Channels vote probably won't happen any time soon

[AVERAGE JOE]

Don't know if anyone saw this today, but based on delays in the process of getting the various entities to review the Channels plan, it looks as though the county commissioners won't vote on Dec 11 whether to call for a county-wide sales tax increase election.

Tulsa World reports

I think a lot of us speculated that Dec 11 was a big date for the Channels, because that will be the last meeting of the current 3 commissioners. After that, Bob Dick is retiring and Collins may or may not be re-elected. Their best chance at fast-tracking the Channels was to have everything lined up by Dec 11, but that probably won't happen now.

Good news as far as I'm concerned. I've never seen such a rush to try to grab half a billion dollars.

[rwarn17588]

I'm glad it's not being rushed.

If nothing else, The Channels sure opened up a lot of discussion in the last few weeks about river development. Maybe it will actually result in something substantive and cost-effective down the road (fingers crossed).

[RecycleMichael]

I have learned much information about the river in the last few months. The education has been fun.

[Rico]

I am fairly certain everyone already knows this but what the Hell..

The other evening Channel 6 had a Mister Hicks on that presented an alternative plan that he had come up with versus the "Channels" project..



Alternative Proposal For 'The Channels' Project Announced
KOTV - 10/30/2006 2:39 PM - Updated 10/30/2006 8:44 PM

Arkansas River development is a hot topic in Tulsa. Now, there's a nearly $800 million project on the table to push interest in the river even further. But some say the proposed Channels Project will cost taxpayers way too much.



News on 6 anchor Terry Hood sat down with one opponent who says he has a better plan in mind.

Architect Dan Hicks says he's serious about river development but he doesn't think taxpayers should foot the bill, and he say's he's not the only one. "I get at least two phone calls a day from people wanting me to come to their house and bring one of these no river tax signs. I get calls from engineers and people whose dad's used to work for the corps of engineers telling me what a crazy idea it is to build in this river," said Hicks.

Hicks says 'The Channel's' plan is flawed by design, so he came up with his own. The architect says his model is just one example of a cheaper development project on the banks of the river as opposed to Islands in the middle. "I'm not suggesting for a moment I've got ready to go plans on this. The concept here is simply rather than build in the river, instead of building in the river, fresh water canals and fountains could be developed on the existing river bank at a fraction of the cost of the channels, and my key here is without raising taxes," Hicks said.

The taxes, the cost, and the location aren't the only problems Hicks has with the Channels. "Through the years we've seen all these projects that have distracted Tulsa and in that time we haven't fixed our streets. We have crumbling bridges on our heads, and we haven't dealt with crime like we should" ‘The Channels’ project is expected to cost nearly $800 million, with $600 million coming out of taxpayers pockets.

Dan Hicks estimates a plan like his could cost less than $100 million.

Channels opponents and enthusiasts may all have a chance to make their voices heard. The river island plan could go to a vote of the people as early as next March.




The same fellow that came up with the No River Tax signs..

I thought his plan was fairly reasonable what I was able to see of it..
After the news I could not figure out where I had heard his name before...

Then it hit me... he is the fellow that had LaFortuna talked into the "Creationist" exhibit at the Zoo..
I must say I had an extra large helping of "humble pie" that evening.

But I did learn that "although you may think someone is about 3 cards short of a full deck...They may have more common sense than most...!"

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm glad it's not being rushed.

If nothing else, The Channels sure opened up a lot of discussion in the last few weeks about river development. Maybe it will actually result in something substantive and cost-effective down the road (fingers crossed).

Thats the best thing to come of this....It makes you wish that was their intent all along....

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm glad it's not being rushed.

If nothing else, The Channels sure opened up a lot of discussion in the last few weeks about river development. Maybe it will actually result in something substantive and cost-effective down the road (fingers crossed).

Well... Ax Man and rwarn have said that there would be more plans for the River on the Horizon... Kind of an "About Face for Miller."

Best News I have read in a while..

From Today's World.


Plans for developing along river anticipated
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
11/5/2006



The public is likely to have more river development options to consider than just the $788 million Channels project that would create islands in the Arkansas River.

County Commissioner Randi Miller said she anticipates an announcement later this month of a private development along the river banks in the Tulsa area.

"I've been in communication with experienced waterfront developers, who want to do shoreline development in Tulsa," Miller said.

The out-of-state developers want to use the banks to construct retail development, much like what has been successful in Jenks and south Tulsa, she said.

Miller said she can't release details, but the plan would be a private-public partnership. She said from preliminary talks, the bulk of the funding would be private with a smaller portion of public dollars paying for infrastructure needs.

"I'm personally exploring every option because I know how important river development is to the public and to the economic growth of Tulsa and Tulsa County," Miller said.

"That is why it is important for the commissioners to take our time and hear from the citizens," she said. "The commission hasn't even had time to present to the public what we would like to see on
the ballot."

The Channels proposal calls for $600 million of its $788 million price tag to come from public funding. Backers of the the proposal are committed to raising $100 million in private funds, while $88 million would come through a revenue bond repaid by power sales from renewable energy sources proposed in the project.

The project includes a dam under the 21st Street Bridge that would create a 12-mile lake stretching into Sand Springs. Three livable, linked islands would be constructed between the 21st and 11th Street bridges.

Miller said The Channels project has ignited a lot of discussion about river development.

"I won't be surprised if more development options arise," she said. "We still haven't heard what the George Kaiser plan is for the river."

The George Kaiser Family Foundation has provided a $10 million grant for Arkansas River public beautification and enhancement projects.

The Channels proposal has prompted the County Commission to consider whether to seek a vote for the public funding. A Dec. 11 date tentatively set for the commissioners to call for an election likely will be postponed and that decision delayed until after the first of the year, Miller has said.

Miller also has said that whatever is put on the ballot, it would likely include additional funding for a low-water dam at 105th Street and other projects from the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

The Channels backers are seeking the four-tenths of a penny from the voter-approved Vision 2025 sales-tax package that would have gone to Boeing but didn't because Boeing didn't relocate to Tulsa.

Creek Chief A. D. Ellis told Tulsa's Economic Development Commission recently that he has concerns about including the low-water dam on the same ballot as The Channels.

"I'm afraid that if The Channels is defeated, it will take the dam down with it. The dam is important to all of the development going on in south Tulsa," Ellis said in an interview.

Ellis told the commission that the Creek Nation is expanding its casino at 81st Street and Riverside Drive. He said there also are plans for the west bank across from the casino, and having water in the river is important to those developments.

Sharon King Davis agrees that The Channels funding should be separate from the dam. Davis owns Kings Landing on the east bank of the river south at 9900 Riverside Parkway.

"There are many individuals who have already invested tens of millions of private dollars into developing in the south corridor on both the Jenks and Tulsa sides," she said.

"Let's finish one area completely and let it shine as an example of what the river can generate."

Miller said the commission will carefully study which projects to put on a ballot and whether the ballot should be in a menu form, where voters can pick and choose, or one large package that is voted up or down.

"This is a one-shot opportunity," Miller said. "We need to make sure that whatever is voted on has a realistic chance of being approved."




[]

[perspicuity85]

When Vision 2025 was passed, it included a 2/5 cent sales tax increase to give to Boeing to build the 7E7 maintanance facility in Tulsa.  Boeing did not select Tulsa, leaving this approved sales tax measure unused.  The Boeing proposition was to spend 40% of the entire Vision 2025 tax money.  Considering the fact that 30 other projects make up the other 60% (including a total of $228.5 million for the arena), it would seem logical to suggest that 40% of the Vision tax money could possibly total the $700 million of public money needed to build the Channels.  I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather my tax dollars go to support a lasting, self-sustaining river development with an economic benefit of $38 billion rather than building a facility for not just a single industry, but a single company!

[Double A]

Me too, that's why I oppose the channels.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Me too, that's why I oppose the channels.

What do you mean?

[AVERAGE JOE]

Channels is last month's news. It's dead in the water and rightfully so. Any politician who wants to trot out the vote for it puts their career in jeopardy. Voters don't want the thing and I agree with that assessment 100%.

[Cubs]

quote: When Vision 2025 was passed, it included a 2/5 cent sales tax increase to give to Boeing to build the 7E7 maintanance facility in Tulsa. Boeing did not select Tulsa, leaving this approved sales tax measure unused. The Boeing proposition was to spend 40% of the entire Vision 2025 tax money. Considering the fact that 30 other projects make up the other 60% (including a total of $228.5 million for the arena), it would seem logical to suggest that 40% of the Vision tax money could possibly total the $700 million of public money needed to build the Channels. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather my tax dollars go to support a lasting, self-sustaining river development with an economic benefit of $38 billion rather than building a facility for not just a single industry, but a single company!

You do realize that the 40% is dead right? Any kind of tax increase would have to be voted on.

[sgrizzle]

Yeah the 40% is dead, untouchable, might as well not even have happened. Vision 2025's popularity is down no so if V2025 was put up for a vote right now, it might not even pass.

For those islanders out there, I'll just leave you with this timeless movie quote:

   "Have fun stomrin the castle!"

[Sangria]

I work the polls during election and I can tell you this, we had a huge turn out and a lot of it was because they were afraid the channels project was being voted on.

They wanted to make sure they had a chance to vote it down.

Another interesting comment made by those people was that when the question comes to a vote, the question will be written in a confusing way so a no vote is actually a yes vote.

I told them to start watching in the spring for this to come up again.

The sentiment is, it's a Tulsa City project and will not bennefit towns like Collinsville, Glenpool, Owasso or Bixby. Jenks already has their own developement going on and they don't want to pay for a Tulsa City project that has nothing to do with them.

Some were afraid that the new dam would mess up the projects already in place by drying up the river or lowering it too much.

All felt making it a county project was not in the best interests of anyone but the people in the city of Tulsa and the Tulsa Stockholders pushing it.

Most are afraid it will be a property tax issue and they don't want their taxes to go up. Especially the senior citizens.

[rwarn17588]

Did y'all read the paper this morning about the Channels?

You know it's in trouble when a *supporter* of the project says the Channels people have problems with trust.

And that four benefits of the project are overwhelmed by two solid *pages* of concerns.

I think the word "ill-conceived" seems to fit the Channels.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Did y'all read the paper this morning about the Channels?

You know it's in trouble when a *supporter* of the project says the Channels people have problems with trust.

And that four benefits of the project are overwhelmed by two solid *pages* of concerns.

I think the word "ill-conceived" seems to fit the Channels.

If the exact same plan had been developed as the result of an exhaustive, transparent public process -- meaning that the dam and islands were 1) truly reflective of what the taxpayers wanted for the river and 2) a cost the citizens were willing to bear -- then it wouldn't necessarily have been ill-conceived. Possibly still over-ambitious, but at least something the community felt was a reflection of their needs and desires.

The process that the Stakeholders implemented nearly guaranteed the failure of the project. Their approach would be ideal for creating buzz and a stampede of traffic for a retail business or commercial product. But this isn't Playstation 3, no taxpayer is going to beat a path to your door to give you more taxes. The Stakeholders failed to understand that. The end result was a far too ambitious plan that few want and even fewer want to pay for.