Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[DowntownDan]

The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

[AquaMan]

I agree with most of that. A few strong willed leaders have failed to grasp a common policy the military is famous for. KISS. Keep it simple stupid.

The river improvements, especially the Zink Lake portion, could have been a springboard for further development up and downstream. Combined with a few simple, innovative proposals with at least some provable ROI would mean pass.

The smorgasbord concept, not so much.

[PonderInc]

Gawd.  I don't even know where to begin with this list of stuff.  There is so much crap mixed in with some things I believe are very important. It looks like our only hope for a (now paltry) dedicated transit fund is to approve a permanent pothole fund that is 3X the transit allocation.

I really don't want to dedicate a dollar more to roads, when we've already approved nearly $1 billion for road maintenance with Improve Our Tulsa.  I'm opposed to widening 2 miles of Mingo at the expense of sidewalks, bike lanes and transit for the entire city.  Same goes for the sudden addition of $70 million for the Fire Department, some of which is to add extra guys to trucks that mostly respond to EMT calls, and the rest to build an "east side station" to support our thoughtless sprawl.  

The roads I bike on are terrible and not getting better.  The lesson here: raising taxes for roads doesn't fix roads.  Improving quality of life that attracts people and investors, while facilitating smart infill development and investing in projects that have proven economic returns will allow us to pay for necessary services.

[carltonplace]

The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

Except that the proposed dams don't give us any of these things.

[Conan71]

The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer.  If the people don't care about that because heaven forbid we spend some money collectively to improve our image and quality of life, we deserve to lose out to OKC, Dallas, KC, Memphis, and even Wichita and Little Rock which I've been hearing good things about.  We'll remain a regional hub that's over-reliant on a few oil and gas companies that most likely will be moving in the next 5-10 years.  I just don't get the small-mindedness of the majority of this city that we couldn't just get a good river plan passed by itself without tying it to a dumb regressive permanent sales tax for cops and fireman, which should be paid from other sources.  It's bush league and it infuriates me that our city is going to fall further and further behind as a destination city.  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

Zink Lake has been considered good enough for 35 years.  A rehab of that dam to permit year-round recreation on the lake along with a new pedestrian bridge to go along with The Gathering Place would be more than enough for Tulsa to make a name for itself.  The Jenks bridge is more of a footnote to this.  Unless visitors staying downtown want to go gamble, I doubt they'd venture much further south than The Gathering Place. 

If someone wanted to rent a bike and ride out south or all the way to NSU, I seriously doubt their impression of the city would be of a semi dry desert river down south.  Instead, they would left with the impression of the great trail system Tulsa has.

Zink Lake is accessible and viewable from our urban core.  I'd argue that visitors to Margaritaville/River Spirit could probably care less about water in the river, but let Jenks and the Creeks decide whether or not it's worth it to them to pay for that structure.  I'd still be all for the city extending the west bank trail system from 71st to Jenks and paying for more trails on the east side down south and the Vensel Creek dock and amenities.  Everyone benefits from additional trails out south but get the two entities who would benefit the most aesthetically from water in the river to pay for the south dam, not Tulsa tax payers.  At this point, really the Creeks gain the most with their casino development and their retail development they now own on the banks in Jenks.

[PonderInc]

This morning's meeting is on TGov (works on Internet Explorer):

http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3112

[Edited] So far, this is much more interesting and helpful than last Tues night's meeting.  Feels much more productive.

Good ideas about dedicated transit funding, as well as a discussion about up-front bonding needs to jump start these projects... rather than waiting 10-15 years for some projects to be funded.  Nice explanation of of what the Center of the Universe transit project is/does.

More to come this afternoon.

[DTowner]

When I worked on Capitol Hill, there was a saying about a bill that was enmeshed in the horse trading of a conference committee - "The first thing to go is the policy."  This means that when all the meetings and deals are getting made to create a "passable" bill, the original purpose and intent of the bill was usually forgotten and lost.

As I watch this messy process unfold, it appears to me that the original policy and purpose of Vision 2025 has been completely lost and it has become a grab bag of pet projects of the mayor, councilors and various plugged-in constituencies (i.e. fire and police unions, zoo, Gilcrease Museum, etc.).

What is the "vision" expressed by this current package of disjointed projects and services?  Fixing potholes? More firemen?  More policemen?  All potentially good needs that maybe we should fund, but not under the banner of short-term targeted public expenditures on visionary projects intended to spur private investment and economic development.

The only significant component left in this package that can be remotely described as "visionary" is putting water in the river.  Agree or not with the premise, the dams are at least a concept with a potentially big impact that supporters say will spur private investment, development and an improved quality of life.  But even the dams have drifted so far hither and yon with amorphous pie-in-the-sky promises of development never backed up by real or reasonable evidence that it all has come to feel more wishfully aspirational than grounded in any reality or facts.

What we are now left with is a complete mess:  too many projects, a tax lasting too long, a city/county confrontation, no focus on the original policy of the Vision 2025 concept, and a growing perception that it is simply the product of city/county/insider deal making to protect the self-interests of politicians' and a select few.  Doesn't matter if that is right or wrong (although all the recent small group meetings suggest public input was a charade), the people have the final say and the growing perception of a self-dealing debacle is likely to kill off this project and poison the well for any future packages for a long time to come.

[cannon_fodder]

The river is the biggest natural asset this city has to make a name for itself.  If you want to be a city that visitors report good things about, aesthetics are big.  If you can take a visitor to riverparks where they can see boating, and fishing, and other fun events, with a cool urban background, and without having to drive miles and miles away to a lake, it'll be a game changer. . . .  I've had no choice but to join in and laugh when out of town visitors see what we call a river.  Yep, this sand bed is our city's pride and joy.

I'm a big fan of the river. I go boating at Keystone. I go fishing downstream. I canoe on Zink Lake. I drink and stare at the river from Blue Rose or Elwoods. I literally ride circles around the river using rivertrails. I go out on sand bars with my dogs and my kid and kick rocks, dig streams, and mess around.  When they brought the river raft race back, I watched that too.

And I agree that aesthetics are a big deal (and that a regressive tax for public safety i dumb).

BUT - I disagree with the rest. 

First, there will be no power boating on any of the proposed lakes, and a sail boat bigger than a paddle board or kayak sail can't float there either. Furthermore, without the ability to transit up and down the river, any vessel on the river is limited to a ~2 mile stretch of water (unless it is an air boat). That won't change with the proposed dams. Boating other than rowing is pretty much out.

Second, fishing is a separate and unrelated issue. Currently the river is under qualified from an environmental aspect, and groups are trying to get it rated higher than it is. But as it stands, plenty of people fish the river everyday. More dams are not going to make that better (and may make it worse).

Finally, it is a prairie river. This is not the Mississippi. It is not the Ohio. It is not the East River. We can dam it all we want, but we are making the natural asset into an un-natural one.  Which I am not necessarily opposed to, but recognize what we are doing. If we want to make un-natural assets to try and show off our city, we can spend the money better (we could build an artificial indoor ski mountain for a couple hundred million! Denver has Mountains, why not Tulsa? or put a dome over downtown and plant palm trees).

What you described is what we already have in Zink dam. A prairie river turned into a small lake, surrounded by activity, with some boating on it, some fishing, and a cool urban landscape behind it.  Not sure how adding a dam out in Jenks adds to that in any way.

[PonderInc]

If we build a south dam, maybe someone will build a casino on Creek Nation lands that will not contribute sales tax dollars to Tulsa.... oh, wait...

[Townsend]

Boating other than rowing is pretty much out.

Pass

[Conan71]

Council passes final draft 9-0

[Dspike]

Final draft: http://tulsacouncil.org/media/115206/Vision_Proposal_Summary_(FINAL_1-28-16).pdf

[RecycleMichael]

I'm opposed to widening 2 miles of Mingo at the expense of sidewalks, bike lanes and transit for the entire city.  

Yeah. Screw those south Tulsa people. Never mind that the city approved 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a f'ing two lane country road.

More people go through that intersection than 41st and Peoria. Or 21st and Yale. or 31st and Lewis.

Who cares? Midtowners sure don't.

[DowntownDan]

So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"

[SXSW]

So the transit hub and east-west rapid line was removed.  It was in the morning draft and not in the final draft.  How predictable. That was kind of a big deal and relatively cheap (relative to some of the other major projects).  The point of the east-west rapid line was to encourage housing and commerce along 11th Street (Route 66) and to attract younger workers who studys consistently show want to live in cities without reliance on cars.  That's the kind of broad visionary idea that Visions was supposed to be about.  Things that are expected to have domino effects after a citywide investment.  Not just another exhibit at the zoo.

"Transit Infrastructure (including East-West Bus Rapid Transit, Downtown Circulator, Transporation Hub)
$25,000,000"

I would hope the next transportation package is more focused on transit specifically the downtown hub and a starter streetcar line from downtown to TU.