Mayor 2013: Over in June?

[TheArtist]

 One of my main concerns is future growth in the city, aka "infill" and whether or not we will continue with trying to do suburban style only (with good urban staying illegal), or whether the next mayor will be an advocate for either a freer market approach (getting rid of suburban style zoning in many areas and allowing the free market to choose) and or advocating for good urban style zoning in appropriate areas.

And all of the above immediately impacts transit.  You can't have good, affordable, effective transit without nodes of good urban zoning.

Bartlett is for the status quo.  I have a feeling that I know where Taylor stands.   I have no idea where Christiansen resides on those issues, anyone know?

[carltonplace]

Bartlett has been nothing more than lackluster in the public eye, but from a business standpoint he has done a good job.  His strength with the business community is due to a very conservative approach to government. The city has added almost 10k jobs, has tens of millions in savings including the rainy day fund, and hasen't proposed a laundry list of new tax-payer-funded programs to screw all that up.  He has allowed Tulsa to grow through the private sector.  I however still have a hard time viewing him as a leader because he lacks the ability to articulate his vision, but perhaps that's my own failing. 

What the heck was Vision 2?
$43.6 million: Tulsa Zoo

[carltonplace]

One of my main concerns is future growth in the city, aka "infill" and whether or not we will continue with trying to do suburban style only (with good urban staying illegal), or whether the next mayor will be an advocate for either a freer market approach (getting rid of suburban style zoning in many areas and allowing the free market to choose) and or advocating for good urban style zoning in appropriate areas.

And all of the above immediately impacts transit.  You can't have good, affordable, effective transit without nodes of good urban zoning.

Bartlett is for the status quo.  I have a feeling that I know where Taylor stands.   I have no idea where Christiansen resides on those issues, anyone know?

Christiansen told Rich Fisher on KWGS Studio Tulsa that transit was "not a priority for him"

http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3

[AquaMan]

Christiansen told Rich Fisher on KWGS Studio Tulsa that transit was "not a priority for him"

http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kwgs/audio/2013/06/studiotulsa130605.mp3

Bartlett is no great visionary on transit either. Other than a north/south line on Peoria (underwhelming) none of the candidates has expressed much excitement.

Isn't anyone concerned about a poll done on cell phones and land lines that has a margin of error of 4.9%? I know you have to go with what you've got, but that isn't a very strong poll imo.

Nonetheless I guess it could be off by 15% and it would still be a Bartlett/Taylor runoff. The executive president vs the CEO.

[AquaMan]

My interest is primarily in development of the river.

On this issue Bartlett showed more insight and involvement than the other two. He correctly noted that progress on the river would follow putting water in the river and activities on the river NOT development of its shores. That is something I was soundly criticized around here for pointing out nearly a decade ago. He also has made sure infrastructure for the gathering place is being planned for by the city. Raising the height of the dam was supported by all three candidates, but after that they differed significantly.

Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Christiansen wants to partner with the Tribes to effect building a dam and putting water in the river downstream. That's a no brainer for Jenks and south Tulsa where the casino resides and they own businesses on both sides of the river, yet not very palatable upstream. The tribes are players downstream whether they want them or not but I don't relish seeing them increase their participation upstream.

Taylor focused on creating a large authority to oversee any development and operations on the river with input from the public. Because the current 35 year old authority has been so successful?  That implies another decade of non-activity and sleight of hand by the same types of players. And her favored partner? The refineries. The same ones that in the past had so little respect for the river. Pragmatically, they have money and influence and perhaps can re-create what Devon did in OKC but refineries ain't like office workers.

IOW, they are all going to be the River Development Mayor!

[Gaspar]

My interest is primarily in development of the river.

On this issue Bartlett showed more insight and involvement than the other two. He correctly noted that progress on the river would follow putting water in the river and activities on the river NOT development of its shores. That is something I was soundly criticized around here for pointing out nearly a decade ago. He also has made sure infrastructure for the gathering place is being planned for by the city. Raising the height of the dam was supported by all three candidates, but after that they differed significantly.

Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Christiansen wants to partner with the Tribes to effect building a dam and putting water in the river downstream. That's a no brainer for Jenks and south Tulsa where the casino resides and they own businesses on both sides of the river, yet not very palatable upstream. The tribes are players downstream whether they want them or not but I don't relish seeing them increase their participation upstream.

Taylor focused on creating a large authority to oversee any development and operations on the river with input from the public. Because the current 35 year old authority has been so successful?  That implies another decade of non-activity and sleight of hand by the same types of players. And her favored partner? The refineries. The same ones that in the past had so little respect for the river. Pragmatically, they have money and influence and perhaps can re-create what Devon did in OKC but refineries ain't like office workers.

IOW, they are all going to be the River Development Mayor!

You hit on something very important.  Bureaucracy is (and was) the house that Kathy Taylor lives in.  The one thing I admired about Bartlett is that he is rather uninterested in building layers of consensus before making common sense decisions.  Taylor likes to build committees, authorities, and other funded groups who's existence always turns to prolonged self preservation.  Again, if you read through the "issues" section of her website, you see the seeds of several new bureaucracies, and layers of impotent committee management.  This form of governance also shields her from being challenged on issues, because it provides the option to deflect criticism to whatever group she has assembled or proposed.

I am critical of Christiansen's connection to the tribes, because their sole intrest is related to expansion of gaming.  It's not a moral thing with me, it's pragmatic.  The casinos serve a poor purpose.  They produce nothing, and drain resources.  From a productivity standpoint, there is very little difference between someone addicted to Meth, and the guy that sits in front of a slot machine all day draining his paycheck. Both are seeking a similar thrill at great expense. 

This election sucks!

[AquaMan]

You do what you know. Corporate people love bureaucracy for its obvious shielding abilities but it does often work. Just like increasing cubic inches will usually increase horsepower.

And some sort of umbrella needs to be in place for co-ordinating policy, procedures, rules and regs for the river if nothing else to keep the upstream partners from shutting the valve on downstream partners. But I thought INCOG was the vehicle for that.

It is interesting that all three have a different view on this issue but it won't be the deciding issue. Likely party voting.

What we need to see is some sort of Tesla thinking.

[Conan71]

Bartlett recognizes that Tulsa is the main player re the river. As such he sees Tulsa taking the leadership in partnership with private interests to make improvements and changes. That will act as the catalyst for further improvements up and downstream from us. That is simply borne out by history. The burbs have their own interests and they're unlikely to work well with their big brother on projects that slow them down. V2025 was the only exception and that included lots of free bologna to get their attention.

Private/public development: Channels anyone?  We all know how that worked out.

Considering the promises of filling the river in the subsequent 2007 River Tax smash & grab proposal and the myriad of problems with the Zink Lake LWD not holding water-even though there were supposedly funds in V-2025 to correct that, "The Landing" on the west bank would have been looking out over sand bars the last couple of years.  Not real attractive!

I'm with you, I'd love to see development along the river, well-thought out development not development for the sake of saying we did it.  Of course, Kaiser's concept for the east side is really intriguing.  Whomever is mayor when that is shepherded in will get to take credit for it.

[carltonplace]

I'm not sure that four more years of Bartlett inertia is what we need. I don't think Chrisitansen will focus enough on downtown and I'm most interested in seeing the momentum in this part of town continue to grow. So I'm following my Downtown District 4 councilor and backing Taylor.

[RecycleMichael]

I got water in the river. I made some phone calls and did a rain dance.

You are welcome.

[AquaMan]

Let me be more specific. Clear or reasonably clean water. Not that yellow stuff you might be putting in there.

Seriously, I think what is meant by "water in the river" is how water is managed in the river to effect its usability. I will always prefer my canalization concept but whether its state of the art dams, breakwaters, canals or simply pumping the water we were going to sell to the burbs into it, water is key.....(what did he just say?)

[carltonplace]

Looks like Dewey has a good chance at four more years.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't know about that. An incumbent Mayor only getting 34% in a three way race ain't anything to be proud of. The very high turnout in South Tulsa because of a contested County Commissioner race helped him as well. I don't see how many of the Christiansen voters can forgive Dewey for his negative campaigning against their candidate.

In November, there will be a bond issue for streets that will bring out a more balanced voting pattern citywide. It will be hard to get past the fact that 2 out of 3 Tulsans voted against him.

[sgrizzle]

I don't know about that. An incumbent Mayor only getting 34% in a three way race ain't anything to be proud of. The very high turnout in South Tulsa because of a contested County Commissioner race helped him as well. I don't see how many of the Christiansen voters can forgive Dewey for his negative campaigning against their candidate.

In November, there will be a bond issue for streets that will bring out a more balanced voting pattern citywide. It will be hard to get past the fact that 2 out of 3 Tulsans voted against him.

I'm in South Tulsa and was surprised that Dewey won my Precinct. The signs in my neighborhood were like 60% Bill, 39% Kathy, 1% Dewey.

[Gaspar]

I think perhaps the challengers have underestimated the fact that stuff is actually getting done without all the hoopla, and bureaucracy. 

Dewey is a wet noodle when it comes to presentation, but he seems to be accomplishing things without the need to do a media blitz or glamour shot every time he walks out of a building.