Bates' River Revue article in Urban Tulsa

[AVERAGE JOE]

Can't understand why there hasn't been a thread started about this article.

The River Revue

My personal take is that Bates did Tulsa a tremendous public service by compiling such an in-depth history of river development planning in this city. I can't imagine the amount of research that took.

Should be required reading for anyone who wants to weigh in on Arkansas River development.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

Can't understand why there hasn't been a thread started about this article.

The River Revue

My personal take is that Bates did Tulsa a tremendous public service by compiling such an in-depth history of river development planning in this city. I can't imagine the amount of research that took.

Should be required reading for anyone who wants to weigh in on Arkansas River development.

Did you check out the remarks at the end of the article online? One of them was mine.

[RecycleMichael]

The conversation between you and Paul Tay didn't add much to the story, but I agree that any recent review of the Arkansas River should probably include you and your boat ride business.

I thought it was a good, well-researched article. Thanks, Michael.

[MichaelBates]

I'm sorry, Steve (Waterboy), that I overlooked your business in my story. It wasn't deliberate. I can think of a dozen other people and events that I could have mentioned, too.

I did significantly compress recent river history to keep the focus on the earlier plans, particularly the 1968 and 1976 proposals. When I got to the '90s and beyond, my aim was to try to show the key developments leading to the INCOG plan and the new attention being paid to the River as a civic resource.

For what it's worth, I did devote a whole column last fall to your perspective on the river and on The Channels proposal:

http://archives.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=3638

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

I'm sorry, Steve (Waterboy), that I overlooked your business in my story. It wasn't deliberate. I can think of a dozen other people and events that I could have mentioned, too.

I did significantly compress recent river history to keep the focus on the earlier plans, particularly the 1968 and 1976 proposals. When I got to the '90s and beyond, my aim was to try to show the key developments leading to the INCOG plan and the new attention being paid to the River as a civic resource.

For what it's worth, I did devote a whole column last fall to your perspective on the river and on The Channels proposal:

http://archives.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=3638

You're a good writer Michael. The summary was both informative and accurate. Of course there is a lot that happened on, around and pertaining to the river that has never made it to the history and probably shouldn't.

I have a fairly healthy ego and invested alot of it into the river which means I can never hear enough about my part!

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by PRH

I never read anything Bates writes.  It's all the same recycled old stuff.

...and we should read anything you write?