re: Ethics complaint against 2 city councillors

[blindnil]

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

[Knowing]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

Fox news did know what they were talking about!  They had the report in their hands and read the whole thing.  The report that was sent to the city by the Ethics hot line people was very flawed.  I have read both reports the one that was given to Fox News and what the city received from the Hot line people.  Fox's news report has much more information in it then the report from the hot line.  
After reading the hot line report I can see why Mr. Atkins had to say that he did not say what was in the report.  If he said he agreed to the report he would be lying.  The hot line report is nothing of what was given to the news as the councilor reported in the news confrence. The diatribe that the concilor was basing his information on was very flawed.  The flaw in the ethics report was made this way by the HOT LINE people not by Atkins.  Mr.Atkins from what I have been told did not have a chance to review the report before it was sent to the council.  This itself is wrong. that the person could not make sure that the report is correct.
I am not a true fan of Mr Atkins!
I do pay attention to him when I do see him at meetings or on TGOV or other news venues.
In each meeting he speaks the truth! He stands up for the neighborhoods when they are afraid too.  HE ASK QUESTIONS THAT HIT HOME!
Also people have him labeled as anti development! If one would only look at his record they would find different.  As when he was president of Swan Lake he backed many projects along 15 and utica.  Also he to my surprise backed the 14 and utica project with the stipulation that it had a PUD also stated he would back a BOA var. for additional sqt footage.
SO please do your home work; there is a difference between thinking and KNOWING.
knowing

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Knowing

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

Fox news did know what they were talking about!  They had the report in their hands and read the whole thing.  The report that was sent to the city by the Ethics hot line people was very flawed.  I have read both reports the one that was given to Fox News and what the city received from the Hot line people.  Fox's news report has much more information in it then the report from the hot line.  
After reading the hot line report I can see why Mr. Atkins had to say that he did not say what was in the report.  If he said he agreed to the report he would be lying.  The hot line report is nothing of what was given to the news as the councilor reported in the news confrence. The diatribe that the concilor was basing his information on was very flawed.  The flaw in the ethics report was made this way by the HOT LINE people not by Atkins.  Mr.Atkins from what I have been told did not have a chance to review the report before it was sent to the council.  This itself is wrong. that the person could not make sure that the report is correct.
I am not a true fan of Mr Atkins!
I do pay attention to him when I do see him at meetings or on TGOV or other news venues.
In each meeting he speaks the truth! He stands up for the neighborhoods when they are afraid too.  HE ASK QUESTIONS THAT HIT HOME!
Also people have him labeled as anti development! If one would only look at his record they would find different.  As when he was president of Swan Lake he backed many projects along 15 and utica.  Also he to my surprise backed the 14 and utica project with the stipulation that it had a PUD also stated he would back a BOA var. for additional sqt footage.
SO please do your home work; there is a difference between thinking and KNOWING.
knowing

Chip, is that you?

[8D]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

The article says 13th and Lewis (which is pretty close to my backyard). Does anyone know where, as in side of the street, this would be located? I'm curious if this would remove a couple of blighted houses...

I remember it as being on the North side of 13th. The first two houses west of Lewis. One was commercially used by a statistics company of some sort. The other is a nice little rental house but certainly nothing special. The two lots north of those properties may also be involved.

The issue at hand was the likely increase in traffic along 13th, the difficulty of entering/leaving the property and the resulting tie up along Lewis. All good points but the developer seemed to be working on the complaints. In reality, it is on a busy corner of a main thoroughfare (Lewis) and an entrance/exit street for the BA exprwy (13th). Hard to turn down a low impact credit union on the spot.

[Limabean]

"Low impact" is a relative term.

According to the actual neighbors who publicly spoke against this use, the drive-in bank would have a very real impact on their neighborhood.

My question is, why did the city reject the petition of 80 some-odd resident homeowners in lieu of a small stack of letters held up by a city councilor? Especially a city councilor whose district this wasn't even in?


At the hearing, everyone saw the neighbors who protested. Did anyone see or know who the pro-drive-in bank letters were even from? Who wrote the letters? Who were they written to?

Where is the transparency in this process?

A drive-in bank can be located on any number of locations. The developer doesn't have to have that bank at that corner just because they want it that way.

It is easier to move a bank that isn't even built thaen it is to move a neighborhood.

[waterboy]

I understand your paranoia with how stuff happens without anyone knowing and officials ignoring public sentiment. I was astounded that we would allow the second firehouse built in Tulsa, a building that still had stalls for the horse drawn firetrucks and was still habitable, to be demolished for parking for OSU Tulsa without even a whimper from all our history loving politicians and tea sippers. But this is not a very strong case. 13th & Lewis also has a "head" shop (that dates me for sure), a temporary employment office, a lot of bums living under the overpasses and along the railroad that is nearby too. A couple of empty small office buildings (one pretty darn cute) and an antique warehouse rounds out the area. I can't honestly see how traffic will be much affected or the neighborhood diminished by adding a fairly low profile credit union on this corner. It seems to even be an amenity they will enjoy. Perhaps more bank robbers will be attracted? I didn't see any studies or research showing any disastrous effects or increased traffic.

And why do numbers of names on a petition make any difference to the above statements? Every single person in that hood could have signed the petition to oppose the building and it wouldn't change the fact that this is not really a negative to the hood. It also wouldn't change the fact that the owner of those two properties has a right to make use of his property in this way absence any illegality or negative effects.

This is a corner lot on a busy arterial street. It would be expected to end up with commercial use. I would rather see the hood rare up and fight against the entrance and exits there, the speeding cars and the panhandlers and bums nearby or other meaningful issues.

[LongtimeTulsan]

There are several points that are being overlooked here regarding the process with which this situation was handled.

1. The neighborhood presented their petitions and reasons why the credit union would not be beneficial to their neighborhood at the TMAPC meeting. The number of signatures matter. The citizens in a neighborhood matter. This is commercial encroachment into a neighborhood.

2. Gomez and the development's lawyer met at the site on more than one occasion. Gomez did not meet with the Terrace View neighbors; did not take their calls; in effect he did not represent his constituients in this matter.

3. When the matter came before the City Council, Gomez had Martinsen enter into record letters that were written by the same secretary claiming to represent different land owners in Terrace View (including an out of state landowner). Gomez claimed that there was much support for the development and hadn't spoken with any one opposed. This is true, because he doesn't take phone calls or return phone calls from people opposed.

4 Gomez had a friend of his from Renaissance stand up, claim he represented Renaissance n/a, and then spoke in favor of the credit union in Terrace View. Residents of Renaissance were a little amazed by this representation as this Gomez friend was not the president, nor had any meeting been held to discuss this.

Gomez actually pitted one N/A against another N/A - both in his own district.

5. The petition. Those of you who have ever submitted a petition to the TMAPC are probably aware that they will do all they can to discredit that petition claiming that only persons living next door or within a 300' radius could possibly be affected.

6. The ethics violation concerned the letters entered into record by Martinsen. Why did Martinsen and not Gomez submit them? Why is it that these letters that claim to represent different people get typed by the same person (they put their initials on them) and neglect to put phone numbers or other contact information on them.

7. What benefit angle is Gomez working when he coddles a developer, works actively against his district, and misrepresents support for a project?

8. Using a city council seat to negotiate business for yourself is clearly an ethics violation.

9. As a side note, Gomez went out of town to avoid the 21st & Harvard City council vote.

The sad thing. Gomez is being played as a puppet. He is not bright enough to know that he is. He will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as he is voted out.

Interestly enough - his survey of issues in District 4 showed that the residents were in favor of conservation districts. Rather than to represent the consistuents - he chose to be vocal about streets and to work against conservation districts. Makes you think doesn't it?

[waterboy]

Yeah, he's a bad representative for our district. Thats why I didn't vote for him, yet he won pretty convincingly. Learn from it. By the time you spend your N/A capital on ousting him for ethics violations you could have influenced his defeat in the next election and found a suitable replacement. Choose your battles.

That doesn't change the fact that 13th & Lewis, and the neighborhood in general, is not going to suffer from having a credit union built there. It will in fact complement the neighborhood. A credit union in walking distance is not like a commercial lumber yard which used to be near by. IMO your real opponent in saving that hood is the hospitals' influence. They would like to cheapen your property, buy it for employee housing, parking and clinics so that they can compete with suburban operations. They'll replace Gomez with another just like him.

[TURobY]

4 Gomez had a friend of his from Renaissance stand up, claim he represented Renaissance n/a, and then spoke in favor of the credit union in Terrace View. Residents of Renaissance were a little amazed by this representation as this Gomez friend was not the president, nor had any meeting been held to discuss this.

Do you have a name of the friend? It is possible that they are on the board...

And for the sake of disclosure, I actually approve of the credit union.

[Neptune]

5. The petition. Those of you who have ever submitted a petition to the TMAPC are probably aware that they will do all they can to discredit that petition claiming that only persons living next door or within a 300' radius could possibly be affected.

A 300 yard radius is kind of big.  That's somewhere in the area of 1/6th of a mile. 

I don't understand the complaint.  Clearly people 4 miles away don't need to be taken into consideration.  We don't need a city-wide plebiscite every time someone wants to build something.

[Double A]

A 300 yard radius is kind of big.  That's somewhere in the area of 1/6th of a mile. 

I don't understand the complaint.  Clearly people 4 miles away don't need to be taken into consideration.  We don't need a city-wide plebiscite every time someone wants to build something.

That's 300 feet, not yards. I agree, you clearly don't understand. I am not surprised that you can't seem to get your facts straight, as usual. Nice spin, though. BTW, it was people in support of the project who live outside the 300 foot radius who were given consideration, instead of the folks that do. Ding, fries are done.

[Neptune]

That's 300 feet, not yards. I agree, you clearly don't understand. I am not surprised that you can't seem to get your facts straight, as usual. Nice spin, though. BTW, it was people in support of the project who live outside the 300 foot radius who were given consideration, instead of the folks that do. Ding, fries are done.

All Hail Dickwadicus!

A 300 foot radius is pretty big.

Yes, people from all over can speak for something.  It's up to those directly affected to speak against it.  If they don't have a case, no one does.  Some dude from the North side, clearly has no logical opposition to a development at 13th and Lewis.  Perhaps someone a couple miles away might oppose on utilitarian or stylistic grounds, but that's for another body; not TMAPC.

It helps keep the usual Tulsa droolers, like yourself, from making political hay out of every single development.  At least until it gets to City Council.

[Double A]

All Hail Dickwadicus!

A 300 foot radius is pretty big.

It's up to those directly effected to speak against it. 

300 ft isn't anywhere near as big as your credibility gap. Your breath must smell like turds, because you are constantly talking out of your rear. I am surprised you don't suffocate, since you seem to keep your head firmly planted there most of the time.

There were folks directly effected within the 300 foot radius who did speak against it. They were ignored because some sycophantic Councilor cronies who lived far outside that radius and were not directly effected supposedly support it. Your reading comprehension skills are remedial at best. Keep riding that short bus and digging that hole deeper.

Dickwadicus?

Really? Thanks for just proving my point.

[waterboy]

Hey, genius. The correct word is "affected". Funny how your name calling seems to be so impeccable while the rest of your post suffers.

With homes in that area averaging 40 to 50ft frontage, 300 ft means a 6-7 home radius. Moving eastward on thirteenth, that is mostly commercial and railroad. The southward radius includes almost entirely commercial and an expressway. Northward includes a few homes edged by commercial offices. The only real homes within that radius lie directly to the West and Northwest. So, very few homeowners seem to be directly AFFECTED by this decision or were included in the radius.

I drove past there again today. Its a losers argument. Look, if you would pressure the city to close the entrance to the BA exprwy on 13th west of Lewis, you would EFFECT more positive change in the neighborhood than trying to stop a credit union on Lewis. Its unnecessary since there is another entrance just west of Utica. Then make them justify having a short, high speed exit into the neighborhood just to allow access to the two hospitals on Utica and improving the value of Bumgarners property.

[pmcalk]

FYI, Waterboy, I think what the neighbors mostly didn't like is the fact that the development took out one of the houses, which they had recently petitioned to downzone to residential.  So after all of the effort of going before the TMAPC and getting a residential zoning, the bank swept the same property up into a PUD, and plans to tear down the house and put a parking lot on it.

I'm not saying it was a good or bad development, but I understand the frustration of the neighbors.  They took steps to assure that commercial development would not encroach into their neighborhood, but by using a PUD, the bank circumvented this.