Ideas on funding/fixing public safety

[Conan71]

Because the tire dealerships are the one's profiting off this misery, FOTD is proposing a windfall profits tax on them.

Post of the day.

Don't forget the brake and alignment shops too. 

[nathanm]

I think that most believe they are paying their own way through taxes. 

They may believe that, but the city's budget proves that is not the case.

Regarding BKDotCom's complaint that taxes only ever go up, how about you look at inflation, eh? I'm not saying there's no waste in government in general, much less CoT in particular, but obviously the money needed to pay the (usually low by private standards) salaries of public employees will only increase over time, even if the number of employees remains the same.

[shadows]

Homeowner's monthly payments go up (or exceed monthly loan payment) after paying off the loan?

The issue here is taxes only go up... never down.
Why is that?
Because government keeps bloating...
police and fire salaries are crazy high...there's outrage that we don't have more officers...

There must be an error on the taxes increasing.  In every bond issue election it is published that the passage will not increase taxes as a previous bond issue will be paid off by the time the bonds are sold.   And the president has nixed the exploration of the moon for further taxable property to secure payment on future bond issues.   

[Red Arrow]

They may believe that, but the city's budget proves that is not the case.

I cannot argue against the case that the overall budget is not there beyond the fact that Oklahoma has a history of moving money from one "account" to another. I don't know if that was actually the case here.  That won't stop homeowners from believing they have paid their way.

[waterboy]

We obviously disagree on whether my comments have merit.

I was unable to find housing prices for midtown in 1971 to compare to the price of our house when our family moved here from near Philadelphia, PA.  I do know my parents wanted approximately 1 acre of land so we could have a big fenced in back yard for our German Shepherd dogs.  They also wanted more than the 25 or so feet between houses like the place we left behind.   They didn't care about sidewalks.  Bixby City water service was here but the houses were on septic systems. Sound like mid-town yet?  The price of the new "cheap place in the suburbs" was about 30% more than the selling price of the home back east.  The new place was about 3 years old, at approximately 1500 ft^2 had a bit less living area than the old place by not having a basement, but did have an attached  garage.  By the way, it is not a snout house.  Among other things we have a side entry garage.  (The lot is wide enough.)  The front wall of the garage is even with the living and dining rooms and actually recessed a few feet from the bedroom area.  My parents bought this place because it is what they wanted.

Let me help you with those 1971 prices. My parents sold their 1920's era home near 5th & Lewis for about $12,000. It had sidewalks, covered storm sewers, city water and sewer. A park, grade school and shopping center were about six blocks away by sidewalk. Bus lines, grocery shopping, firestations and such all were within walking distance.

He built a 2800ft home sitting on 3/4 acre at 48th and Columbia that year. Sound Midtown to you? It had a septic tank but city water. There were open ditches for street runoff, no sidewalks and no park land. It was a developers dream except for the density. When that area was developed piecemeal through several decades, builders had to pay for city sewer lines to be built on their developments. This area opted to not do that. The services ran close to my parents home but the cost to hook up to it would have been prohibitive by the time they moved there. Around $300,000 if I remember. The cost to build that home was $30,000.

He was able to build it because, as a painting contractor, his income was fueled by the rush to the suburbs for cheap, insular housing whose infrastructure was being paid for up front by the community. The sales price he paid would have gotten him a much larger home with lower taxes. BTW, that price home was 3 times the starting pay of a college educated accountant at the time. Those executives were busy buying homes along the fringes of the city because they could get a home like my father's (on a bit less land) for about $22,000 and much lower real estate taxes. Dad paid $800 a year. What did you pay in Bixby? Much less because you got a lot less.

Soon, the city of Tulsa removed the requirement for infrastructure funded by developer/builders as well as any requirement for sidewalks, public parks and grid designed streets. I don't know exactly when that happened, but I assure you it was not because homebuyers stopped wanting those things.

[waterboy]

I am not intent on punishing midtown.   You claim the price you paid for your house included the cost of the roads.  Unless you bought it new, the price you paid went into the pockets of the previous owners.  You brag about the high home values and taxes you pay but evidently they are not enough since your residential roads are also in bad shape even without paying to widen the roads down here.   

This is just not accurate or logical. The purchase price of my home was higher per square foot than similar homes available outside of the center of the city at the time. Why? It wasn't because the sellers were greedier. It was because the sum total of factors used to determine livability were higher. Those factors: quality of craftsmanship, infrastructure, services, demographics, accessibility, security etc. were ALL available and paid for long before the rush to the burbs. As such, the purchase price of the home reflected those investments by those taxpayers. I paid the higher price because I perceived those factors were superior and worth the premium. Still do.

I'm sorry you perceived my comments as bragging. I am comfortable where I live. It sometimes sounds like puffery. Our perceptions of midtown are probably wildly differing. Let me be clear. My neighborhood is not suffering from bad roads. Our roads are underlaid with thick concrete. My sewer lines are old but the city has maintained them well. Until the last decade we seldom had power outages (coincided with the purchase of PSO by outside entity). Our real estate taxes are high, continue to rise and we see little positive change around here from those increases.

The areas of "midtown" that are suffering imo did not have the total of factors that my hood has. They suffer from poor planning during Tulsa's expansion period when builder/developers ran the city. The roads are inferior, and the maintenance is too.

Lastly, I'm not sure I do support impact fees. I just think that the expansion to the outlying areas has put a strain on local communities, including Tulsa, to pay for its support system. Strains that are not reflected in the cost of that housing or its tax base.

[Red Arrow]

Let me help you with those 1971 prices. My parents sold their 1920's era home near 5th & Lewis for about $12,000. It had sidewalks, covered storm sewers, city water and sewer. A park, grade school and shopping center were about six blocks away by sidewalk. Bus lines, grocery shopping, firestations and such all were within walking distance.

He built a 2800ft home sitting on 3/4 acre at 48th and Columbia that year. Sound Midtown to you?

Lot size is a bit bigger

It had a septic tank but city water. When that area was developed piecemeal through several decades, builders had to pay for city sewer lines to be built on their developments. This area opted to not do that. The services ran close to my parents home but the cost to hook up to it would have been prohibitive by the time they moved there. The cost to build that home was $30,000.

He was able to build it because, as a painting contractor, his income was fueled by the rush to the suburbs for cheap, insular housing whose infrastructure was being paid for up front by the community. The sales price he paid would have gotten him a much larger home with lower taxes. BTW, that price home was 3 times the starting pay of a college educated accountant at the time. Those executives were busy buying homes along the fringes of the city because they get a home like my father's (on a bit less land) for about $22,000 and much lower real estate taxes. Dad paid $800 a year. What did you pay in Bixby? Much less because you got a lot less.

Soon, the city of Tulsa removed the requirement for infrastructure funded by developer/builders as well as any requirement for sidewalks, public parks and grid designed streets. I don't know exactly when that happened, but I assure you it was not because homebuyers stopped wanting those things.

Wow! I didn't realize my parents saved so much money.  

They got a 3 year old 1500 ft^2 house (+attached 2 car garage) on about 1-1/4 acre.  Dad immediately added a fence around the back yard for the dogs.  One edge was already fenced by a neighbor for their dog.  Local services included Bixby city water which was nice because it kept the fire insurance rates down. We have natural gas for heating and cooking.  Mom hates to cook on an electric stove.  We too had (and still have) a septic tank.  No sidewalks (for which I am grateful, no shoveling), and a gravel driveway.  There were a few small trees but dad added several trees and a row of holly trees along the back border and a hedge partly along another. The city installed sanitary sewer lines a few years ago mostly because the houses in the lower elevations had septic tanks didn't always work.  High school for my sister was in downtown Bixby (we are a little southeast of 111th & Memorial).  There were a couple of small convenience stores within a mile that didn't have much in them. The nearest real grocery store was Bud's Thriftywise in downtown Bixby (4? mi south) or Warehouse market near 21st & Garnett.  Later, Skaggs Albertsons built at 51st & Memorial, only about 7 miles up Memorial.   Bud's had a captive market, knew it, and charged accordingly.  We did most of our grocery shopping in Tulsa.  Bixby had a $.01 local sales tax and Tulsa had $.02.  We still did most of our shopping in Tulsa; food, clothes, car gas. I bought gas at the Texaco station at 51st & Memorial for a few cents more per gallon than the closer DX station because DX gas gummed up my carburetor and got 11 mph instead of 12 to 13 on Texaco around town.  (1966 Buick Skylark GS, like a GTO or Olds 442) Some of dad's co-workers asked if it took forever to get there. He told them it was about 5 minutes more than their houses in the 51st-61st and Memorial-Yale area.  That was until Woodland Hills Mall came along a few years later.

So, summing up.  Significantly smaller house but somewhat bigger lot.  Nearest anything was 4 miles away, more car/transportation expenses.   Had to make a few improvements to the property to make it the way dad wanted it.  Few if any city services.  There are a few other issues comparing life in suburban Philadelphia and Tulsa/Bixby that were disappointing but they are not relevant to the difference between Tulsa and Bixby.  Of the places that mom and dad had available, this place is what they wanted.  They didn't settle for it.  Over the years it became home and mom and dad cancelled their plans to retire in Florida.  Dad passed away about 9 years ago.  I live here and help mom take care of the place because we both like it here and mom would not be happy in a small yard without the dogs.

AND, compared to your parents, they saved a whopping, DRUM ROLL PLEASE....... about $1500.  The place was $28,500.


Edit:
I couldn't find the receipt for the fence. It is about 470 ft of 4 ft high galvanized chain link including 2 people gates 4 ft wide and one double gate 12 ft wide at the end of the driveway.

[waterboy]

We obviously disagree on whether my comments have merit.

I mentioned a county level impact fee.  You dismissed my previous points as being without merit.  What good would a City of Bixby (or Broken Arrow) impact fee do for Tulsa?  There are a lot of houses within the Tulsa city limits that weren't here 39 years ago. Some of those additions are pretty pricey and their lot sizes are not that big. Their taxes should  pay for some widening even without a special assessment or impact tax.  Or should those taxes go to fix residential streets in midtown? Again, in the case of Memorial Drive, there are federal and Bixby dollars involved in the widening south of the Creek Turnpike.  I will admit to using Riverside/Delaware and 121st to drive home from work.  It has been widened already between Memorial and Sheridan. (Bixby territory)

Just as I am willing to support public transportation that I will probably never use because it might get some cars off the road and make driving easier for me, I believe the expressways have benefited you by keeping traffic off many of your major arterial streets.  I don't believe all the traffic on the arterials is by suburbanites either.  By expressways I am thinking of Skelly (I-44), BA Expy (51, US64), I-244, US75, US169, US412.  Note that these have state or federal dollars involved which means I helped pay for them too.  The Creek Turnpike which I usually take to work is, of course, a toll road.  

The expressways also make it easier for the nasty suburbanites to come to the BOK center which doesn't help Bixby, BA, Owasso, Jenks, Glenpool beyond a little county sales tax but we helped pay for it. Can/does downtown and midtown Tulsa completely support the PAC, Old Lady on Brady.  How about the new ball park?  What would happen if suburbia decided it wasn't worth the drive downtown without the expressways or good arterial streets?  I expect the financial models for these entities depend somewhat on the dreaded tax leaching suburbanites. I also know of at least a few people that work downtown and stay for things like burger night at McNellies.  They are not the majority of the customers for sure but I doubt I'll see a "Suburbanites Keep Out" sign any time soon.

We moved here in August 1971. I believe Cities Service must have already been here since Sheridan was paved, as I remember, all the way to 121st. There wasn't much there though.

It's getting late so I'd better stop for tonight.

Well, here's the thing. I lived in near downtown, near midtown, near everything neighborhoods before all the so called improvements like the interdispersal loop, the BA expway, the arena and, ball park etc. were built. In balance, they have NOT been beneficial to my hoods. Their design, regardless of who currently uses them, are to facilitate movement of populations FROM the burbs to the properties downtown owned by private interests. Nothing about that benefits me. We were quite comfortable at 4th place and Lewis when I grew up without any of those things. I was quite comfortable where I am now without a new arena, a new ball park and the massacre of interdispersal loop properties. They did nothing for us but cause increases in our taxes without increasing our home values.

I do wonder how the city would have progressed had we not caved into these false assumptions that intercity expressways were absolutely the answer to our problems of growth. Perhaps it would have collapsed the downtown core. Not likely because there was already enough business to substantiate its existence when Bixby and BA were just farm towns. Nonetheless, we're here and we need to figure out more equitable ways to pay for our existence. Like I said, I'm not convinced impact fees would do that. However, solutions are not going to come from the existing players who devised the current system of expansion.

edit: Oh, yeah. When I worked for Cities back in 1974-1976, Sheridan road was still not paved south of 61st. I remember specifically giving a coworker a ride to his new home in the area and being quite peeved that my 69 Chevelle was getting rocks thrown on the finish. He was anxious for the city to get it paved too.

[waterboy]

Lot size is a bit bigger
Wow! I didn't realize my parents saved so much money. 

They got a 3 year old 1500 ft^2 house (+attached 2 car garage) on about 1-1/4 acre.  Dad immediately added a fence around the back yard for the dogs.  One edge was already fenced by a neighbor for their dog.  Local services included Bixby city water which was nice because it kept the fire insurance rates down. We have natural gas for heating and cooking.  Mom hates to cook on an electric stove.  We too had (and still have) a septic tank.  No sidewalks (for which I am grateful, no shoveling), and a gravel driveway.  There were a few small trees but dad added several trees and a row of holly trees along the back border and a hedge partly along another. The city installed sanitary sewer lines a few years ago mostly because the houses in the lower elevations had septic tanks didn't always work.  High school for my sister was in downtown Bixby (we are a little southeast of 111th & Memorial).  There were a couple of small convenience stores within a mile that didn't have much in them. The nearest real grocery store was Bud's Thriftywise in downtown Bixby (4? mi south) or Warehouse market near 21st & Garnett.  Later, Skaggs Albertsons built at 51st & Memorial, only about 7 miles up Memorial.   Bud's had a captive market, knew it, and charged accordingly.  We did most of our grocery shopping in Tulsa.  Bixby had a $.01 local sales tax and Tulsa had $.02.  We still did most of our shopping in Tulsa; food, clothes, car gas. I bought gas at the Texaco station at 51st & Memorial for a few cents more per gallon than the closer DX station because DX gas gummed up my carburetor and got 11 mph instead of 12 to 13 on Texaco around town.  (1966 Buick Skylark GS, like a GTO or Olds 442) Some of dad's co-workers asked if it took forever to get there. He told them it was about 5 minutes more than their houses in the 51st-61st and Memorial-Yale area.  That was until Woodland Hills Mall came along a few years later.

So, summing up.  Significantly smaller house but somewhat bigger lot.  Nearest anything was 4 miles away, more car/transportation expenses.   Had to make a few improvements to the property to make it the way dad wanted it.  Few if any city services.  There are a few other issues comparing life in suburban Philadelphia and Tulsa/Bixby that were disappointing but they are not relevant to the difference between Tulsa and Bixby.  Of the places that mom and dad had available, this place is what they wanted.  They didn't settle for it.  Over the years it became home and mom and dad cancelled their plans to retire in Florida.  Dad passed away about 9 years ago.  I live here and help mom take care of the place because we both like it here and mom would not be happy in a small yard without the dogs.

AND, compared to your parents, they saved a whopping, DRUM ROLL PLEASE....... about $1500.  The place was $28,500.

Don't get me wrong. I love Bixby, especially its large lot homes just south of 101st. But those aren't comps for my dads home. It was twice the size and located within the city. Also, that $1500 difference indexed to the same accountants salary today equates to about $7500. Along with the lower taxes, that is enough to sway a homebuyer even today.

[Red Arrow]

Don't get me wrong. I love Bixby, especially its large lot homes just south of 101st. But those aren't comps for my dads home. It was twice the size and located within the city. Also, that $1500 difference indexed to the same accountants salary today equates to about $7500. Along with the lower taxes, that is enough to sway a homebuyer even today.

The point is that the difference was only 5% for a smaller house and other noted differences.  Since the house is a significant part of the cost of the house/lot, at least out here, the concept that my parents moved here to save money over a midtown house just isn't true.  If anything, it was more expensive for what they got.  One of the arguments for living closer to the city is the cost of running a car.  My parents were well aware of that and still chose to live out here.  Within reason, money was not the issue.

Edit:
I don't know if the higher density housing has been a plus for Bixby or not. There are the very same trade-offs you talk about concerning tax base and services required.  My personal opinion is that if you want to live in housing so close you cannot drive a car between the houses to put your boat in the back yard, you should live in the city.  Just being selfish.

[Red Arrow]

Well, here's the thing. I lived in near downtown, near midtown, near everything neighborhoods before all the so called improvements like the interdispersal loop, the BA expway, the arena and, ball park etc. were built. In balance, they have NOT been beneficial to my hoods. Their design, regardless of who currently uses them, are to facilitate movement of populations FROM the burbs to the properties downtown owned by private interests. Nothing about that benefits me. We were quite comfortable at 4th place and Lewis when I grew up without any of those things. I was quite comfortable where I am now without a new arena, a new ball park and the massacre of interdispersal loop properties. They did nothing for us but cause increases in our taxes without increasing our home values.

I do wonder how the city would have progressed had we not caved into these false assumptions that intercity expressways were absolutely the answer to our problems of growth. Perhaps it would have collapsed the downtown core. Not likely because there was already enough business to substantiate its existence when Bixby and BA were just farm towns. Nonetheless, we're here and we need to figure out more equitable ways to pay for our existence. Like I said, I'm not convinced impact fees would do that. However, solutions are not going to come from the existing players who devised the current system of expansion.

edit: Oh, yeah. When I worked for Cities back in 1974-1976, Sheridan road was still not paved south of 61st. I remember specifically giving a coworker a ride to his new home in the area and being quite peeved that my 69 Chevelle was getting rocks thrown on the finish. He was anxious for the city to get it paved too.

If your hood was in the path of the expressway, it was certainly not beneficial to you.  Maybe it has affected your opinion a bit.  We were here when the BA ended before downtown and 13th and 14th streets were used for the rest of the trip (according to my well worn 1971 Phillips 66 Tulsa and OK City street map).  I will agree that the IDL was probably not well thought out.  I do think that the relatively fast transportation to the suburbs was necessary.  Too bad it wasn't light rail.  That was one thing we had in suburban Philly.  In fact, my parents' first home was about 100 yards from a (real) trolley stop that would get you into Philly, in about the same time as driving your car.  There is probably a majority of TNF posters that prefer the urban life.  I think that is skewed somewhat from the population in general.  True, most of the suburbanites going downtown were going to private properties.  Can you say that Tulsa is better now that most of those private oil companies have moved to Houston or elsewhere?  The expressways were certainly not a direct benefit to you but I think overall the expressways are a benefit, excluding the IDL design.  Not having the expressways would not have stopped growth of the suburbs.

Tulsa is obviously in need of more money.  To some extent, it would be nice if Tulsa were self supporting for its necessities.  This would raise prices for all Tulsans but that could be considered the price of all the goodies mentioned as a benefit of urban life.  Unfortunately that would be tooooo expensive and some (like my parents) wouldn't want to live in the city anyway.  Making it illegal for private businesses to employ anyone living outside the COT limits probably wouldn't fly either.  I can see a case for it for city paid employees.  The easiest way to get money from the suburbanites is to make spending money in Tulsa as attractive as possible.  That supports the businesses that employ Tulsans (hopefully) and since there is a city sales tax, creates instant revenue from the visitors.  "You" aren't going to do that by b*tching about the leaches from the burbs.  Make it easy to get to Tulsa destinations.  Don't try to squeeze visitors for every penny you can get.  My wallet squeaks loudly but most people are willing to pay a reasonable price for reasonable service. 

As much as I want a quick drive to wherever I go, bigger, better roads don't solve a city's traffic problem if you still have too many cars in too small a place.  Once you get to the end of the expressway, traffic stops.  We have all debated whether Tulsa is suitable for rail transportation.  I think some routes, like to BA, are potentially a winner.  Even if some subsidy is necessary, think about the subsidy for the roads that even 10% wouldn't be using.  You could get rid of maybe 10% of the surface parking with no impact on parking.  Up front money is always the problem and I don't have an instant answer to that beyond being a socialist and asking the Feds for some. 

'69 Chevelle, SS396?  That was the first muscle car I got to drive. A friend at a summer job got one and let me do a test drive (with him in the right seat) back when they were brand new.  Dark blue with a black vinyl top, 4 speed.   I think 68/69 GM intermediates were the first year that the width of the tire wasn't completely hidden by the lower part of the body work.  Lots of owners put rock deflectors behind the tires to keep the stones off the paint.  I won't insist that Sheridan was paved before I got out of the Navy in Nov 76.  I remember driving down Sheridan because it wasn't posted and Memorial was at 55.  I would not have beat up my car at 65 on a gravel road.

[waterboy]

5% is a lot of money. My dad's house today is about $250,000. In whole dollars, not accounting for inflation, that's 12,500. Enough to influence first home decisions. Your dad probably didn't move there for economics, but other people moved to the burbs for that 5% I assure you because I sold them some of their homes. I sold real estate after I left Cities Service up to 1980.

You add in the extra monthly savings in lower taxes that the burbs offered and it meant the ability to buy much more home in BA than you could in Tulsa. Of course there wasn't much in the way of schools but my buyer's didn't have children. There wasn't much in the way of entertainment either (couldn't buy a mixed drink in BA!) but that was always available in nearby sin city. There were no large employers in BA or Bixby either till Ford Glass moved in, but not to worry, Tulsa had employment at AA and....downtown.

No, I'm afraid there was very little benefit from the BA expressway to those of us who chose instead to buy existing housing and work to build up our hoods. Even its path was an obvious and expensive route. Rather than take an existing arterial such as 11th street, Admiral or 41st and simply widen and streamline them to reach east Tulsa quickly, then tie in to a 169 type highway, the planners slashed right across the heart of existing neighborhoods separating them and creating more havoc with exits and entrances. Saved us little time except when we were going to the lake for the weekend.

And, I agree that the outlying communities would have continued to grow because of the economic benefit, the fear of minorities and perceived crime in the city. That's not an idle statement. I know what was in their hearts when they asked me as a realtor to show them homes. They often told me bluntly. Geez. Even my parents eventually moved to Bixby for some of those same reasons. But I seriously wonder if we would now have better mass transit, including inner city rail and better maintained arterials had we not suckered in to the exprway rage.

The suckling from the Tulsa breast still continues today. The lady who manages Supercuts and cuts my hair lives in Sapulpa and commutes to Brookside. Several of my co-workers do too. They travel from BA, Bixby, Owasso and Sand Springs just to work here in midtown. How dismal must the employment picture be in those areas? It doesn't hurt Tulsa to receive the sales taxes on their lunches, their fuel or the revenue from their traffic tickets, but the rest of their income including groceries, rent, banking etc. goes to their hometowns. The truth is, housing is cheaper there. Tulsa is indeed self sufficient.

1969 Chevelle Malibu. 300hp 350v8. Turbo-hydramatic with 3:73 rear end. Nassau Blue with fawn interior. Burned rubber in all three gears! Bought it from a little old child nursery care owner. I miss that car.

[nathanm]

the bentonville rogers boom was due more to the fact that wal-mart started requiring ALL vendors have an office near HQ. 

Up to that time, most vendors officed in Fayetteville. There just wasn't enough space in Bentonville and Rogers in the late 90s-early 2000s. They've almost all moved to Bentonville or Rogers now, though. I think the last one on Millsap moved away sometime last year.

Fayetteville has done a lot of good things, development-wise, and it hasn't really hampered growth.. Before impact fees, they required the developer of a subdivision to dedicate a certain amount of land for neighborhood parks. (or funds in lieu) I think that started in 94 or 95. Believe me when I say there was much gnashing of teeth over that one. Being the pointy end of the wedge, the screaming over that was probably louder than the screaming over impact fees.

[BKDotCom]

They may believe that, but the city's budget proves that is not the case.

Regarding BKDotCom's complaint that taxes only ever go up, how about you look at inflation, eh? I'm not saying there's no waste in government in general, much less CoT in particular, but obviously the money needed to pay the (usually low by private standards) salaries of public employees will only increase over time, even if the number of employees remains the same.

And taxes, being percentage based, automatically match inflation...

[nathanm]

And taxes, being percentage based, automatically match inflation...

Sales taxes match inflation in certain areas, like food and consumer goods, but not in many other areas, where inflation is actually taking place. Moreover, with a cap on sales tax amounts, big ticket items that have already surpassed the maximum sales tax amount will produce zero extra sales tax no matter how much the price of that thing increases.

The point being that a truly across the board uncapped sales tax would be indexed to inflation, but the sales tax as currently implemented is not so indexed.