Creek Nation to Build South Tulsa Bridge

[da dawg]

The follow message was sent out by the
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.
Gaspar....did you ever get to ask Bob David of Leadership Properties about this??  If so what did he say?  Thanks!

Dear STCC Supporter –

STCC has learned that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (the "Creek Nation") will be announcing that it intends to acquire land to the South and to the East of the intersection of 121st and Yale Ave. for the purpose of constructing the South Tulsa toll bridge (the "Bridge") with a northern landing point in between Sheridan and Yale.  The Creek Nation has been coordinating its acquisition and construction plans with Leadership Properties and the Cities of Bixby and Jenks.  The Creek Nation has not involved the City of Tulsa in any aspect of its plans to acquire the land or construct the Bridge because the Creek Nation plans to put the acquired land into a federal trust, which would essentially free the acquired land from state and local law.  Upon learning of this information, Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor requested an appearance before the Creek Nation to plead the City of Tulsa's case pertaining to location, infrastructure needs and revenue sharing, but the Creek Nation's Principal Chief A.D. Ellis rejected her request.



The Creek Nation has also been in contact with U.S. Senator James Inhofe's office in an effort to help the Creek Nation navigate the lengthy process of putting the acquired land into a federal trust.  STCC contacted a representative of Senator Inhofe's office this evening and expressed its concern over any support Senator Inhofe would lend to helping the Creek Nation either put this land into a federal trust (for the sole purpose of having to avoid Oklahoma's state laws and the City of Tulsa's local laws) or construct the Bridge.  



It's unfortunate that once again the City of Tulsa and its citizens have been left out in the cold on this project.  STCC would ask that you contact your U.S. Senators (the contact information is below) about this situation and express your opinion on the matter.



               U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe                                

               Telephone:  (918) 748-5111

               Email Contact Form:  http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm



               U.S. Senator Tom Coburn

               Telephone:  (918) 581-7651

               Email Contact Form:  http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home



As always, STCC will keep you apprised of any new developments.



South Tulsa Citizens Coalition

[inteller]

well, it appears the rumors are true.

what IS it with these people?  when will someone say enough is enough and reign in these HORRIBLE selfish developers?

[TheArtist]

Either make it so that no bridge can go in that area ever, or the city should get on the ball and build the toll bridge themselves before someone else does it to make the money.

[Red Arrow]

I have no problem with the City of Tulsa getting the toll $. I'm sure my friend living near 141st & Yale has no problem with the City of Tulsa collecting the tolls. When we both worked at the CityPlex (81st & Lewis), he said a $1.00 toll each way would save him money compared to going through Bixby or going up Peoria or Elwood and through Jenks.  Any bridge program must include improvements to both Yale and Delaware or all we will get is one big mess.

Bandwagon:
I would like to see provisions for light rail to cross any bridge in that area. Maybe don't do the rail to begin with but make the bridge to allow it in the future.

[Jitter Free]

I had a couple of thoughts about this.

Didn't the supreme court rule that Jenks couldn't build the bridge without Tulsa?  Instead of working with Tulsa, Jenks finds a partner who isn't subject to state and local law.  What does that say about Tulsa's relationship with its suburb neighbors?

Why would the Indians allow themselves to be used as a wedge between Jenks / Developers and Tulsa?  The Indians are going to take a beating in public relations on this one.

What about the tax dollars?  I assume this area is prime development land and the tax dollars would have gone to the State, County and City.  Now, nothing....zip....

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Jitter Free

I had a couple of thoughts about this.

What does that say about Tulsa's relationship with its suburb neighbors?

Probably less than favorable.  Everyone can fill in their own specifics.
The Indians are going to take a beating in public relations on this one.

Depends on which side of the river you live.  I'm near 111th & Memorial so it doesn't directly affect me except that I take Delaware to get home from work. It's impossible to get on the Turnpike at Jenks and Memorial is intolerable going south from the Turnpike for the trip home.
I assume this area is prime development land

A lot of it is low and in the flood plane.

[waterboy]

The tribes don't care much about PR. Otherwise they wouldn't proudly advertise their racism in employment practices or their failure to include their slaves's decendants in tribal membership. What they do care about is the same thing that drives Jenks and these developers...money, suburban growth and control.

This is a squeeze play by Jenks/Creeks/Private Developers to force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa. If Tulsa county's population was surging this would make sense. But, the pie is not getting larger, this group simply is intent on getting a bigger piece of pie. If it works we can only hope that a plan is made for upgrading, maintenance and future light rail that benefits our side of the river.

[patric]

If we get to the point where Eminent Domain us used to build an Indian Casino, you know it's gone too far...

[Red Arrow]

Private developers force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa.

Why is it that I hear no (or at least very little) objection to the development on Memorial between 101st and 111th on the east side, Bixby?  Memorial is as much a political (tax income) boundary as the river.  Where is the Coaliton of Concerned Tulsa Citizens Against Economic Development Just Across the City Border (CoCTCAEDJAtCB) on this issue?

I'm sure that some folks are sincere in their economic development objections.  I also believe that for many it is just a smoke screen to keep traffic out of their neighborhood areas.

[waterboy]

You may be right that the near Bixby development impacts that area, but there is no need for a public bridge at 101st & Memorial and no coalition of investors formed to upgrade public streets in those areas and then charge the public for using them. Simply private development.

The difference is in assembling private investors and merging with an outlying town to force a larger public entity into funding their interests.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Private developers force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa.

Why is it that I hear no (or at least very little) objection to the development on Memorial between 101st and 111th on the east side, Bixby?  Memorial is as much a political (tax income) boundary as the river.  Where is the Coaliton of Concerned Tulsa Citizens Against Economic Development Just Across the City Border (CoCTCAEDJAtCB) on this issue?

I'm sure that some folks are sincere in their economic development objections.  I also believe that for many it is just a smoke screen to keep traffic out of their neighborhood areas.

At least Memorial is partly paid for by the state (and the feds). And it runs through an essentially 100% commercial area for miles beyond Bixby. There are significant differences, although I agree that the principle is largely the same.

I think part of the frustration may be that the former developers refused to even consider connecting the bridge to Riverside instead of Yale. A Riverside connection would make far more sense for the City of Tulsa if this bridge does end up being built.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

I think part of the frustration may be that the former developers refused to even consider connecting the bridge to Riverside instead of Yale. A Riverside connection would make far more sense for the City of Tulsa if this bridge does end up being built.

I think the connection needs to be to BOTH Delaware(Riverside) and Yale.

The connection to Delaware/Riverside makes sense for people working downtown or near the river as my friend and I did (for a while) at CityPlex. There are also some significant shopping opportunities to be accessed by Yale and access to St Francis would also be good. I will side with the folks along Yale that the road needs to be upgraded to handle any additional traffic. (When the Mingo Valley Expy ended at 51st, it took me 30 minutes to get there from 111th & Memorial. Avg speed 14 MPH.) The biggest improvement difficulty would be over "Yale hill" between 81st and 91st.  The setbacks from Yale south of the turnpike are probably sufficient but  there would be a LOT of dirt work to do.

[Jitter Free]

I'll take either a Riverside or Yale connection over the sillyness that the Creeks are proposing, a connection in between Sheridan and Yale.  IMO that just doesn't make any sense.

Infrastructure is a key issue.  The roads have to be upgraded to handled the additional traffic no matter where it connects.  I'm with Red Arrow on that the Yale hill will an issue.  I'm sure it can be done.  I am just guessing the price is very very high.  I don't see the Creeks chipping in to help Tulsa with these costs.

Since its going to be a toll bridge, why not just dedicate all of the tolls to upgrading the infrastructure before anyone gets a dime?  After the infrastructure is paid for, then tolls can be divided up amongst the Creeks and the Cities.  Just a thought.






 

[godboko71]

Can someone explain to me why everyone is trying to keep Tulsa out of this?

Talk about bad PR for everyone involved.

[Jitter Free]

Financing, location, infrastructure and revenue sharing are the issues.

Financing.  IMO Tulsa really doesn't want the bridge.  But even if they did, neither Tulsa, Bixby or Jenks has the money to build the bridge.  I think the cost estimates I heard about a couple of years ago were $40 million plus.  Jenks and Bixby went out and found them a sugar daddy.  The first time it was a group of private investors (the Supreme Court said no to that idea) and now it is the Creek Nation.

Location.  Tulsa wants it at Riverside and won't agree to a Yale connection.  Jenks is hell bent on putting it at Yale (or I guess now anywhere but Riverside).  Bixby doesn't care.    

Infrastructure.  Tulsa needs money to pay for the infrastructre to handle the bridge traffic which I think is somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars.  No one has any money for infrastructure.  Not Tulsa, not Jenks, not Bixby and not the Creeks.

Revenue Sharing.  Jenks wants a bridge and a large portion of the toll revenues from it and doesn't want to give Tulsa dime.  Bixby just wants a bridge and doesn't care about the toll revenue.  Tulsa hasn't even got around to thinking about asking for a share of the toll revenues because there they don't like the location and there is no money to pay for infrastructure.

Why has Tulsa been cut out?  Because for once (knock on wood and let's hope for more), it seems that Tulsa is being logical.  Jenks wants to dictate every issue point to the detriment of Tulsa and Tulsa to date has said "no thank you."  So Jenks in typical bully fashion goes and finds a partner (the Creeks) that isn't subject to state or local law so Jenks can have their cake and eat it to.  Why is Tulsa being cut out, the same reason as everything else "money" plain and simple.