Government subsidized development

[RecycleMichael]

My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.

I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.

We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.

This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.

I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.

We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.

This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.

Absolutely right...the main arteries are the big connection that lets all of this work. 

And we have so much institutionalized rot in the process, you get those $30 million messes.  And I bet they will "pave" that with asphalt, too!

County commissioner structure in this state is one of the more obvious messes - visible at or near the "surface".  That same thing happens with a little less transparency at city level.

[Red Arrow]

They demand statistics from the government, do they also demand statistics from the churches?  

The local church cannot throw me in jail if I don't contribute to their kitty.

[Red Arrow]

This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.

I have no problem with improving a street downtown.  In return, I want arterial improvements farther out.

In my wish bag, I would like a bridge across the Arkansas to feed both Yale and Delaware.  Part of that needs to be improving Yale all the way north to maybe the Fairgrounds.

[TheArtist]

The local church cannot throw me in jail if I don't contribute to their kitty.

So?

[Teatownclown]

My apologies. I was projecting other things on you.

I guess I am just a little jaded from going to all the capital improvement meetings and seeing what a humongous amount of money we taxpayers spend on roads. Developers may have built roads in subdisions, but they didn't pay for the main arterials.

We voted yes on 488 million dollars worth of improvements just four years ago and now we are talking about. Widening Yale from 81st to 91st is estimated to cost $30 million alone. That amount of money could be used in so many other ways.

This conversation started because a clown called opening a road "municipal welfare". Opening fifth street up with public dollars will help the hotel, no doubt, but it will also help access to the library, the courthouse and the convention center. It is the exact type of project we should be doing for downtown Tulsa.

RM, Tori Snyder basically made the street improvement a demand on the city if the sellers were to turn the property over for a tax shelter to Levinson/Snyder. Also, please explain how the library and courthouses survived all these years without Zachary Street?

RM, what is a PFPI ?? Explain to your spooners what it is, how it differs from a normal city improvement, and why we have this designation.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't feel compelled to respond to your demands and negativity.

You feel rightous in attacking anything positive about downtown and any new restaurant in town. You are a miserable person and should be banned for any rational conversation.

[sgrizzle]

[Red Arrow]

So?

I thought it was obvious.  I guess not.

I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it.  I do care if my tax dollars are wasted.  I don't have to give money to a church.  I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.

[TheArtist]

I thought it was obvious.  I guess not.

I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it.  I do care if my tax dollars are wasted.  I don't have to give money to a church.  I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.

You must want to do something to better the world and help people.  That is either going to require you giving of your time and or money.   So your going to be giving one way or the other.   Whether that giving is coerced through threat of jail time or going to hell, or just of your own good nature.

The Republicans say that our money and or time should not go to government programs to "do the good works" "to reduce crime, poverty, etc." because the government is wasteful and ineffective,  but that it should instead go to the non-profit and religious sector to "do the good works".   I am not saying that the notion is wrong.  If I were not giving through my taxes, I would give through some other means.  My beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones.  If people were only to give as they felt "would the end result be as effective?" or does coercion through the threat of jail time have it's place?   Lets say everyone did give to the best of their ability without that threat, from what I have seen, many a church program has just as many flaws, wasteful spending, ineffective outcomes as some of the government ones they decry, and without the democratic process of "throw the bums out" for at least some level of accountability.  If your saying you wouldn't give at all, if you weren't coerced by the threat of jail time... well, that seems to be the best argument of all for why a democratically elected government MUST be involved.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

I thought it was obvious.  I guess not.

I don't care if people who give money to a church want to waste it.  I do care if my tax dollars are wasted.  I don't have to give money to a church.  I haven't found a legal way to not pay taxes.

Goes into the general category of "paying your dues"...and since, by definition, the US Government was the one that initiated ALL property possession and ownership in this country beyond the original 13 colonies - they "bought" it or took it, and the granting of privileges upon those lands with certain conditions that included an ongoing obligation of some sort to that government, then you actually DO owe the government it's due.  By definition, in exchange for being born in this country, and enjoying all the perks and privileges of that lucky accident of birth, ALL the previous generations of citizens and representatives have decided what is required to do certain things as action items by the government.  This flows down to state and local, also, within the constraints of the Constitution....and while one can debate the scope of "all other rights" reserved to the states, that just means the state can do it's own similar imposition upon you.  i.e. Property Tax...

You can complain and lobby, as we all do so massively here...but the election of representatives by the citizens gives corporate America it's resource to buy what it wants.  Oh, wait...gives you the opportunity to have your wishes and desires expressed in the operation of all those governments....  (lol,...anyone still believe that last statement...?)

After statehood, for all of the states, there no longer existed such a thing as the "rugged individualist", free to go his own way with no obligation to the state or freedom from paying the dues... really didn't exist before statehood either, but enforcement was problematic.  Example - when France owned the center of the country, I suspect there were taxes due that were totally ignored - and were unenforceable.

This is the history and legacy of the human species.  You are either have allegiance owed to you or by you to the "biggest guy on the block".  Welcome to reality!!

[Red Arrow]

You must want to do something to better the world and help people.  That is either going to require you giving of your time and or money.   So your going to be giving one way or the other.   Whether that giving is coerced through threat of jail time or going to hell, or just of your own good nature.

The Republicans say that our money and or time should not go to government programs to "do the good works" "to reduce crime, poverty, etc." because the government is wasteful and ineffective,  but that it should instead go to the non-profit and religious sector to "do the good works".   I am not saying that the notion is wrong.  If I were not giving through my taxes, I would give through some other means.  My beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones.  If people were only to give as they felt "would the end result be as effective?" or does coercion through the threat of jail time have it's place?   Lets say everyone did give to the best of their ability without that threat, from what I have seen, many a church program has just as many flaws, wasteful spending, ineffective outcomes as some of the government ones they decry, and without the democratic process of "throw the bums out" for at least some level of accountability.  If your saying you wouldn't give at all, if you weren't coerced by the threat of jail time... well, that seems to be the best argument of all for why a democratically elected government MUST be involved.  

I file as single, no dependents.  The government gets plenty of my money.  I gripe, of course, but recognize that government provides many things that I want and need so I don't gripe tooooo loudly. 

One of the problems with government is that they continually try to level a 4 leg stool to sit on uneven ground when they should be building 3 leg stools.  If you cut a leg off twice and it's still too short, don't cut it again.  What you see as an attempt to reduce poverty, someone else may see as a waste of money because it doesn't work.  There will always be those differences of opinion so I just bring it up as an example, not as something specific that I wish to continue discussing.

I understand your beef:

My beef is that they don't hold their ideas and programs to the same "results oriented" standards as the government ones.

My point is that if the other programs are freely chosen,  poor results can result in being un-chosen.  One person's standards of a program's success may be different than another person's.  What you see as an inefficient church program, someone else may see as an opportunity to hire a fellow church member that needs some help.  You are free to not give to that program.