it is not right that 101st between Yale and Sheridan has only two lanes and a deep ditch on each side for those firetrucks to respond for emergencies. If traffic is heavy or an accident occurs, there is no way for them to respond. Honestly? The developers and city politicians who foisted this abomination on us should be hunted down and forced to join in the assessment.

One glaring thing I noticed about 25 years ago was that OKC had all these four lane, separated roads out in the middle of nowhere.  

Now that there are housing additions in those formerly barren areas, there aren't traffic problems because there really was some proactive planning.  Tulsa has always seemed to build the addition first then follow up with the necessary infrastructure to get traffic to flow right about 10 to 20 years later.

[FOTD]

Proactive planning with the ability to walk in and force the landowner to hand over right of way before the prices escalated from demand.

The Special Assesment district could work if the Public Diswerks director worked om it hard enough. Had 71st between Memorial and Garnett been under that funding mechanism, it would have led to a better traffic situation.

It's up to landowners and developers (promoters)adjacent to street expansion to pony up more of the lion's share. They benefit directly from tax expenditures.

In the old daze, the city would engage in trade offs for street access and widening, sewar, drainage and even zoning and site work. But it was dealing with the devil. Not me per se but the government.[:O]

[mrhaskellok]

I have a really really out there idea, don't know if it has any merit...but should Tulsa de-annex some of itself?  Are there growing communitites that would gladdly take the new utility customers or sales tax revenue(if there is any included) for the responsibility of the roads?  

What are the drawbacks of de-annexing parts of Tulsa that have effectivly become a part of other communities?

Lets hear em!

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

I have a really really out there idea, don't know if it has any merit...but should Tulsa de-annex some of itself?  Are there growing communitites that would gladdly take the new utility customers or sales tax revenue(if there is any included) for the responsibility of the roads?  

What are the drawbacks of de-annexing parts of Tulsa that have effectivly become a part of other communities?

Lets hear em!

Great idea. De annex Riverside drive from 96th street to downtown and let Kaiser and Warren take charge. Warren already de annexed the areas around St. Francis. The only difference is the school system and the street improvement costs were bore by the taxpayers not their 5013c.

[Red Arrow]

Asking everyone to pay for improvements downtown and then telling the  existing "outlying areas" to pay for their own improvements will only result in a "We v.s. Them" mentality.  Areas south of about 51st Street might asked to be de-annexed and then tell the rest of Tulsa to get by without the sales tax and property tax income they generate. (I'm trying to be polite.)

Road repairs and road widening are two different issues but both are important.  I doubt mass transit will fix the traffic on S. Memorial.  The shopping there pretty much requires private transportation. I invite any downtowners to take a trip down Memorial on a nice Saturday anytime from late morning 'til early evening. When WalMart moved from 91st to 111th and Memorial, all that happened was the traffic jam moved two miles farther south.

A look at Google maps will show that a lot of the new development in S.E. Tulsa, Bixby, and Broken Arrow is similar in density to mid-town.  Not high rise apartments but also not what I would call spacious. Many places don't have space between houses wide enough for a driveway to put the garage at the rear of the house. One problem for effective mass transit is that not everyone works downtown. If they did, the housing density would support mass transit with some park-and-ride lots.

Perhaps developers should be required to put money into an (escrow?) account to pay for infrastructure improvements including the main arterials.  Of course that cost would be passed on to the buyers.  The real cost, including infrastructure would then determine what got developed and what didn't.





Not having wide roads has not stopped development.  It just generates

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Wait a minute Ponder. They pay for those streets as well. We aren't shouldering the whole load. If we look at it totally that way then we all start turning against each other (moreso than now anyway). Yeah, at first glance not widening them at all makes sense but not really. The district assessment is a fair thing to me but not widening at all is not.

I would note that it is not right that 101st between Yale and Sheridan has only two lanes and a deep ditch on each side for those firetrucks to respond for emergencies. If traffic is heavy or an accident occurs, there is no way for them to respond. Honestly? The developers and city politicians who foisted this abomination on us should be hunted down and forced to join in the assessment.

One glaring thing I noticed about 25 years ago was that OKC had all these four lane, separated roads out in the middle of nowhere.  

Now that there are housing additions in those formerly barren areas, there aren't traffic problems because there really was some proactive planning.  Tulsa has always seemed to build the addition first then follow up with the necessary infrastructure to get traffic to flow right about 10 to 20 years later.

Well Tulsa TRIED to do that, but no one wanted to live in East Tulsa, so you have this nice 4 lane 21st st going to no where.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Perhaps developers should be required to put money into an (escrow?) account to pay for infrastructure improvements including the main arterials.  Of course that cost would be passed on to the buyers.  The real cost, including infrastructure would then determine what got developed and what didn't.

That's called an impact fee.  It's a very commonly used growth management tool, used by most states since the 1950s and 60s.  Much like TIFs  , Oklahoma has been slow to adopt this common (even mundane) tool.  To date, the state legislature has not adopted enabling legislation for impact fees.  This means that any city that adopts an impact fee ordinance might be overstepping it's authority.  You are right though, those fees are indeed passed directly onto the buyers of new homes.  The fees help moderate the pace of development at the periphery of a region.

Considering no impact fees were ever collected in south Tulsa at the time of development, I think asking homeowners if they want a special assessment to pay for those improvements now is a reasonable alternative.   In fact, it's more or less the same thing.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Well Tulsa TRIED to do that, but no one wanted to live in East Tulsa, so you have this nice 4 lane 21st st going to no where.

Keen observation, Inteller.  It's like they thought Tulsa was going to grow that direction but it didn't.  So now we have overbuilt intersections in one part of town (East) and people squawking for improvements in another (South).