Smart Growth Tulsa Vision 2025 Budget Allocator Survey

[brettakins]

Smart Growth Tulsa Vision 2025 Budget Allocator Survey
http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-2025-renewal-survey/

The Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition is pleased to publish a survey, providing an opportunity for participants to indicate which Vision 2025 Extension proposals they would like our elected officials to put on the spring ballot. After receiving presentations totaling $2.5 Billion from 120 individuals and organizations, the City Council must now decide which ones will compete for as little as $600 million in revenue.

Tough choices will have to be made. The goal is to select the highest priority projects that offer the greatest return on investment, improve the community's quality of life and most fairly serve the broadest number of Tulsa residents. Councilors have heard from a lot of proponents but now they need to hear from voters, so they can construct a winning ballot by determining which projects enjoy the most public support. It will be a daunting and challenging task, but our coalition believes you deserve to have a voice in which projects make the final cut.

[Conan71]

Cody Brandt's proposal to take out the east leg of the IDL is the most "out of the box" thinking I saw in any of the proposals which were put forth.  There's a lot to like about more ad valorem tax, creating more opportunities for good development, and capturing more sales tax.   My main hope is that funding for that could help un-cap Elm Creek along with the Pearl District and SoBo's ask.

Obviously, I allocated quite a bit of funding to green space and pedestrian issues as well as mass transit.

Some of the proposals seem to overlap like the Evans Fintube brownfield site proposals.  As well, there were some transit proposals  that seemed to be duplicated by the transit tax ask of $200M unless I missed something.

Everyone needs to fill out the survey and let your voices be heard!

[carltonplace]

I came in dead even.

[sgrizzle]

I came in slightly below.

I believe removing half of the IDL is a cool idea but a non-starter. It costs more than the Arkansas river proposal and even less people in the city care about the highway. When the downtown master plan was drafted, it was suggested that the southern portion, and maybe part of the eastern portion, could be capped for a fairly reasonable price which I think is the best cost/benefit. 169 is a bigger barrier than the IDL and development has progressed past it without much issue and I don't feel the IDL is a $143M priority.

[cannon_fodder]

I refuse to lend support to anything that should be funded from general ongoing operations. Public safety is example #1.

If we decide to make those "special" tax items we will NEVER see that change. Our tax money for visionary proposals will always be reduced by the cut for what should be ongoing spending.

I found myself supporting:
1) Zink Dam
2) Mass transit
3) Recreation/bikes
4) Beautification/walk ability projects
5) Entrepreneurial encouragement

[Conan71]

I came in dead even.

I did as well.  You must be channeling me.

I came in slightly below.

I believe removing half of the IDL is a cool idea but a non-starter. It costs more than the Arkansas river proposal and even less people in the city care about the highway. When the downtown master plan was drafted, it was suggested that the southern portion, and maybe part of the eastern portion, could be capped for a fairly reasonable price which I think is the best cost/benefit. 169 is a bigger barrier than the IDL and development has progressed past it without much issue and I don't feel the IDL is a $143M priority.

Since $80mm of that would come from ODOT funding and only $63mm from this funding package, I liked it a lot better than dams at $75mm apiece but I did allocate for a $75mm rebuild of Zink Dam.

I feel like returning the road and nearby right of way back to developable land would have a solid return on investment and would not be near as speculative as the dams downstream of Zink Lake creating a commercial boon.  I just don't see a lot of pent up demand for commercial development along the river which cannot be done elsewhere.  At least not near as much demand as there is/will be for the east side of downtown.  The IDL removal could also help make uncapping Elm Creek much more of a reality.

I also believe taking down the concrete curtain between East Village and the Pearl is a major development WIN! and will help redevelopment spill into the Pearl much easier than it is now.  YMMV.

I refuse to lend support to anything that should be funded from general ongoing operations. Public safety is example #1.

If we decide to make those "special" tax items we will NEVER see that change. Our tax money for visionary proposals will always be reduced by the cut for what should be ongoing spending.

I found myself supporting:
1) Zink Dam
2) Mass transit
3) Recreation/bikes
4) Beautification/walk ability projects
5) Entrepreneurial encouragement

You didn't vote to give those TUWC fruit loops money, did you? 

[sgrizzle]

Since $80mm of that would come from ODOT funding and only $63mm from this funding package, I liked it a lot better than dams at $75mm apiece but I did allocate for a $75mm rebuild of Zink Dam.

We will get $80M from ODOT towards taking AWAY a highway after pigs fly. Cost them millions to lower their federal funding by removing miles. I'm sure the check is right next to the $50M in state funding for the Zink Dam from ten years ago.

[cannon_fodder]

Also, I didn't see a tax proposal for continued subsidies for the Thunder or the Native America Museum in OKC. We aren't expecting them to pay for their own crap now are we?

[RecycleMichael]

Very biased survey.

When the people who make the survey feel compelled to make commentary with each question, the survey becomes worthless.

These lines were included in the survey to purposely influence the author's favorite projects.

"Due to the growth in public safety and public works spending, the Parks and Recreation budgets have been starved and unable to kept pace with the rising costs required to adequately fund maintenance...

"...the project would address bad road conditions in a crucial stretch of Riverside Drive serving A Gathering Place. It is in the worst shape of any section of Riverside Drive."

"They are valuable assets in providing safe transportation networks for pedestrians and bicyclists."

"Sponsored by the Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition project funding would add appeal and ambiance to the plaza area and create and an inviting open public space in and around the new 5th Street opening serving the Library..."


Other projects simply stated, "sponsored by" and the party.

Of course, all the author's favorite projects are also listed first in the survey. He also added some new ones that were never actually proposed at the many public meetings

Don't waste your time filling out this survey. Because of bias, any result is worthless.

[Bamboo World]

Don't waste your time filling out this survey.

Thanks for the warning.  So far, my time spent with the survey has been minimal.

I've received emails inviting me to participate.  The emails have a link starting here:  http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/

Then, on that page, there are a few more links:

The first, to a list of proposed projects on a City of Tulsa website:  https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx

The second, to Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition's (SGTC's) Vision 2025 Extension Proposal:  http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/a-vision-2025-extension-proposal/

The third, to SGTC's privacy policy, which I didn't click, because the privacy policy link is followed by these words:  "Your individual project choices will remain annonomous, not even SGTC staff can see them.  Your comments including your name however will be shared with Mayor Bartlett and the Tulsa City Council to help them construct a winning ballot. If you do not make any comments, your name will also remain annonomous."

The fourth link is to the survey:  http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/#ba

If I do spend some time with the survey, it most likely will be from my own curiosity about how I'd allocate a certain budget, given the opportunity to make all of the decisions myself.  

I won't use the survey in an effort to influence the mayor or any city councilors, however.  I've discovered that they usually do as they wish, despite my opinion.

Update:  I've made my first picks on the survey, and my total stands at $86 million.

My choices and a few comments:

1. Transportation /  Rebuild the IDL, $63m  (If I could choose only one proposal, it would be this one.)  
2. Arts & Culture / National Art Deco Museum, $12m
3. Neighborhood Revitalization / Downtown Sealed Rail Corridors, $5m
4. Arts & Culture / Spotlight Theatre Rehabilitation, $4m
5. Transportation / Fund to widen sidewalks and install planters on bridges, $1m
6. Transportation / Safer School Crossings and Crosswalks, $500k
7. Neighborhood Revitalization / IDL Underpass Illumination & Beautification, $500k

I'm considering the Center of the Universe Multi-Modal or Travis Eslick's proposal for lowering or re-locating the east-west railroad tracks.  For making connections north and south of the tracks, Eslick's idea is superior to the Center of the Universe Transit Hub proposal, but I'm not sure if it's ten times better at ten times the price.

If new dams are combined on a ballot with any of my seven choices above, I'll vote NO.

If the replacement of Zink Dam is combined on a ballot with any of my seven choice above, I'll most likely vote NO, but I'm not certain yet.  Rationale:  If Zink Dam is partially or completely demolished, then it shouldn't be replaced.  I'd rather see the existing Zink Dam remain mostly as it is, with gates lowered opened or removed.

[sgrizzle]

 I'd rather see the existing Zink Dam remain mostly as it is, with gates lowered or removed.

If you're okay with it breaking... sure, go that way.

[AquaMan]

Breaking it? Could you elucidate?

[sgrizzle]

Breaking it? Could you elucidate?

Not in public. We need to get rid of the solid wall/silt problem.

[TeeDub]

Not in public. We need to get rid of the solid wall/silt problem.

Seriously?   I like the new strategy.   We HAVE to spend millions on dams because they could "break"?    (Or just fill so full of sediment they are useless.)


Silt happens.  

As long as you slow the water, the silt will precipitate.   There isn't any way around it.

[AquaMan]

The dam has been "broken" for many years. Probably a decade or more if you're referring to the retracting gates. Even when they were predicted to work a sand dredge was purchased to remove the silt/sand buildup. That didn't work too well.