You know, this argument is funny to me. We aren't talking about a P&L statement here, we are talking about a quality of life issue. We all profess to want a better quality of life for the residents of the area, or at least I think we are. Maybe we are just talking about quality of life for Tulsan's and not the citizens of the surrounding communities.
If you want the quality of life that comes with living in Tulsa... live in Tulsa. As a resident of Tulsa, why do I want to pay for a bridge so Bixby residents can enjoy a better quality of life? Of course I want a nicer metro area. But not at the expense of Tulsa. On many levels, we ARE talking about Tulsa's P&L.
Another route across the river would decrease commute times which, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life as it leads to less time sitting in a vehicle stuck in traffic.
For Bixby/Jenks residents. This bridge will not increase the quality of life for Tulsa residents, so why would Tulsa want to pay for the bridge or for the other needed infrastructure?
I also think it improves quality of life by providing for increased public safety as it gives emergency vehicles another route to respond via which should decrease response times. I know I keep saying it, but I am very concerned that sometime soon a person is going to die due to a traffic backup caused by only having one convenient route across the river into/out of Bixby.
First, this is anecdotal. I have not heard there is a significant problem with response times to Bixby, Jenks, etc. Second, if there is a safety issue in these communities - it seems that would factor into the decision to move there and be a problem that the community should solve. Pockets of Tulsa have crime problems, is Bixby building infrastructure to help Tulsa with those areas? Of course not.
- - -
The sales tax argument is sound. If adding this bridge would contribute to Tulsa sales tax base more than it would detract from the resident/property tax base, it could be an economically sound decision. But there isn't commercial in that area. So I remain dubious.
Plus, Bixby is tax rich. They have 53mil in revenue and 19k residents (To Tulsa's 400k residents and 700mil revenue). So it seems Bixby is sniping sales tax revenue, not donating it (or their residents are just really, really heavily taxed).
- - -
Here's the deal:
Tulsa is in competition with the suburbs. I know the METRO Tulsa Chamber doesn't like to mention it, but there is only so much development that the metro will support. For a time Tulsa was happy to sprawl east, then south. Then Broken Arrow boomed. Then Owasso. Now Jenks/bixby. For a long time Tulsa didn't really seem to care, we are the big city... let the suburbs do as they please. Unfortunately, we lost a ton of tax base. We lost a ton of density. We have been fairly stagnant city for nearly a generation now. That makes new development harder, that makes big ideas harder, it makes maintaining the sprawl that we acquired harder.
While we do share a lot of common interests with our entire metro and region and we do need to work together on lots of things (it isn't a zero sum game) - but Tulsa needs to realize that our interests are not always aligned. Having nice suburbs and bedroom communities can add to a city. But if they are at the expense of the City, they can also replace it.
The Tulsa residents of the area don't want the bridge. Tulsa residents aren't likely to use the bridge. It won't add to the quality of life for Tulsa residents. Why does Tulsa want to pay for a bridge and/or related infrastructure to add to the quality of life and further development of Bixby?
I certainly get why Bixby wants to do it...