The City as LandLord....

[cannon_fodder]

I would consider it public notice, yes.  It has to be published somewhere and most every publication requires a subscription.  The information is also posted on the Council agendas which are free to view, as are the meetings to attend.

So yes, the notices are public.  But no, no one here can manage to post a link to them?  That notice wouldn't suffice as "public notice" for any other purpose, including by the definition of common sense.

[TulsaSooner]

So yes, the notices are public.  But no, no one here can manage to post a link to them?  That notice wouldn't suffice as "public notice" for any other purpose, including by the definition of common sense.

What does providing a link have to do with a public notice?  They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?

[Wrinkle]

What does providing a link have to do with a public notice?  They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?

You're quite right.
Back then, Public Notices were posted, literally, to the wall in a certain place, like they did at old City Hall outside the parking level doors. That, and also published in the paper(s). I forget the exact regulation, something like "two widely circulated publications" within [timeframe].

While, I'm sure, whatever is being done conforms to current specification, it's the specification which needs updating. That is, unless Ms. Dexter wrote the opinion, then I'd wonder if there's actual conformance. I haven't seen the latest incarnation of the spec, but the Mayor did install a new 'posting' process at One Tech whereby 'public notices' were to be posted on LED displays in the lobby. Think I have some questions about that from a legitimatcy standpoint.

At the very least, I personally believe it's time to bring all this into the Electronics Age of at least the late 1990's.  If it can be posted to an LED display in the lobby of One Tech, it can also be posted anywhere on the net.

There's no good reason why all this should not be publicly available to anyone with a PC and an inet connection.

Frankly, I think we need a wholesale re-write of Title 3 - City of Tulsa Ordinance (PDF File link below):

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/31825/title%203%20-%20public%20property,%20records,%20flag,%20seal%20s19.pdf

We need a Council/Councilor to push this, but in addition, perhaps a good Forum like TulsaNow could take the re-write upon themselves and submit/coordinate with the Council.

This is the kind of activity one might expect to be accomplished on a forum such as this.

[cannon_fodder]

What does providing a link have to do with a public notice?  They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?

You are correct, in the 1970's no notices were published on the "internet".  So it would be safe to assume they didn't post any links.  But today, in 2009, many people use the internets.  If a notice is "public" it would be widely available and likely on the internet.  If it wasn't on the internet, it would be very easy to scan such a document into a "computer" and post it on the "internet".  Or were you just being obtuse?

Today, 2009, other required notices that are published are done so in periodicals and journals of general circulation.  They are easy to get your hands on.  Furthermore, those publications generally have notices available online.  For the most part, if something is given as "public notice" it is available online.

Having them readily available online is even MORE important if one seeks transparency or advertisement.   Transparency because crazies out there will always allege the government is doing something nafarious unless they can prove otherwise.  And good for them.

Advertisement because selling bonds requires marketing.  If you can get people that WANT your bond you may be able to command a better rate or other terms.  The more people available to bid on it, the more likely that is to happen.  If you fail to do so you may only end up with a small group of interested persons making offers and not get the best terms.

So the City probably is meeting minimum requirements.  Would one HOPE that our City does more than is minimally required to give public notices.  Posting it online wouldn't be difficult or costly.  It would take 5 minutes and essentially be free.

As it stands, we have an interested group of citizens on this board who are unable to follow millions of dollars flowing to and from our City.  On my part it is due to sloth, but apparently others on here have tried to track them actively and failed.  So it would appear something isn't as it should be.

[shadows]

City legal's answer to the posting of notices would be "this is the way we have always done it".

Same with Public Works scandal "this the way we have always done it" (it was the Fed's that questioned it)

[Red Arrow]

City legal's answer to the posting of notices would be "this is the way we have always done it".

Same with Public Works scandal "this the way we have always done it" (it was the Fed's that questioned it)

Years of tradition unhampered by progress.

[Townsend]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/895-KWGS-Public-Radio-Tulsa/137239999832?ref=mf&v=wall

89.5 KWGS Public Radio Tulsa - Report on Old City Hall finds too many problems and code violations to lease or sell. Advised to implode building. It's costing Tulsans more than 1/2million$ to maintain.

[cannon_fodder]

*Gasp*

Who saw that coming?

I mean, other than me and most everyone on this forum.  I said when the plan was announced that the City would have to pay to sit on the building for years and ultimately would have to pay for or at least chip in on the demolition of that eye sore.   Frankly, if I thought of that (and many others) then one has to imagine the planners who actually studied the issue either thought of it and didn't care or didn't do their damn job.

Step 1: Commission study that pays the researchers more if they advise moving
Step 2: Move City Hall
Step 3: Reveal that the move cost more money than it should have, the subleasing isn't happening as predicted, the maintenance is higher than expected (who thought we would have to wash windows?), the extra city property would sit vacant, and the old city hall will never be developed. 

I'm some jerkoff blowhard on the internet, why did I see this coming and people paid to give a damn didn't?  Bull crap, they saw it coming but didn't care.  They wanted to move city hall and did.  The rest is just crap made up to placate the people paying the damn bill.

Call me when this transaction ends up being a good deal for the citizens of Tulsa.

[Wrinkle]

What's new here is the code violation claims.

Imagine, the City operating all those years in a non-compliant building.
I'll call whitewash. The code claims are nothing more than basis for taxpayer funded demolition (as previously planned).

Personally, it'd be a perfect place for a law office. Lease it up with court-bound legal aids, remote news field offices, etc.

It'd work even if it took a couple million to get there.

But, that's not the plan. Someone wants us to pay to demolish it so they have a nice clean site to develop. Also note there'll be added emphasis to get this done before our Mayor times out.

What a waste.

[Wrinkle]

If someone in planning wanted to do something worthwhile, they'd start working on a new location for the US Post Office.

Not only is that THE prime development area adjacent to the BOInc Arena, it inhibits any development of the plaza area in a deathly way.

That's been someone's ace in the hole throughout this entire deal.
It'll take 5 years to develop that site, during which time the old City Hall could be generating not only revenue, but provide a real service.

[sgrizzle]

I'm some jerkoff blowhard on the internet...

[Conan71]

Awesome!  Instant epitaph!

[RecycleMichael]

I think they should have a raffle for the person who gets to turn the switch to blow up the old city hall. I would buy a chance....

[FOTD]

I think they should have a raffle for the person who gets to turn the switch to blow up the old city hall. I would buy a chance....

No can do RM. Too many nearby props and that leaky garage to blast away.

Put Himelfarb out there with a pick and shovel....

"If I had my way
If I had my way
In this wicked world
If I had my way
I would tear this old building down"
Rev. Gary Davis

[RecycleMichael]

No can do RM. Too many nearby props and that leaky garage to blast away.

You believe their propaganda?

I think a blasting company could be contacted for a different opinion...