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

[cks511]

quote:THE CHANNELS which he so vociferously opposed.

It's this 'CHANNELS' type thinking that gets a NO vote.  Why can't we do 'practical' stuff instead of 'designer' stuff.

edited for spelling, sorry.

[Conan71]

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.

No there has not been another river vote.  However, as predicted, things are moving forward in the meantime without another vote.  We've ostensibly got funding for LWD's, previously promised (and yes, for the umpteenth time I realize they are unrelated to the Kaiser $117mm "gift") improvements to the trail systems are nearing completion, TRD is moving forward down in Jenks, and if the city would make good on their promise to vacate the M & E facility at 23rd & Jackson and consolidate offices into OTC and move the maintenance and parking to Downtown Airpark as I was originally told would happen, we'd have viable land for a great MUD unless TDA were allowed to jack around with it for another 20 years and scare off private, un-connected developers.

I've not decided either way how I will vote on this.  I want to see what all is involved and make an educated decision.  Regardless of what I personally think is the "better" plan, the five-year had a far, far better shot at getting passed.  I don't care if my personal paradigms would have been met with either plan, I just wanted to see progress on repairs.  

Our politicians learned nothing from the epic fail of the RT vote.  Long-term packages before or since 2025 don't seem to be too popular in the COT.

These councilors need to remember they don't each OWN 1/9 of Tulsa.  They each REPRESENT 1/9 of Tulsa.  They just voted to put a DVD rewinder on the ballot in November. Morons.

[carltonplace]

I want one of those. I get so tired of waiting for my DVD to re-spool.

[Conan71]

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?

Well... if they spend an amount equal to just roughly .01 to 1% of the total package price of the "epic fail" version of our street package, I'd say I'd love to have that gig!

[MDepr2007]

The Mayor has not signed it yet. She could easily hold it over the council until they approve her ballpark board groupie thing[]

[Wilbur]

This will NEVER pass.

Hope there is a plan 'B'.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

This will NEVER pass.

Hope there is a plan 'B'.

well good thing Randi Miller isn't heading this up, cause she's tell you "THERE IS NO PLAN B!"

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

The Mayor has not signed it yet. She could easily hold it over the council until they approve her ballpark board groupie thing[]

oh yes, lets continue to erode credibility down at City Hall.

the package needs to go forward and get shot down.  Nothing bothers me more than seeing KKT use that over reaching veto power to basically nullify anything 9 elected officials come up with.

[JoeMommaBlake]

It seems foolish to me to consider a long term streets plan when the master plan for the city's longer-term future is in the process of being created.

Should the master plan contradict the streets package, it will be too late to do anything about it, thus compromising the viability of the master plan.

The answer is to fix what we can fix with what we have and to wait for the master plan to be finished.

If we're insisting on a streets package right now, we should definitely consider a very short term one to repair emergency areas that pose a safety threat, etc.

Following up the approval of the new master plan with a well thought out streets package would really show the voters something great...that their master plan means something...unlike the current one.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake

It seems foolish to me to consider a long term streets plan when the master plan for the city's longer-term future is in the process of being created.

Should the master plan contradict the streets package, it will be too late to do anything about it, thus compromising the viability of the master plan.

The answer is to fix what we can fix with what we have and to wait for the master plan to be finished.

If we're insisting on a streets package right now, we should definitely consider a very short term one to repair emergency areas that pose a safety threat, etc.

Following up the approval of the new master plan with a well thought out streets package would really show the voters something great...that their master plan means something...unlike the current one.

And just how did five councilors miss this simple logic?

All I can figure with Eagleton is he's such an anti-tax hawk that he voted for the plan which will most certainly not wind up in higher taxes because it won't pass muster with the voters.

He was the one who shocked me on this.  Did he invoke Churchill last night?

[]

[Wilbur]

Included is $150,000,000+ that has absolutely nothing to do with streets.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8887957

$84,000,000 for buildings
$20,000,000 for two new fire trucks (can that possibly be correct?  $10M each?  Wow!)
$68,000,000 for 'accounting' (what is that?)

What seems to off everyone's radar is the left over money from Vision 2025.  Of course, 'they' want you to forget that.

[Conan71]

That makes it even more perplexing why Eagleton supported this, Wilbur.  Only thing I can figure is he's got a better idea somewhere up his sleeve that's not yet ready for public consumption and he thinks this will tank for sure.

Anyone else care to venture a guess?  Eagleton has been my bull**** barometer on city issues, but the $7.1 mm BOK settlement and now this have me scratching my head.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

That makes it even more perplexing why Eagleton supported this, Wilbur.  Only thing I can figure is he's got a better idea somewhere up his sleeve that's not yet ready for public consumption and he thinks this will tank for sure.

Anyone else care to venture a guess?  Eagleton has been my bull**** barometer on city issues, but the $7.1 mm BOK settlement and now this have me scratching my head.

The view changes once you assume the yoke of leadership. His ambition dictates that he move farther away from being the always critical anti-tax icon to a more flexible, partnering force for progress. One who instigates conservative ideas rather than one who destroys others ideas. Someone the donors can work with.

IOW, if he wants to be mayor he better pay attention to more moderate views and curry some favor with the "oligarchy". This vote allows him to support what he perceives as taxpayer demands for roads while understanding it probably won't pass. It may not even make it to the ballot which would put him diametrically opposite of the mayor, which is delicious for him.

I probably listen to too much MSNBC.

[Wrinkle]

The "Plan" appears to be only to NOT have a streets issue on the November 4th ballot. They don't want 60K+ voters out on this, opting instead for a <20K turnout during a special election. That way, the Mayor's inflated plan has a better chance of passage.

All I can figure is they saw that neither package would pass if it occurred in November. That, and perhaps a hot local issue might counter State/National issues in a negative way (from their perspective).

Low voter turnout is desireable to get unfavorable issues passed.

[FOTD]

Stop it early, Mayor.

Let it go. Vote no.