River Plan- Public Infrastructure

[sgrizzle]

He didn't say it won't be going for a vote, just that he doesn't know.

[Conan71]

Well with the beater Sunfish I just bought, bridge clearance isn't an issue but tacking upstream against current would not be a joy.  Sailboats on the Arkansas River?  That's what Keystone and Kaw are for. []

[TheArtist]

But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.

As far as I've seen, they haven't had an actual concrete proposal to decide whether they want to vote or not. How many months was the channels around unsure on whether we were voting or not?

[RecycleMichael]

The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.

Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.

The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.)  communities to vote yes.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.

Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.

The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.)  communities to vote yes.

Considering the Tulsa County Republican Party passed a resolution against a river tax, I'd say there's more convincing to do than that.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The river improvement plan we vote on will most likely be different than what the Tulsa World put in their preliminary story.

Bixby wants to add some projects so that they can fully support the tax. I assume that other river communities will also want to have some river work done.

The key will be how will the county convince the non-river (Owasso, Collinsville, etc.)  communities to vote yes.

I have heard that the leadership in Owasso is very much for the river plan. They realize quite acutely how important it is for Tulsa to thrive. They realize that basically, Tulsa is the draw that brings people and jobs to the area many of whom then choose to live in Owasso. By helping us they help themselves. Hopefully the regular voter in Owasso will be as enlightened. (Never thought I would say the word Owasso and enlightened in the same sentence. lol)

I wrote my county commissioner..."I read in the Tulsa World article in which you were quoted as saying " "It remains to be seen if the river plan is going to go to a vote of the people or not." This is greatly troubling to me. We really need to get moving on some plan for the river. I have lived here practically all my life and my family is 3rd and 4th generation from the area. We all know very well how tenuous river plans can be. We have seen them come and go to no avail. I know you serve the people of Bixby as well as many Tulsans, but I would think it a terrible thing if such a promising plan as this one were lost to a thousand tiny cuts and squabbles as so many other plans have that have come before. Although I do not live in Bixby, I do live in your district and I am getting very frustrated at not seeing something done along our river. I am very afraid that if we add yet another amount to the 277million we could lose our chance to see this development happen. Please lets have a vote on this plan."

He responded back...


"William: Thanks for writing; I value your opinion. I agree that it is a promising plan. We have found that Bixby can be included without raising the amount much over the $277 million. The original plan developed by INCOG and the engineers they hired, at the direction of Tulsa County, was a 42 mile plan. If you are for the plan, then it makes sense to have 32 miles of the plan included rather than just 25 miles. This will make it more saleable and it is the fair thing to do when you consider how serious Bixby has been in river development. Thanks again for writing. Fred Perry"

I think it was nice that he wrote me back. Hopefully this plan can be worked out, modified a bit, and actually come to a vote and happen.

[Double A]

There might be a little more convincing to do on the west side too, I spoke to a few westsiders who are unhappy about the shuck and jive they are getting with the 41st St Pedestrian bridge in this deal. They felt like it was another example of Tulsa giving the west side the image of including and connecting them with the rest of Tulsa while still keeping them isolated. It might just take a vehicular bridge to get this passed. That's just what folks are saying. The west side deserves progress as promised. Randi Miller strikes again! Her party is opposed to a river tax and the west side is feeling shafted by it. She should have an interesting primary.

[Sangria]

I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.

I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.

No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.

To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?

I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

But thats the point. There shouldn't be any question about it. If there is a question, then there is a problem. Either they determine its a good enough plan to a go to a vote or they have determined its a bad plan and its not.

As far as I've seen, they haven't had an actual concrete proposal to decide whether they want to vote or not. How many months was the channels around unsure on whether we were voting or not?

Yea but that was a huuuge undertaking and asking for a lot of things that needed to be thought out, planned, checked for engineering viability, etc.  This mostly has things that are already "on the books" so to speak.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.

I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.

No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.

To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?

I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.

This isnt just for "beautifying Tulsa", though it certainly will do that on an impressive scale. Its to add to our quality of life by having great facilities and even more activities along the river. This will also add to our competitiveness with other cities. Plus it will improve any river development that does happen along our part of the river and Jenks and Bixby.

As for the tax thing, we have been through this argument before. Oklahomans have, in total, one of the lowest tax burdens in the US. 277 million is not a huge amount compared to the improvements we will be getting to our city and lifestyle, for generations to come. Not to mention, how many other cities that have great fortune for someone to step up and GIVE 111 million on top of the publics investment? This is an opportunity to have a standard of living comparible to places where you would pay double for the average rent etc. Having such a low tax burden is a fortunate circumstance whereby we can do some investing, and STILL have a very low tax burden yet make great improvements and be very competitive with other large cities with our amenities.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

I think we are already paying a lot of tax for "beautifying Tulsa" and we have very little to show for our money.

I think tulsa has become ADD - we jump from one project to the next and never finish anything.

No new taxes, finish everything we have started - then move on.

To be honest, I think with gas and grocery prices what they are, getting people to say yes is going to be difficult. That can't make ends meet as it is - now you want them to vote in $277 million for more beautification?

I just don't see it happening right now. Too many people having a hard time getting by - they will vote down the tax so they can support their families.

This isnt just for "beautifying Tulsa", though it certainly will do that on an impressive scale. Its to add to our quality of life by having great facilities and even more activities along the river. This will also add to our competitiveness with other cities. Plus it will improve any river development that does happen along our part of the river and Jenks and Bixby.

As for the tax thing, we have been through this argument before. Oklahomans have, in total, one of the lowest tax burdens in the US. 277 million is not a huge amount compared to the improvements we will be getting to our city and lifestyle, for generations to come. Not to mention, how many other cities that have great fortune for someone to step up and GIVE 111 million on top of the publics investment? This is an opportunity to have a standard of living comparible to places where you would pay double for the average rent etc. Having such a low tax burden is a fortunate circumstance whereby we can do some investing, and STILL have a very low tax burden yet make great improvements and be very competitive with other large cities with our amenities.

Yes taxes are low but as noted on another thread we average less than $15 hr income here. Less than the national average. Like most averages, this one doesn't tell the whole story. Once you factor in the huge income that is driving the castle boom in South Tulsa and the McMansions in Midtown, then factor out the unemployed and the illegals, you are left with an income mode that I would guess is less than $10 hr. This group makes up the majority of the city and they are worried about house payments. I don't think the issue is a slam dunk approval by any means.

It would be nice if the state would spend some of its largesse from oil tax collections to help but it seems doubtful.

[TheArtist]

That could very well be true. People here do also pay less for housing... But to argue against it for tax reasons versus income reasons could muddy the issue. If we want to improve our city, arguing that taxes are, or will be, too high, versus talking about income can lead to different results and us not tackling the right issue or placing the topic in the right context.

[Conan71]

Well, someone is paying surveyors money to survey W. 41st St. from Union on back east.  I don't think they'd be doing that all for the intentions of a pedestrian bridge.  It's got tongues wagging about a vehicle bridge.

What exactly, do most of you think is missing along the east and west water front from 11th to 51st other than some semblance of commercial development?

We have nice, well-traveled trails on both sides, an under-utilized amphitheatre, an attractive apartment complex, a ped bridge at 31st.

This isn't a loaded question, I'm just trying to figure out what in other people's minds specifically should be added to the banks.

Since the amphitheatre is largely un-used these days, I don't think a larger outdoor venue makes any sense.

We've gotten so far out on how to pay for it, what Bixby and Jenks want, low water dams, and the "evil" intentions of the county commissioners that it's clouding for the average citizen what we even need or want to come of this in "our" part of the river.

[swake]

With the money for the river from the 3rd Penny and 2025 and the money Kaiser has already donated, this will make for almost $450 million in new public development of the river. This plan also pays for the land for commercial development on the west bank that the Branson Landing people want.

With just the Branson Landing style development adding private commercial dollars and nothing else this vote on less than half a cent of sales tax will bring a billion dollars in river development. Add that to the hundreds of millions in river development already done or being done on the south river portion and the already great Riverparks and Tulsa's riverfront will be something very special. For less than half a penny we will get at least a Billion dollars in new river development.