Newest Ballpark Trust Revealing

[Wrinkle]

Seems there's more to the story yet.

This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.

Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.

Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.

I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.

They really know how to ruin a good thing.

[Conan71]

I have to say the demise of DTU makes my mouth water, is that what this would amount to?

However, the idea of the demise of DTU by a more screwed up little bureaucracy makes my stomach churn.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Seems there's more to the story yet.

This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.

Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.

Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.

I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.

They really know how to ruin a good thing.

Thats old news and has been part of the plan since the beginning. Its also a big part of what many people consider to be one of the potential positives. Whether you like the rest or not, a lot of people like the idea of getting rid of DTU. How do you come to the descision that its a negative and how would it be a rip off?

[RecycleMichael]

Why do wrinkle and conan assume the worst?

The current contracts and providers have been questioned and researched and now that there will be a new funding formula, services will probably be changed as well.

It all sounds like progress to me.

Those two need an attitude change, IMO.

[Wrinkle]

Not buying it.

I've spoken in favor of replacing DTU on this forum. I was not asking for this.

Do any of you understand what's really happening here?

I'm for dumping the whole thing and letting them go to Jenks over this.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Seems there's more to the story yet.

This trust is being set up to provide IDL-wide leverage in the form of replacing DTU's downtown 'services' contract.

Man, why don't they just come out and say we intend to rip you all off, and you can't stop us.

Our Council best be watching out for us. It's our only hope.

I'm leaning more towards giving the donors' money back than ever.

They really know how to ruin a good thing.

Thats old news and has been part of the plan since the beginning. Its also a big part of what many people consider to be one of the potential positives. Whether you like the rest or not, a lot of people like the idea of getting rid of DTU. How do you come to the descision that its a negative and how would it be a rip off?

This trust is set up as a private, for-profit business with government backing and guarantees. And, it's a total hands-off operation, untouchable by even government once it's established, at least as written.

I'm for replacing DTU, but not this way.

It needs big changes yet if it's going to fly. Otherwise, pack it up and ship if off to Jenks where it's a totally PRIVATE offering.

Limit the trust to ownership and operation of the ballpark and the immediate (one-block perimeter) area only. It's supposed to run the ballpark, not downtown.

Government gone wild. Wholesale sellout of public interest.

[Renaissance]

Linky linky?  Can we get some context for what's being discussed here?

[Wrinkle]

Replay your TGOV for today's Urban & Economic Development Committee meeting.

Agenda Item 12

[Wrinkle]

Wonder what it would take in the form of initiative to require a public vote to authorize acceptance of the 'benefit' of this 'Public Trust'?

If they have no public backing, they can play with themselves.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Wonder what it would take in the form of initiative to require a public vote to authorize acceptance of the 'benefit' of this 'Public Trust'?

If they have no public backing, they can play with themselves.

Call Drew Reese (sp?) and ask him.. He is a pretty stand up guy.
I have had dealings with him through the LaFortuna and the current administration... I have never found his answers to be tipped towards anyone or any project.

[RecycleMichael]

I suspect that wrinkle has a dog in this hunt by his feigned outrage.

Are you with DTU?

The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.

The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.

The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.

It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.

This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.

You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.

The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.

The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.

It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.

This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.

Dude, wait.  You appear to be saying that the Ballpark Trust is also taking over downtown maintenance from DTU.  I never saw anything in the paper about this.  Did I miss something obvious, or is this a new development?

And don't be too quick to point fingers.  I don't fully trust those involved in this plan("them," since we've never quite figured out who "they" are).  "They" have been too secretive throughout this entire process for no good reason, and that makes me not trust "them."  This goes for the World not printing the names of donors until Martinson did it for them; the Mayor attempting to ramrod a flawed Trust Agreement through the city council; the TDA cutting off negotiations with prior engaged developers; Manhattan Construction getting the contract by being a donor without a public bid process; and HOK being chosen as architect before the plan was ever made public.  

I've never before bought into the idea that the public decision-making process Tulsa might be fundamentally flawed, but watching the way this plan has gone forward has forced me to rethink some of my prior assumptions about how business is done here.  City Hall is either being far too secretive in this thing or is simply administratively inept; either way, they've lost the benefit of the doubt in my book.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael


It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.

This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.

You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.

Who's to say this isn't a move to save DTU's bacon? The city can only contract with DTU one year at a time, but this new trust could sign a 40-year contract with DTU and there's nothing city elected officials could do about it.

As far as I know, the council has to vote on DTU's contract, just as they vote on the Chamber's annual contract and INCOG's annual contract. Curious that this trust is going to take over downtown services just as city elected officials finally seem to be serious about opening downtown services to competitive bidding.

If the trust indenture doesn't specify exactly which block and lot numbers the trust can hold, the council should vote it down.

Better yet, let the donors take their $30 million and build the ballpark as a totally private venture -- no trust, no assessment, no city involvement other than selling the TDA land to the Drillers for a dollar.

[RecycleMichael]

I totally agree that this could lead to a longer term contract for DTU. It could pick them or could pick any other vendor.
That is why there is a committee looking at the existing contract and assessing the needs of the future.

But read the backup documentation on Thursday's council agenda. There is a major change in the trust indenture...now all issuance of debt has to be approved by the council. It also adds new members representing small downtown property owners. The terms are also from two to five years in length.

I am saying that whatever is done in the future will have to be done in public and will probably be discussed in depth on this forum. I would much rather that public pressure that to how it is being done now.

It ain't just about the ballpark. The whole downtown needs maintenance and promotion. This is a chance to do it better.

[sgrizzle]

Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?

DTU thing is old news. Existing system is done entirely behind closed doors. Why can they put up a huge sign for a mediocre farmer's market on taxpayer's dime and do crappy renovations that are never as promised yet they can't manage to sweep the streets in front of Mcnellies (one of the jobs they're actually SUPPOSED to do)... EVER.

Vote Status Quo if you are for brick pavers, glarebombs, limited public seating, crappy fountains, dirty streets, and organizations spending your money everyday and disclosing nothing.