News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

City considers swapping donated high ground for swamp land

Started by shadows, February 19, 2012, 08:47:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dbacks fan

Quote from: shadows on February 25, 2012, 09:04:11 PM
I sent the post by striking a hollow log for an Indian to post it with his Atari after they produced the computer language for their toy and one of our major manufactures sent it to Japan who duplicated it under their own brand.   Japan set the no repair policy and established the throwaway policy buying our scrap steel converting it to the articles of war they were planning.  China is buying our  recycling material now at a premium price with three trillion dollars of credit.      

I know some people from the Navajo that would string you up like Richard Harris in "A Man Called Horse" for that comment.


carltonplace


shadows


Gilcrease thought he was building both the Indian nations and Tulsa a monument for the world to see free of charge.  Had he wanted to he could have given it to TU a private university.  Instead this asset was given to the citizens of Tulsa.  He lacked the vision of seeing it being treating as a political football to be tossed around and pawned off to private ownership. He should have used the same writers in the transfer of the museum to Tulsa that Davis used with his gun collection in Claremore.
Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

Vision 2025

Quote from: shadows on February 28, 2012, 05:04:12 PM
Gilcrease thought he was building both the Indian nations and Tulsa a monument for the world to see free of charge.  Had he wanted to he could have given it to TU a private university.  Instead this asset was given to the citizens of Tulsa.  He lacked the vision of seeing it being treating as a political football to be tossed around and pawned off to private ownership. He should have used the same writers in the transfer of the museum to Tulsa that Davis used with his gun collection in Claremore.

A little misconception, the collection was not given to the City of Tulsa.  Mr. Gilcrease approached the mayor in need of funds to maintain the collection and ultimately SOLD the collection (and the origional grounds) to the City.  The purchase was approved by voters and authorized the sale of bonds to finance the deal and today the City still owns the collection as the transaction required.
Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info

shadows

Quote from: Vision 2025 on March 08, 2012, 02:34:26 PM
A little misconception, the collection was not given to the City of Tulsa.  Mr. Gilcrease approached the mayor in need of funds to maintain the collection and ultimately SOLD the collection (and the origional grounds) to the City.  The purchase was approved by voters and authorized the sale of bonds to finance the deal and today the City still owns the collection as the transaction required.
...
How about vision 2025 posting the details of the transaction with the condition imposed by Gilcrease.
.
Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

Hoss

Quote from: shadows on March 08, 2012, 03:19:46 PM
...
How about vision 2025 posting the details of the transaction with the condition imposed by Gilcrease.
.

What?  Google not your friend?

Townsend


Hoss

Quote from: Townsend on March 08, 2012, 04:07:47 PM
I've noticed he doesn't know how.

And the fact of the matter is that I don't think Gilcrease at that time was in a position to impose any 'conditions', since he was quite in debt.

Vision 2025

#38
Ok here's the story; l almost got it correct previously please no floggings. So rather than my memory I went to the source for the 'rest of the story' so to speak.  I talked to my Dad, he was City Attorney at the time, worte the deal and remembers it quite well.  

Mr. Gilcrease had borrowed money to acquire much of the collection which came from New York and when the price of oil plunged in the mid 50's he couldn't make the payments and was in significant danger of loosing the collection to the bank.  To keep it in Tulsa he approached the Mayor to purchase the collection and grounds for the cost of the debt against it (3 million by Dad's memory).  The Mayor proposed a bond issue which passed but ended up in the Supreme Court (an unsuccessful challenge) and the City sold bonds, acquired the collection, which was then assigned to the Park Board for management.  Mr. Gilcrease was so grateful that he then pledged to repay the bonds so that the citizens of Tulsa did not have too which he did with oil revenue which took many years past his death to accomplish.  Dad also recalled that the purchase agreement included a specific provision that the city could not sell the collection, don't know about the grounds.

   
Vision 2025 Program Director - know the facts, www.Vision2025.info

Hoss

Quote from: Vision 2025 on March 08, 2012, 07:00:34 PM
Ok here's the story; l almost got it correct previously please no floggings. So rather than my memory I went to the source for the 'rest of the story' so to speak.  I talked to my Dad, he was City Attorney at the time, worte the deal and remembers it quite well.  

Mr. Gilcrease had borrowed money to acquire much of the collection which came from New York and when the price of oil plunged in the mid 50's he couldn't make the payments and was in significant danger of loosing the collection to the bank.  To keep it in Tulsa he approached the Mayor to purchase the collection and grounds for the cost of the debt against it (3 million by Dad's memory).  The Mayor proposed a bond issue which passed but ended up in the Supreme Court (an unsuccessful challenge) and the City sold bonds, acquired the collection, which was then assigned to the Park Board for management.  Mr. Gilcrease was so grateful that he then pledged to repay the bonds so that the citizens of Tulsa did not have too which he did with oil revenue which took many years past his death to accomplish.  Dad also recalled that the purchase agreement included a specific provision that the city could not sell the collection, don't know about the grounds.

   


If I recall correctly the bonds were paid off in 1985.

shadows

Thank you for the whole story.  Gilcrease, and planners Hantan (sp) and Wilson told a different story.  During the construction of the building it was noted that it was not big enough to display the collection of the Indian and Western artifacts that he had collected. Gilcrease, I am sure could have sold the collection for three times any amount he owed to the western gamming boys but he built it as a tribute to the Indian nations and he said it would be a non commercial unity.  I believe he has some living children that one might ask about his venture.  Sorry I stand by my previous posts.  I apologize.

Having had a business on North Mingo road for some 50 years am sure I have pictures of the land the city is trading for under water.  Believe Wolf made pictures from helicopter also.   Someone come up with a simple way to post them I will do it.  Have instructions in the file but take too much time to find them.       
Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

shadows

Quote from: Hoss on March 08, 2012, 03:44:54 PM
What?  Google not your friend?
...

(The following is not intended to infringe on Google’s copyright but is indented only to further the information they have published under a possible copyright.  This is only an insert from such article.)

(Quoted: The museum was renamed the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art. In 1958 the founder deeded the museum buildings to the community along with more than thirteen acres of land. Gilcrease committed the revenues from some of his oil properties toward the reimbursement of the original bond amount, which was achieved in 1985.)

Seems there is a question as to how many acres and when they were deeded to the community.  Did the articles of transfer of ownership show the large acreage that is being traded?

It has become a political football where the elite meet to eat and the working poor, retirees and aged pick up the tab payable by increasing city taxes.
Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

Hoss

Quote from: shadows on March 10, 2012, 04:27:18 PM
...

(The following is not intended to infringe on Google's copyright but is indented only to further the information they have published under a possible copyright.  This is only an insert from such article.)

(Quoted: The museum was renamed the Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art. In 1958 the founder deeded the museum buildings to the community along with more than thirteen acres of land. Gilcrease committed the revenues from some of his oil properties toward the reimbursement of the original bond amount, which was achieved in 1985.)

Seems there is a question as to how many acres and when they were deeded to the community.  Did the articles of transfer of ownership show the large acreage that is being traded?

It has become a political football where the elite meet to eat and the working poor, retirees and aged pick up the tab payable by increasing city taxes.


You make me chuckle...

shadows

Quote from: Hoss on March 10, 2012, 04:43:51 PM
You make me chuckle...
...
Good buddy have yourself a good laugh

If you had talked with late Gilcrease or his advisors, you would have found him to have been a very dedicated person determined to establish a FREE ADMISSION museum in order to educate future generations of the old west.
It was known that he was later disappointed by the community not accepting the free gift of which in the end has become as a carnival side show charging admission to those who he wanted to reach with the gathered treasures.

There are several persons that could be considered as inheritors to the collection that could possibility find a court to rule on the way  it is being abused.  The court assessed Claremore/Rogers a multi-million dollar judgment on abuse of power and its citizens are not amused.   
Today we stand in ecstasy and view that we build today'
Tomorrow we will enter into the plea to have it torn away.

Hoss

Quote from: shadows on March 10, 2012, 06:01:40 PM
...
Good buddy have yourself a good laugh

If you had talked with late Gilscrease or his advisors, you would have found him to have been a very dedicated person determined to establish a FREE ADMISSION museum in order to educate future generations of the old west.
It was known that he was later disappointed by the community not accepting the free gift of which in the end has become as a carnival side show charging admission to those who he wanted to reach with the gathered treasures.

There are several persons that could be considered as inheritors to the collection that could possibility find a court to rule on the way  it is being abused.  The court assessed Claremore/Rogers a multi-million dollar judgment on abuse of power and its citizens are not amused.   


Let's remember who approached whom..it was Gilcrease.  The city didn't.  Thomas Gilcrease approached the mayor.

Buddy.  You need to get the images of black helicopters out of your head.