Street Vote - Can the Mayor Say No?

[brianh]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Hmmm, it would save them a lot of trouble to just say that on the ballot then.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

The increase in property taxes will be in addition to the increase to pay for the great plains bailout. Don't forget the annual record increases the administration raised on utilities since Taylor the Tyrant took office either. The cumulative effect of this is making this a bitter pill to swallow for many Tulsans, especially considering it will only result in very minimal street improvements in limited areas. Just saying.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

But, do you not see 'other capital improvements' in the language?  To the city, that means anything that costs $100,000 or more.  ANYTHING that costs $100,000 or more.  It does not have to be streets.

[blindnil]

It was in the Tulsa World a couple of weeks back that Mayor Taylor was undecided how she would proceed if only one of the two propositions passes because it would be an unbalanced program. That they might have to scrap it and try a different package later. The vote only authorizes the collection of the tax .... it doesn't say they have to, so they could turn it down and go again in 6 months.

The World has a breakdown of the projects attached to each proposition at tulsaworld.com/streetsvote