Vision 2025...Part 2?

[Townsend]

Investing in Ourselves

What Vision2 means to individuals, to businesses

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A53212

"Don't Stop Believing" was heard loud and clear in the BOK Center Thursday, Oct. 10, as the band Journey played to thousands of Tulsans, Northeastern Oklahomans and visitors from surrounding states. This wasn't the first time the band had visited Tulsa and performed in the top-ranked BOK Center. The arena, which has hosted Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, Lady Gaga and Disney's Icescapes, is testament to the successful investment the citizens of Tulsa County made in 2003 when voting to support Vision2025. The original Vision2025 initiative was intended to meet the needs of our region at that time. Close to 10 years later, our region is faced with a new set of needs to continue the successful momentum established with Vision2025.

Tulsa County Propositions 1 and 2, commonly referred to as Vision2, will meet the current needs of our region. Clearly, jobs are on the minds of our citizens, and a significant amount of investment is needed to meet this need. In addition, we only need to look down the turnpike to see that continued investment in a city can make a substantial difference in that city's future success. The MAPS projects in Oklahoma City have transformed that city, and Vision2 is our opportunity to continue to transform ours.



Tulsa County Proposition 1 matters to us all, whether we work at the aerospace and manufacturing facilities at the airport, or we have family members, neighbors or friends employed there. A yes vote on County Proposition 1 is investment in citizen-owned infrastructure at the Tulsa Industrial Airport (TIA) complex. It is critical we act now to ensure these facilities are ready for future growth, whether with current tenants or potential future employers.

Eleven thousand or more jobs matter. When considering indirect jobs, more than 15,000 Tulsa County families depend on the aerospace and manufacturing jobs at the TIA complex.

It is also easy to see how those 15,000 families impact the rest of us. Those 15,000 families own or rent homes throughout the region, shop at local grocers, eat out on the weekends at their favorite restaurant, purchase cars at one of the region's many car dealerships, fill up their cars at local gas stations, take their clothes to local cleaners and they probably order popcorn at the movie theater where one or more teenagers work part-time, saving up for their first car.

It is clearly evident these aerospace and manufacturing jobs are critical to the success of other small businesses in the area, and the sustained growth and success of the 10 cities located within Tulsa County. Proposition 1 is about building infrastructure and investing in ourselves. It is not about supporting any one company over another, rather it is about keeping the citizen-owned airport complex buildings in top shape to ensure facilities appeal to any aerospace company looking to hire skilled workers in the Tulsa region.

These employees are our friends and neighbors, and we should do everything we can to keep them, and their aerospace and manufacturing jobs, here.

In the same manner, the job creation fund portion of Proposition 1 is necessary to attract and keep companies that provide and create jobs in our region's major industries, including advanced manufacturing, aerospace and aviation, energy, health care, information security and transportation distribution and logistics, among others. The job creation fund is not a dirty word, secretive pot of money or corporate welfare as some would make it out to be. No dollars will be given directly to companies.

The fund is a necessary economic development tool in the high-stakes world of attracting business and industry to a community. We must not cut ourselves off at the knees by refusing to realize, understand and take part in a normal, expected method of attracting new industry and assisting expansion of current business. Tulsa is today and has been at an extreme disadvantage for far too long in competing with like-sized cities for industry and jobs. The job creation fund gives us our deserved seat at the table.

Capital improvements throughout Tulsa County are also needed to improve our communities and promote a healthy economy. Through Tulsa County Proposition 2, projects like the Tulsa County juvenile justice center to combat juvenile crime, levees in the Arkansas River to prevent flooding in West Tulsa, improvement to county roads, parks and trails, among others, are improvements that attract workers and companies to the region and keep existing successful businesses here.

Vision2 also gives us the opportunity to finally have much needed additional dams in the Arkansas River. One of our region's greatest untapped assets is the Arkansas River. It is an embarrassment to not have water in the river. Tulsans deserve to have water in their river, like so many other cities across the nation. Proposition 2 can finally make this happen.

Propositions 1 and 2 will not raise new taxes. Upon passage in November, an independent oversight committee, consisting of elected officials, will oversee the funds. This ensures the public will know exactly how the Vision2 funds are helping their community. The job creation fund will have strict criteria and oversight to ensure funds are used as intended.

There are no gotcha's or surprise gimmicks in the Vision2 package as some would lead voters to believe. In an age where citizens and cities are taking back the responsibility of their community's success, Vision2 gives us all the tools to continue positive momentum forward. We must not let the naysayers ruin the future of our city, our region, our collective spirit. A yes vote Nov. 6 on County Propositions 1 and 2 is a vote of confidence and belief in our region's ability to continue to succeed and prosper.

--Michael S. Neal is president and CEO of the Tulsa Metro Chamber.

[sgrizzle]

TulsaNow makes a counterproposal:
http://tulsanow.org/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/

[carltonplace]

TulsaNow makes a counterproposal:
http://tulsanow.org/index.php/2012/10/vision-2029/

Great list. The three things that I would add are the COTCH/PAC parking solution and the  East End Park and the Cathedral Square Park proposals. I think these three things could spur additional development in the Blue Dome, South Downtown and East Downtown.

[TeeDub]

I would be tempted to vote yes on the TulsaNow proposition.

What would the impacts be if that was a city wide vote instead of a county wide vote?

[erfalf]

I'm not an expert on the intricacies of city government. Are citizens allowed to write "proposals" like in D.C. I understand that at the state and federal level many people have their hands on pieces of legislation. Seems like this would be the only way to actually force council to do the right thing.

On that note, is it possible to take something like this directly to the people, ie get enough signatures or something?

[Townsend]

I would be tempted to vote yes on the TulsaNow proposition.

What would the impacts be if that was a city wide vote instead of a county wide vote?

The proposition is the city of Tulsa. 

[Conan71]

City wide rather than county wide is probably the best solution for a slate like this.  That gives each city and town within the county flexibility over their own sales tax base for local projects instead of the donor aspect the suburbs get on a county-wide tax and improvement plan.

Reading over the list, just curious how the funding numbers per line item were arrived at. 

OU and TU arguably have better donor bases than OSU (aside from Mr. Pickens).  OSU Medical Center is just plain scary.  I don't know any other way to describe it.  $2.1 million would barely cover improvements they need to make in their power plant, never mind medical equipment or ward upgrades.

-What does $71mm for the river buy?
-What does $20mm for the zoo buy?
-Why $10mm for a children's museum, $5mm for a Route 66 museum, $10mm for a pop museum, and only $750K for a "national" art deco museum which is actually in existence? (Okay, I admit that one is personal to me)
-What is the oversight on housing funds so we don't end up with another Sager?

I'm assuming this is simply an outline at this point and there would be some sort of application process for the neighborhood/district improvements.  Would the TNF proposal allow for fund shifting should all the $95 million not be needed/used at the airport?

Not nitpicking, just simply wanting to be more informed.

[JCnOwasso]

I am not big on handing money over for TU/OU either.  They have a combined Endowment of $2B.  Plus TU is a private school.  I can be very close minded on some things though.

[sgrizzle]

-What does $71mm for the river buy?
-What does $20mm for the zoo buy?
-Why $10mm for a children's museum, $5mm for a Route 66 museum, $10mm for a pop museum, and only $750K for a "national" art deco museum which is actually in existence? (Okay, I admit that one is personal to me)

The pop number is I believe what they asked the state for. the $5M is a made up ball-park number for building a two-story building on the location at the end of Riverside. William is the one who suggested $750k for the art deco museum. The rest are copied verbatim from the city council.

-What is the oversight on housing funds so we don't end up with another Sager?

In any loan/grant process there is the one who slips through. Sager was only one of the recipients and the rest worked fine.

I'm assuming this is simply an outline at this point and there would be some sort of application process for the neighborhood/district improvements. 

That came form the city with the idea being each district gets $1M and it would likely be funneled through that district's councilor. There is already some money in the city for this, albeit much less.

Would the TNF proposal allow for fund shifting should all the $95 million not be needed/used at the airport?

Our proposal only pays for building improvements that apply irregardless of tenant. No tools, no maintenance equipment. This should mitigate the "what if AA leaves" problem.

[sgrizzle]

Great list. The three things that I would add are the COTCH/PAC parking solution and the  East End Park and the Cathedral Square Park proposals. I think these three things could spur additional development in the Blue Dome, South Downtown and East Downtown.

The parking structure is on there. The east end people asked to not be included.

[sgrizzle]

I am not big on handing money over for TU/OU either.  They have a combined Endowment of $2B.  Plus TU is a private school.  I can be very close minded on some things though.

That money is specifically for the new medical school being built downtown that is a combined project. Like UCAT before it, the "flags" in front of the school may change over the years.

[carltonplace]

The parking structure is on there. The east end people asked to not be included.

Interesting.

[nathanm]

I also like this counterproposal. It does what needs to be done at the airport without giving a bunch away in job bribes without any guarantees as V2 does and manages to hit all the right points on the other stuff. Good work. Now to defeat V2 and get this on the ballot at the earliest opportunity!

[Conan71]

I also like this counterproposal. It does what needs to be done at the airport without giving a bunch away in job bribes without any guarantees as V2 does and manages to hit all the right points on the other stuff. Good work. Now to defeat V2 and get this on the ballot at the earliest opportunity!

There's four years, no need to rush it to the polls.  The main reason for this rush by the "they" I suspect, was the same reason they were trying so hard to get the river tax jammed in at the end of '07: fear of impending economic downturn.  Otherwise, why the hurry to bring a plan forward encumbering funds starting in 2017 right now and doing so with so little aforethought as to what all would benefit.

[nathanm]

There's four years, no need to rush it to the polls.  The main reason for this rush by the "they" I suspect, was the same reason they were trying so hard to get the river tax jammed in at the end of '07: fear of impending economic downturn.  Otherwise, why the hurry to bring a plan forward encumbering funds starting in 2017 right now and doing so with so little aforethought as to what all would benefit.

The rush I see is that the airport money needs to be spent soon. (if the place is in as bad a shape as is claimed) While I don't want to bribe companies into coming/staying here, I also don't want to support an image of neglect that might be projected if we vote down V2 without concrete plans to bring a better alternative to a vote at the earliest reasonable opportunity.