River Plan- Public Infrastructure

[waterboy]

We will truly regret not having planned for travel upon the river utilizing locks and dams or some sort of connection. Very short sighted. Especially since foundation money is now starting to roll in.

It reminds me of how we build housing and shopping in South Tulsa around soon to be clogged two lane roads (91st, 101st, 111th etc.) with no left turn lanes. Then when the inevitable happens and the area is bringing in tax dollars, we tear up the roads, create havoc by widening and re-configuring.

[Rowdy]

This topic is sort of ironic talking about visions and beautifying Tulsa and the millions to go along with it and we can't even cut our own grass down.

[Steve]

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.

I second your opinions exactly.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Rowdy

This topic is sort of ironic talking about visions and beautifying Tulsa and the millions to go along with it and we can't even cut our own grass down.

Grass, police, schools, roads, etc. each have their own pot of money and budget. You just cant pull from one "penny" or estimated yearly budget, to pay for another. Plus, I am sure many of us would have liked to have had a bit less rain and a bit less mowing from fast growing, overly watered, grass in our own yards.  The city will catch up.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

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.

I second your opinions exactly.

How much tax does go to beautifying Tulsa?  What projects are you speaking of that haven't been finished because we have jumped to another one?

[TheArtist]

I am really anxious to see some specifics on this plan. From what I can tell it follows what INCOG worked on and came up with.  They and many citizens of Tulsa have put a lot of work into the master plan for the river. Sooner or later, if we wanted anything done with the river, it would have to be paid for somehow. I think we are quite lucky to have someone wanting to chip in over 100 million to help pay for it. The reason INCOG came up with this plan is because it was felt that there needed to be a plan for the river. Where things could be developed, where they should not be and kept as conservation space, the extent of any development and its place within the context of future city growth, etc.

My favorite part of the INCOG plan was the 71st park area.  I love playing Volley Ball there. For years as soon as it was warm enough until the fall loss of light made it too difficult, I would play out there with dozens and dozens of people every week. And dont forget the annual Sandblazer Vball Tournament that can have over 100 teams playing.  Its a fun sport people can play at all skill levels, and it always offers a lively and favorable impression on our city to visitors who see people out there playing. However the facilities could be greatly improved. They basically dont have any facilities there now other than sand pits and porta potties. Would be nice to have actual restrooms, a drinking fountain, outdoor shower/fountain to rinse sand off and some parking wouldn't be bad either.  

Here is an old INCOG rendering of a possible concept of what could be put there.



Here is the River Corridor Master Plan if any of you havent seen it before. Also note that any plan will also most likely include something for the Tulsa Wave, another great asset that can be improved upon.

http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm

http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf


I just found this from something that Kaiser had apparently sponsored. We have heard mention of piers, so this may be something like what they are talking about. It was dated as being March of this year. Don't know if its what their final ideas are hoping to be or if it was just a general starting concept. However...Where are our Vball courts!




Here is an old INCOG rendering of part of a 41st pedestrian bridge concept.



The Kaiser plan does not include a 41st bridge, but does include a 41st pedestrian bridge.  I really hope that they place the pedestrian bridge off to the side a ways so that a Bridge can be added at a later date without any trouble.

Here is an INCOG rendering of a development idea for the west side of the river near the PSO plant. This would be faaaaar in the future. But if we ever want to be able to develop there, we must plan ahead, keeping this in mind, so that we will not waste any money by having to redo, or undo, anything that we are doing now.

 

[Wilbur]

With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.

Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed.  I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support.  Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!

Of the eight items listed, I can only support two.  If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.

Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed.  I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support.  Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!

Of the eight items listed, I can only support two.  If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.

Yea, we wouldn't want to actually have anything to go to on those roads and do on the water now would we?

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

With very little information to go on, I thought I might be in support of public money for 'infrastructure' until I saw the list that taxpayer money was going to be used for.

Your project needs roads, water, ...... to succeed.  I don't have too much of a problem with that type of support.  Your project needs white water rafting, I say forget it!

Of the eight items listed, I can only support two.  If I can only support 25%, I'll vote no.

Yea, we wouldn't want to actually have anything to go to on those roads and do on the water now would we?

It would have been nice to actually see a road on the infrastructure list, but no roads.

And the 'something to do' part is the responsibility of private business, not my government.  When government has fixed what they are responsible for, then we can talk about things to play with.

[RidingEasy]

Before I can support this proposal they are going to have to convince me they can maintain what now exists plus the new additions.

[Moderator]

This thread appears to be going in three different directions.  Different people want to know about public infrastructure, funding, and private development.  This is an important issue and this thread may be too confusing to new members and readers of this forum.

This thread will become the public infrastructure thread.  Comments on funding and taxes need to be placed under "funding", private or commercial development need to be addressed under "commerical/private development".

[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.

[Sangria]

I would think they are all intertwined.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria
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?

Actually major waterfront and/or urban developments have contributed to a positive overall perception of many other cities.  Generally speaking, generation Y isn't willing to take an at-market value job in a non-trendy, non- urban location.  Tulsa doesn't have much of a reputation as an urban, trendy city to outsiders, specifically, regional outsiders, which compose most of Tulsa's tourism and move-in target market.  Urban projects create demand for Tulsa, because they highlight the city's unique features.  In order to be competitive now-a-days, it's not enough to compete with other cities for the next new suburban mall store or restaurant, you have to have a unique and trendy culture.  Believe it or not, a city's perceived culture plays a role in where young job-seekers decide to look for jobs, which ultimately affects the labor pool.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would make three changes that would possibly sweeten this plan.

What if:
    1. The temporary tax was raised from .4 cent to a full 1 cent but for a shorter time period. The object would be to fast track the project so that the public actually sees something happening.

    2.Add an inexpensive impound device (wing dam, inflatable low water dam etc.) at the Newblock Park area to back up water to below the Chandler Park area. This way the Sand Springs dam does not have to impact so much of the river and will not have pressure from Tulsa to release its water for our gain. This was the original site suggested for our first low water dam. The added benefit is the possible redevelopment of land along Charles Page Boulevard. This area deserves some juice too.

    3. Write in a public oversight committee to watch over construction and operation of these river areas. The absolute control desired by the city/county needs to be offset with the dispassionate observance of everyday users. The possibility for abuses we have all seen by these entities is inherent in this development.

With these changes the plan would be a winner.

Sounds like window dressing to me. Lipstick on a pig.