Upcoming 2015 City Sales Tax Proposals

[rdj]

In the downtown library (prior to the remodel beginning, not sure if it is available at the Librarium) they kept a file on the fourth floor of neighborhood announcements and developments.  It contained great news articles, advertisements and magazine features on neighborhoods and developments such as Lortondale, Maple Ridge, Sungate and others.  One of the more interesting articles in the file was a large color spread on a proposed development on the west bank of the river about where I-44 now crosses.  The development was to be multi-use with housing, office, retail and recreation on the riverbank and water.  I believe a small marina was even included.  The development touted the soon to be damned Arkansas River.  The date of the article escapes me but I would guess 40+ years ago.  My point is, Tulsa folk have pined for water in the river for so damn long its time to either get it done or just move on.  I can't decide if the 2007 failed vote was the final referendum or if that campaign was so bungled that we deserve one more heave.

[saintnicster]

In the downtown library (prior to the remodel beginning, not sure if it is available at the Librarium) they kept a file on the fourth floor of neighborhood announcements and developments.  It contained great news articles, advertisements and magazine features on neighborhoods and developments such as Lortondale, Maple Ridge, Sungate and others.  One of the more interesting articles in the file was a large color spread on a proposed development on the west bank of the river about where I-44 now crosses.  The development was to be multi-use with housing, office, retail and recreation on the riverbank and water.  I believe a small marina was even included.  The development touted the soon to be damned Arkansas River.  The date of the article escapes me but I would guess 40+ years ago.  My point is, Tulsa folk have pined for water in the river for so damn long its time to either get it done or just move on.  I can't decide if the 2007 failed vote was the final referendum or if that campaign was so bungled that we deserve one more heave.

Not sure if this is the same one, but LostTulsa reposted a TulsaGal article about "Pier 15" from back in the late 60s https://www.facebook.com/LostTulsa/posts/875706469146397.

Looks like another article by TulsaGal mentions a marina in a plan for the "TULCENTER" http://www.tulsagal.net/2010/03/1959-plan-for-central-tulsa-tulcenter.html

[ZYX]

I predict that these tax proposals will be miserable failures, and I can't see that the need has been proven for either one of them.

I agree that transit needs to be a top priority if we ever want to get out of the catch 22 of constant street repair and widening to accommodate volume. If we don't do something now, we could quickly have the same type of traffic problems that Austin has. I support a downtown circulator ASAP, the surface parking in downtown is going to start to evaporate in short order and we need alternatives. I would love to see a rail based circulator, but just a bus with arrival times and payment kiosks would work just as well to start.

It is incredibly frustrating to see such poorly thought out tax packages. They likely won't, and probably shouldn't be passed. We have so much growth downtown, and so much opportunity to capitalize on that growth and speed it along, but instead we focus on making the river artificially look a bit better. We need leadership that will actually take what the citizens have said they want (PlaniTulsa) and work to increase our growth. We need improved public transportation throughout the city, but especially in the inner core. We need more bike lanes and to provide funding to connect the Riverparks trails all the way through Bixby. So much could be done that would actually provide tangible civic improvements to the county with the hundreds of millions we will spend on building low water dams, but we insist on "river development," whatever that entails.

[carltonplace]

Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.

[Conan71]

Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.

^^^We have a winner!

[rdj]

Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.

The Tulsa side of the river is pretty much developed or owned by the Creek Nation and slated for development from 101st to 71st.

I've heard some talk about re-programming the park area south of 71st into a more event driven space.  Not sure if that has any legs though.

But, doesn't the dam in front of the aquarium back the water up all the way to the Zink Lake dam? 

[Townsend]

But, doesn't the dam in front of the aquarium back the water up all the way to the Zink Lake dam? 

I remember reading it'd back water up well short of Zink.

[carltonplace]

it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).

[Red Arrow]

it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).

We could try to imitate New Orleans.  Build levies and other walls so we could build a dam high enough to get water all the way to the bend in the river toward Sand Springs.

[Vision 2025]

it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).

Make that more like to 81st or maybe to where Joe Creek runs in.  It should be noted that the current plan has never proposed an impoundment between 71st and 51st due to potential for an extended mixing zone/DO sag from The City's Southside plant discharge that could possibly reach to 71st at max conditions, which has never occurred (max. permitted flow and strength at 7Q2 low flow). 

[DTowner]

Make that more like to 81st or maybe to where Joe Creek runs in.  It should be noted that the current plan has never proposed an impoundment between 71st and 51st due to potential for an extended mixing zone/DO sag from The City's Southside plant discharge that could possibly reach to 71st at max conditions, which has never occurred (max. permitted flow and strength at 7Q2 low flow). 

So, even if we spend millions of $ on dams, the River between Zink Dam and 81st Street will look exactly the same?  I think the opposition's TV commercial just made itself.

[Vision 2025]

So, even if we spend millions of $ on dams, the River between Zink Dam and 81st Street will look exactly the same?  I think the opposition's TV commercial just made itself.

No, that is incorrect.  

Concerning the area you questioned.  Yes the structure of the river in that area may remain the same, the upstream dams will function as a system to store and release a lower (but not a trickle) flow of water (1000 cfs) which will provide for "water in the river" at such locations rather than the continual wet at night from hydro releases and minimal flow during the day at times when there in not continual releases from Keystone.

[DTowner]

No, that is incorrect.  

Concerning the area you questioned.  Yes the structure of the river in that area may remain the same, the upstream dams will function as a system to store and release a lower (but not a trickle) flow of water (1000 cfs) which will provide for "water in the river" at such locations rather than the continual wet at night from hydro releases and minimal flow during the day at times when there in not continual releases from Keystone.

Thanks for the clarification.  However, it sounds like the phrase "put water in the river" is still misleading as to what will actually be different.  Some water yes, but not nearly the amount most assume.

[RecycleMichael]

Water makes you stupid. Look at surfers.

[rebound]

Here there was a substance more precious than all others - it was life itself and entwined all around with symbolism and ritual.

Water.

"Dune", Frank Herbert