Street Vote - Can the Mayor Say No?

[Wilbur]

I firmly believe the upcoming street vote will go down to defeat.

But, the Mayor has been hinting in interviews and on ads promoting both street issues, that both must pass.

My questions are:

1.  Is there wording in either one of the street issues that says BOTH must pass in order for EITHER to go into effect.  If not, ....

2.  Is there anything in the law that allows the Mayor to say 'no' to a vote of the people?  In other words, if only one street issue passes, can she say no to the other that passes?

[RecycleMichael]

I look at the ballot questions and believe that there is no obligation to do the projects if only one passes.

I believe the Mayor could say no thank you to one question passing and might be politically required to.

The problem is that the two questions are tied together to one list of projects. If one passes, how do you decide which ones are completed?

I think you may be correct in your assumption. I plan to vote yes for both, but the first one is more attractive to the voters because it helps get the county out of the sales tax business. I think that desire was shown as a factor in the failure of the river vote this past year.

I hope they both pass. This is a good time to make investments in the infrastructure and roads are one of the best use of tax dollars. Those dollars churn right back into the local economy. I am voting yes because I want to live in a community with better roads. The amount of money they are asking for is minimal compared to the idea of a smoother commute.

[sgrizzle]

I'm betting they both pass. Presidential election turnout will be high and high turnout is good for votes like this. I bet both votes have similar results as well. Some may be against raising property taxes but others vote no on anything that say sales tax.

[Double A]

After seeing the list of donors for the vote yes campaign, I am having second thoughts about voting yes.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

After seeing the list of donors for the vote yes campaign, I am having second thoughts about voting yes.

Just because a few cronies benefit, that doesn't mean that we should vote no.

[midtownnewbie]

I'm voting yes on both, but I bet it doesn't pass.

[carltonplace]

^ ditto

[Wrinkle]

I suggest people CLOSELY read the ballot again.

Was pretty surprised to see Ad Valorem being collected for five years, but the bonds to be issued for the work are to be paid out over a 25 year term.

I was never for the Ad Valorem portion of this plan, but this really kills it for me, especially when this, as the TW calls it, is the first phase of what they are percieving as a long term plan (read: "permenent tax"), requiring us to re-up in five years again, and again with these overlapping payoffs of the debts.

Since the Sales Tax portion is all that remains for me, I have to evaluate that on the basis that work will not progress except as revenue is collected, and that won't begin until 2012. So, no new street work would begin until then, well after our current administrations' term.

So, I'll just wait until next year when we can put a new person in our Mayor's office.

I'm voting NO on both propositions.

Don't be surprised.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I suggest people CLOSELY read the ballot again.

Was pretty surprised to see Ad Valorem being collected for five years, but the bonds to be issued for the work are to be paid out over a 25 year term.

I was never for the Ad Valorem portion of this plan, but this really kills it for me, especially when this, as the TW calls it, is the first phase of what they are percieving as a long term plan (read: "permenent tax"), requiring us to re-up in five years again, and again with these overlapping payoffs of the debts.

Since the Sales Tax portion is all that remains for me, I have to evaluate that on the basis that work will not progress except as revenue is collected, and that won't begin until 2012. So, no new street work would begin until then, well after our current administrations' term.

So, I'll just wait until next year when we can put a new person in our Mayor's office.

I'm voting NO on both propositions.

Don't be surprised.

UPDATE: Thought I'd correct myself before someone else kindly did. Sales tax would be collected by two means, the two year extension of the 3rd Penny beginning in Oct(?) 2010, not 2012 when the 2/12ths County displaced portion would then kick in as well. So, it'd be, from my pov, 2011 before any work would begin from Sales Tax funding, and then only as it came in.

Still, too insignificant as it relates to the current issue of 'fixing' any roads.

[rhymnrzn]

Ecclesiastes 1:8

quote: All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

[brianh]

I lifted this from the ballot and am putting in bold the issues I see with it:

"the tax are to be used to
make capital improvements to and paying
the costs and expenses of operation
and maintenance relating to the repair,
construction, and reconstruction of
streets, bridges, and related infrastructure
of the City and making other capital
improvements of the City of Tulsa"

So Just to be clear this isn't a street tax. It is a tax for all sorts of things, this is just like all the other earmark bills in congress.  And why don't we just return our gas/tag taxes to funding the streets like they were supposed to be doing in the first place?  There is no way I can vote for this.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by brianh

I lifted this from the ballot and am putting in bold the issues I see with it:

"the tax are to be used to
make capital improvements to and paying
the costs and expenses of operation
and maintenance relating to the repair,
construction, and reconstruction of
streets, bridges, and related infrastructure
of the City and making other capital
improvements of the City of Tulsa"

So Just to be clear this isn't a street tax. It is a tax for all sorts of things, this is just like all the other earmark bills in congress.  And why don't we just return our gas/tag taxes to funding the streets like they were supposed to be doing in the first place?  There is no way I can vote for this.

Unbelievable.

People ***** and moan when a River tax is proposed by yelling 'fix our streets first!' and then when a streets proposal is put on the table, one that actually looks reasonable, people find a reason, because it has two forms of tax involved, to shoot it down and decide they are not going to vote for it.

What did you expect, people?  For the city to give it to us gratis?

Did you ever stop to the think that the wording 'other capital improvements and infrastructure' relates to things that would need to be done in order to fix the streets?

I find the hypocrisy that riddles this town incredible.

My dad used to tell me money doesn't grow on trees.  I hate taxes just as much as the next guy, but in this case, we won't see an increase in our sales tax, and you'll $65 dollars on $100k of property value assessed.  Just a little over $5 a month.

I'd say it's worth it, especially on a 5 year plan that appears, to me anyway after the discussion at City Hall about it, to have some accountability and the option to revisit it down the line to see if it's working.

It's not like the people didn't have a bit of a say in this one.

[sgrizzle]

Do The River First!




LOL

[Conan71]

Nah, do TCC first.

I'm still voting for it.  It's not perfect, but we've got to get cracking on road repair (pun possibly intended).

I was rather surprised the World printed a story about Becco, the Chamber, and others contributing money.  Seems counter-productive to the Lorton and Kaiser bond-funding machine (you know, the oligarchical tax vampires).

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I look at the ballot questions and believe that there is no obligation to do the projects if only one passes.

I believe the Mayor could say no thank you to one question passing and might be politically required to.

The problem is that the two questions are tied together to one list of projects. If one passes, how do you decide which ones are completed?

I heard on the news yesterday (I think it was channel 6) that the sales tax question is tied to arterial street projects, and the advalorem tax question is tied to residential street projects.  If that is correct, then the 2 votes are indeed separated issues and projects, and there should be no reason why some projects could not be done if only one question passes.