Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life. . .
Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts. . .
People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment. . .
Measures of quality of life include health, education opportunities, crime/public safety, recreation activity, cultural activity, income opportunities, and public amenities. Putting water in the river won't increase health, education, help public safety, provide culture, or increase income. It will provide minimal recreational activities as it will not be a navigable waterway (the Zink dam proposal does include a kayak section). Nor is it considered a public amenity in most measures.
I love waterfronts. From Chicago, to NYC, to San Francisco. Or Dubuque (Iowa - on a river), or Racine (Wisconsin - on a lake), or Ft. Myers (Florida - on a river/ocean). They all used underutilized waterfront areas to add to their city. But all of those are exploiting natural waterfronts. The natural advantages the City was ignoring. OKCs "waterfront" is a moat, it is a contrived district - like it or not, it is not analogous to Tulsa's river.
Adding water to the river will make it prettier for about 5 more miles in Tulsa. The newest "proposal" (it is not a plan yet) has dams at 29th, 49th and 103rd. That would put water in the river where it current is, plus from 29th to 49th, and from ~75th to 103rd. As you drive into Tulsa on I-44, there will not be water in the river under any proposal - the presumed "gateway" you were talking about. And I've discussed the development options ad naseum.
I have an incredible knee jerk reaction in favor of public investment. I agree that quality of life is the avenue that Tulsa needs to compete on a regional and national stage. But I think $250-300 million could fund many more projects that would add much more to Tulsa's quality of life than making the river look pretty. With that same money we could:
1) Make Gilcrease a world class museum, with the same profile as Crystal Bridges (already has a better collection) [$75mil with additional matching funds from TU)
2) Make Turkey Mountain into a world class mountain bike, BMW, and cycle-cross center (~$3mil)
3) Build a fantastic children's museum ($20mil) [GKFF offers another $10mil matching grant]
4) Implement all three bikeshare/trails proposals for Tulsa ($3mil)
5) Land the BMX national headquarters at Expo ($15mil)
6) Provide Funding for the Arts ($250k)
7) Build half of Michael Patton's famous statutes/or the Goddess of Oil ($2.2 mil)
And that's only $110mil or so. There is no shortage of projects we could fund. All of which likely have a better ROI than water in the river. We could do everything about and the Zink Dam and still have money left over.
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspxWe could built a decent starter light rail. We could fund decent mass transit to start it off, and avoid laying rail right away if we wanted. Or build Blake's mass transit vision.
We could start a venture fund for Tulsa companies.
We could upgrade our schools.
We could fund our parks department and stop shutting down pools/community centers.
I'm a huge fan of funding public projects. Pooling our resources we can do amazing things that add value to our economy and differentiate our City. ROI isn't only measured in dollars and cents. But, unfortunately, we do have limited resources. I don't think investing that much money to make the Arkansas look like an eastern river is worth it.