River Plan- Public Infrastructure

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by lauraj

 So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson,

OK, the Branson reference gave me the willies.  A bunch of screaming Yakov fans makes my undercarriage tense up.

[Conan71]

Well, now that the different topics have been segregated by the mods I'll pose my question again:

What in other people's minds would you like to see between 11th St. and 51st St. along the river as infrastructure improvements?

We have trails on both sides which are beneficial and well-utilized, an amphitheater which is under-utilized these days for reasons unknown to me, a pedestrian bridge at roughly the mid-point of the 11th to I-44 stretch.  We've got a boat house for a growing rowing program which adds some culture to the city and another positive outlet for our teens, we have mini-parks along the east bank.

What else do people want to see?

Personally, I'd like to see the banks stabilized and cleaned up some.  I don't want to lose our mature trees, but weed control is pretty difficult with the banks in their natural state.

What else is missing other than some place to perhaps put in a few more places to sit and watch the sunset whilst enjoying dinner and a cold drink?

[cks511]

We'll have that 'other' place to eat and drink IF they ever finish the Avery Plaza at 11th and Riverside.  BUT as usual, the city tears stuff up and leaves it.  Would like to have that vacant lot finished or at least landscaped.  And I know, it's been raining.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Well, now that the different topics have been segregated by the mods I'll pose my question again:

What in other people's minds would you like to see between 11th St. and 51st St. along the river as infrastructure improvements?

We have trails on both sides which are beneficial and well-utilized, an amphitheater which is under-utilized these days for reasons unknown to me, a pedestrian bridge at roughly the mid-point of the 11th to I-44 stretch.  We've got a boat house for a growing rowing program which adds some culture to the city and another positive outlet for our teens, we have mini-parks along the east bank.

What else do people want to see?

Personally, I'd like to see the banks stabilized and cleaned up some.  I don't want to lose our mature trees, but weed control is pretty difficult with the banks in their natural state.

What else is missing other than some place to perhaps put in a few more places to sit and watch the sunset whilst enjoying dinner and a cold drink?

I would like to see the Zink dam redone as they have planned. It will be designed to be less dangerous and to better enable fish migration, better designed to allow for sediment tranfer and decrease silt build up, plus it will be higher. I do agree that the shoreline should be "hardened" in some places and cleaned up. But we should also make sure that there are natural areas as well, rough tumble, full of weeds and all. This plan will help to further delineate the different areas.

I am ho hum about what they have planned for the area where the house with the big yard is but I will wait to see what exactly they have planned.

I would also like to see the Tulsa Wave area enlarged and improved upon.

I would like to see a dock and boathouse on the improved lake part. Some paddle boats and a boathouse for the Tulsa crew team so they can return to the Arkansas River and for anyone else interested in the sport.

The most important area to have some good shoreline hardening should be where the urban style development should be on the west side near downtown. I would like it so that as your walking along the shops, restaurants, businesses, etc. you can easily see the water and go right down to the waters edge.

Something along these lines would be perfect for that area of Tulsa.

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Yes, the west bank is already purchased to be developed. Isn't it ironic that it's being developed by the same people who are propsing the tax for bridges etc.... Wouldn 't it be nice if every time we wanted to do something we could make the entire county foot the bill?

What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?

What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?

There is money to be made by this development - but not by the citizens of Tulsa County and certainly not by citizens who don't live in the City of Tulsa. The people who will bennefit are the members of the Kaiser Foundation pushing this.

First: the river is a regional amenity.  While the City may encompass the river for a great length it is utilized by many from outside the City and an amenity that each and every person has access to and unlimited use of so why not collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries to collectively improve one of the back bones of our entire community.

Imagine a string of pearls on a wonderful line of nature.  Destinations similar however more comprehensive and dense and better connected to the surrounding context than Riverwalk.  Potential for a ballpark village (emphasis on village), enhanced aquarium area, Route 66 museum, enhanced Amphitheater as well as a few other destinational pockets of life and culture in which to live, shop, and play in connected by a rail line on the west bank and very pleasant walking/biking trails on both sides.  I'm sorry, but that sounds so pleasant I could vomit, twice.  I think, if developed to human and community scale (F the emphasis on cars and parking, although necessary) and with the emphasis on getting people out of their cars and onto foot or cycle the river could be a national, or at least, super regional attraction.  And, if it's not, well then, we've created something very enjoyable for ourselves.

I don't think it's unreasonable to fork over a few personal extra tax dollars a month to help lay the ground works for a regional element that will add significantly to my quality of life.  I do think that we should pursue all avenues of funding.  I'm more than cool, as are all of my friends, with the county tax but I would want to ask the state and the feds chip in.  This is a Corp managed river and it's improvement will benefit the state too.  

I don't think you do this to the detriment to maintianing what we have, as far as infrastructure but at the rate our metropolitan area is growing we are adding new infrastructure everyday that we add to our maintenance rolls.  I don't mind attempting to redirect some of that growth to an area within an existing service area as opposed to the fringe of teh area.  

Hopefully, this is an economic development tool.  It can enhance our identity and interest others from the outside in to invest in and join our exciting quality of life.  

Our tax dollars assist in establishing public infrastructure which includes assembling land which we then turn over to developers, at or close to market rate to carry out the private development.  I'm cool with them making money to a degree.  I don't expect someone to attempt to create a little pocket of Venice on our river and not make a dime for their effort.

As for Kaiser making money, sure.  But he's kicking in $100m as initial investment to seed public investment.  I don't think he or the foundation will be in on the private development.  We can find out if BOK is the sole financier of the private dev.  Not quite sure what his direct return will be but hopefully his efforts lead to a better quality of life for his hometown and the home to his corporations that will attract better talent to help make his companies more competitive and profitable.  I think that would be the hope for many in the corporate sector.

Family calls...can't proof my comments and finish or connect thoughts...have at it.

[TheArtist]

I think this statement from above is important to look at again.

"I don't think you do this to the detriment to maintianing what we have, as far as infrastructure but at the rate our metropolitan area is growing we are adding new infrastructure everyday that we add to our maintenance rolls. I don't mind attempting to redirect some of that growth to an area within an existing service area as opposed to the fringe of teh area."

Many on here have complained about the roads. I think the roads could be better as well.

I think having great river facilities and facilitating urban development along parts of the river will draw more people to live in Tulsa and more businesses along the river. More people and businesses within our core where roads already exist. Both will generate more tax dollars for the roads throughout the city.

Lets take a look at a bit of what has contributed to getting us where we are now.

1920......9,240 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

1930......6,540 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

1950......6,844 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

1970......1,929 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

1990......2,002 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

2007......2,084 persons paying road taxes per sq mile

And this only tells part of the story. I am willing to bet that since the 80s and 90s with Tulsa being of similar size and population that we have added a lot more roads that need upkeeping. And now we are seeing on top of that a trend of more people from the suburbs keeping their tax dollars within the suburbs.  

Less people paying for more roads.

Perhaps if we raise this tax to fix the roads more people will move to Tulsa? In other words its partly the bad roads in Tulsa that are deterring people from moving here.

I get into the Oklahoma's Forum on occasion and I guarantee you there are quite a number of arguments about who has the worse roads, OKC people saying they do, Tulsans arguing back that they do lol. Its probably a draw but despite how horrible their roads may be they have found a great deal of pride and improvement in their city by upping their taxes to invest in their river areas. Could we get as much return by investing in our roads instead?

Sure I want our roads to be better. But I think this or some river proposal like it will bring more people, businesses, and tax dollars to our city resulting in better roads and some great places for us to enjoy.

[sgrizzle]

I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that if they collect sales taxes to build up infratructure, partnet with private development, those private developments then pay property tax which funds the city.

Maybe we should tell BA they get no share of the  property tax money from Riverwalk Crossing, Tulsa Landing, or any other future river projects.

[tim huntzinger]

Where were BA, Glenpoop, and the 'burbs complaining about the 2025 tax? Everyone and their dog knew the City was going to get the dubious privilege of the financial cost of the A-ream-a but the burbs went along for it.  Now the non-riparian cities in the County want to play it all the other way and take a seat on their high-horses about sharing responsibility and blah blah blah.

Well F U, 'burbs (FORGET=F)!  Either V 2025 and ergo the County should take over the A-ream-a or the rest of the County should shut their faces and pony up with their measly pittances about what benefits the City versus the County.

The last thing I want to hear is some mealymouthed POS suburb creature whining about how unfair these kinds of taxes are.  ROTARY FASTENER YOU, BROKEN ARROW!  CHOMP ON MY CHICKEN, GLENPOOP!

[Rowdy]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Where were BA, Glenpoop, and the 'burbs complaining about the 2025 tax? Everyone and their dog knew the City was going to get the dubious privilege of the financial cost of the A-ream-a but the burbs went along for it.  Now the non-riparian cities in the County want to play it all the other way and take a seat on their high-horses about sharing responsibility and blah blah blah.

Well F U, 'burbs (FORGET=F)!  Either V 2025 and ergo the County should take over the A-ream-a or the rest of the County should shut their faces and pony up with their measly pittances about what benefits the City versus the County.

The last thing I want to hear is some mealymouthed POS suburb creature whining about how unfair these kinds of taxes are.  ROTARY FASTENER YOU, BROKEN ARROW!  CHOMP ON MY CHICKEN, GLENPOOP!

This forum's IQ has lowered 50 points all of a sudden...

[tim huntzinger]

Suddenly? It has taken hundreds of posts to do that (about 478)! []

[Rowdy]

Glenpoop?  I don't even live near there and that sounds like a 14-42 IQ range.  [][]

[Sangria]

Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]

Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.

"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"

That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.

We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]

Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.

"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"

That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.

We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.

Interesting remarks. No, Jenks didn't foot all of the bill, but they were the KY jell that made it happen. How does a builder get the millions necessary to buy land (11mil?) and construct a shopping center on the river without lots of gear greasing from the city? Our city kicked in some help too. There is not a river rescue squad in Jenks. Local Jenks officials see no need for one as long as Tulsa's equipment and men are available. Hmmm.

Let's take your thinking to the next level. Broken Arrow doesn't want to contribute to the development of a river that runs through multiple cities because they haven't been able to exploit it, preferring instead to concentrate on other revenue producing areas while Tulsa does the heavy lifting. Well, if Tulsa creates a draw that induces Broken Arrowans to visit our river developments, they must pay a fee just like the Creek Expressway. Their residents can buy a lanyard with a device attached that registers their presence and sends a bill to the BA city treasurer. Pay for play. That way no one gets a free ride, Tulsa or BA.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Rowdy - you need to quit drinking the river water. [}:)]

Jenks managed to develope their part of the river without putting it all on the taxpayers.

"The public also would fund land acquisition that would allow the city to assemble land for private river development along the west bank"

That is part of what I have a problem with. is is not about COUNTY projects. It's about the COUNTY footing the bill for the CITY.

We also know anything that involves Randi Miller should come with a big tube of KY jell.

Interesting remarks. No, Jenks didn't foot all of the bill, but they were the KY jell that made it happen. How does a builder get the millions necessary to buy land (11mil?) and construct a shopping center on the river without lots of gear greasing from the city? Our city kicked in some help too. There is not a river rescue squad in Jenks. Local Jenks officials see no need for one as long as Tulsa's equipment and men are available. Hmmm.

Let's take your thinking to the next level. Broken Arrow doesn't want to contribute to the development of a river that runs through multiple cities because they haven't been able to exploit it, preferring instead to concentrate on other revenue producing areas while Tulsa does the heavy lifting. Well, if Tulsa creates a draw that induces Broken Arrowans to visit our river developments, they must pay a fee just like the Creek Expressway. Their residents can buy a lanyard with a device attached that registers their presence and sends a bill to the BA city treasurer. Pay for play. That way no one gets a free ride, Tulsa or BA.

Look, cities help each other out. No, Jenks does not have a river rescue group, Tulsa helps (and can bill) Jenks out with that service. But the Jenks Fire Department is the first responder to issues at Jones Riverside Airport since the downtown Jenks station is less than a mile from the Airport, and that is Tulsa's airport.

And, Jenks gave land, infrastructure and a ton of support to Jerry Gordon for Riverwalk Crossing. He was far from on his own.

[waterboy]

That's the point. I don't like this plan for other reasons. But the "its not our development, we won't pay for it" argument is bad. All the cities in the area stand to benefit.