Which plan for streets...5 years or 12 years?

[RecycleMichael]

It is going to be the 12 year plan.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It is going to be the 12 year plan.

well, a 12 year plan will be voted on.  slim chance it will pass with the FOP and south Tulsa lining up against it.  all the opposition has to do is drum up all the recent actions that have lost the public trust.....this thing goes down in flames.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71



Can anyone tell me what the attraction was to voters for Bynum or Gomez?  Talk about empty suits.

establishment tools. add patrick to that list but people are trying to fix that with Gomex and Patrick right now.

[Rico]

Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]

only when he wears his homemade mickey mouse ears.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Who could have known..... Paul Tay has psychic capability.[}:)]

only when he wears his homemade mickey mouse ears.

I could do nothing but shake my head...I had to leave the room.

I hope someone got a screencap of that.  I can just see the photoshop opportunities out of that.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It is going to be the 12 year plan.

The councilors aren't listening to the constituency.  Sure sounded to me from anyone who had been following this that the five year plan was something everyone was agreeing on.  Encumbering the city for 12 years is just too long.  I'm going to assume that first priority would have to be repairs.  Let's say we got ahead of that in five years then we could vote for improvements and expansion for another five or seven years.

For anyone who is interested, here's a copy of the 2001 to 2006 3rd penny proposed budget.  

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/descriptions.pdf

I found it interesting that the first street project mentioned in this was widening of the 15th & Utica intersection, and it's just now being done.

Memory fails me.  At what point did the 3rd penny become a pork pie for police, fire, EMSA and other various capital projects outside public works?  Or was it intended to fund equipment as well from the beginnng?  For some reason, when this originated, I thought the purpose was street expansion and repair, sewers, flood control, infrastructure.

Our council blew it tonight and they will blame it on stupid voters come November.  A five year package would have passed and would have provided needed repairs and improvements.  

I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%.

[Hoss]

The attention-whore at it again...

What's up, Santa?

[FOTD]

The city devils can't support the package being put forth. But they fought the 2025 debacle and lost. So, that may be a good sign for you tax and spend republicans.

[Rico]

quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.

I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.

How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.

I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.

How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?

And really, I find this quite ironic.

That people who have *****ed and moaned for YEARS about our streets now finally have a chance to speak with their votes, and the likely vote will be no.

I hate to say this, but you have to start somewhere.  I'm not going to like it, but I'll likely vote YES.  If we don't, I don't want to have to explain to my descendants or the next generation why our roads suck.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote >"I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%."< end quote.

I would say higher than that... 74% or possibly a tad higher...... people are pissed off.

How would you like the job of making the signs and promotion for this fiasco?

And really, I find this quite ironic.

That people who have *****ed and moaned for YEARS about our streets now finally have a chance to speak with their votes, and the likely vote will be no.

I hate to say this, but you have to start somewhere.  I'm not going to like it, but I'll likely vote YES.  If we don't, I don't want to have to explain to my descendants or the next generation why our roads suck.

After this fails, in another year there will be a new proposal.

It will not be the end of Tulsa if the vote is defeated....but it will further retard south Tulsa growth to the dismay of few here.

[sgrizzle]

I would've prefer the 5 year plan to come up to a vote but I probably will vote for whatever comes around at this point. There were plenty on this board who said "vote no on this river plan and there will be another vote in 6 months, a year tops" and from the looks of it, we won't see another shot at that for years now. Ironically, that tax would now be quite a bit lower since they are likely getting the federal funds.

Anyway, a vote yes gets something started in 2010. A vote no means 2011 at the earliest. And while "2 Billion" sounds like a scary number, in reality the plans are for $100M/yr or $165M/yr on average which sounds less drastic.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It is going to be the 12 year plan.

The councilors aren't listening to the constituency.  Sure sounded to me from anyone who had been following this that the five year plan was something everyone was agreeing on.  Encumbering the city for 12 years is just too long.  I'm going to assume that first priority would have to be repairs.  Let's say we got ahead of that in five years then we could vote for improvements and expansion for another five or seven years.

For anyone who is interested, here's a copy of the 2001 to 2006 3rd penny proposed budget.  

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Budget/documents/descriptions.pdf

I found it interesting that the first street project mentioned in this was widening of the 15th & Utica intersection, and it's just now being done.

Memory fails me.  At what point did the 3rd penny become a pork pie for police, fire, EMSA and other various capital projects outside public works?  Or was it intended to fund equipment as well from the beginnng?  For some reason, when this originated, I thought the purpose was street expansion and repair, sewers, flood control, infrastructure.

Our council blew it tonight and they will blame it on stupid voters come November.  A five year package would have passed and would have provided needed repairs and improvements.  

I predict it goes down with a no vote of 60%.

Exactly!  What a waste of time.  This will be another failed vote and another embarrassment.  

I am interested to see how they attempt to market this.  Perhaps some images of children starving because their school lunches can't be delivered on the crumbling streets, or busses crashing into trees because of pot-holes.  Grandma breaking her hip crossing the street when her cane gets stuck in a crack.  Just some suggestions.

The 5 year plan would have required more wisdom and less money-lust, that's why it didn't pass.  Within 3 or 4 years our needs will change and funding requirements will be different.

No worry. . . this too shall NOT pass.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I would've prefer the 5 year plan to come up to a vote but I probably will vote for whatever comes around at this point. There were plenty on this board who said "vote no on this river plan and there will be another vote in 6 months, a year tops" and from the looks of it, we won't see another shot at that for years now. Ironically, that tax would now be quite a bit lower since they are likely getting the federal funds.

Anyway, a vote yes gets something started in 2010. A vote no means 2011 at the earliest. And while "2 Billion" sounds like a scary number, in reality the plans are for $100M/yr or $165M/yr on average which sounds less drastic.

IF...the proposal can be marketted as an annual investment of $100m/yr-
IF...the economy in Tulsa remains strong-
IF...the politicians involved can explain why they went against the current on this decision-

then it will pass. I don't have much faith in any of that happening. Five years and reassess was a good plan. But not to worry, I'm usually on the wrong side of these issues.[]

PS. Was quite ironic to hear Eagleton refer to the Spavinaw water project of the twenties and how long that funding lasted. Where did I hear that before? Oh, yeah...THE CHANNELS which he so vociferously opposed.