Most elected officials like river plan

[RecycleMichael]

Here is the Tulsa World Sunday story on the river plan. It is very well researched and great to get all these officials on the record as supporters. I especially like how the reporter ended the story with a contrary quote by Tulsa City Councilor Roscoe Turner.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070624_238_A1_spanc46170

$277 million plan gets thumbs up

By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
6/24/2007

A proposed $277 million Tulsa County tax initiative to implement a little more than half of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is getting mostly positive reaction from local and area officials. Although some say they need more details on the plan, everyone seemed to agree that they liked what they have heard about the plan so far. "At first blush, I'm all in favor of it, even though I don't like a tax increase," said City Councilor Bill Christiansen.

Councilor Jack Henderson said he thinks it is a good plan. "I like the overall way they put the package together and the way the private sector is stepping up to the plate with a lot of private funding," he said. George Kaiser, a local philanthropist who is championing the public-private partnership, said that if the Tulsa County commissioners call a fall election and voters approve the tax, the private sector would add more than $100 million worth of enhancements.

The county also may consider asking voters to approve use of the 0.4 percent of the Vision 2025 tax that voters had approved in 2003 to lure Boeing. That never occurred and the tax never was collected. If approved, the tax would be for seven years.

Christiansen said that "instead of having corporate welfare for Boeing, we're just going to ask taxpayers to use that money and do what I believe the majority of citizens in Tulsa want -- a river with water that is a drive-to destination." Councilor Rick Westcott said river improvements have been talked about for at least 40 years, referring to a plan in the late 1960s to put inflatable dams in the river.
He said the current proposal mirrors the river master plan, for which all residents had the opportunity to give input. "I especially like that the plan is putting water in the river first," he said. "It doesn't matter what great things we put on the river banks, if the river is a big sand bed, nobody is going to want to go there," he said. Westcott said he still would like officials to explore alternative funding sources other than sales tax.

Owasso City Manager Rodney Ray, one of four Tulsa County cities that does not touch the river, said he fully supports the plan. "I have seen enough of the plan to know that if we can develop the river as part of the core of Tulsa's amenities, it will benefit Owasso," he said. He said he thinks this package is appropriate as a county tax. "I believe that if we're going to ask the public to come to the table with $277 million, I think we need to focus on the river . . . and should not be proposing with this project a litany of items like community centers. We need to stick to the river."

Broken Arrow and Bixby both touch the river, but have nothing in the package. Bixby Mayor Ray Bowen declined to comment on the proposal other than to say Bixby wants development along the entire 42-mile corridor. A spokesman for Broken Arrow said officials there think "it's a tremendous project." Kevin Sterling, Broken Arrow's director of communications, said the city is hopeful the remaining items in the master plan will be implemented down the road. Sterling said Broken Arrow still needs to further review the plan and assess what effects this tax would have on the city's own growth needs.

Ron Howell, a lakefront developer and critic of Vision 2025 for not including sufficient river development funds, said he likes this project.
Although Howell said he does not like raising taxes, "realistically, this is probably the best we're going to do, especially with getting this much private dollars." Howell said voters need to understand "that the public investment is going to be dwarfed by private donations and investments." He said the acquisition aspect of the package is key because it allows the city to seek development proposals, like a Branson Landing, which is a multimillion-dollar investment that would generate an abundance of sales tax. "This is a true public-private partnership," he said.

Mayor Kathy Taylor said last week that if voters approve the package, the city immediately would begin the process of assembling land and soliciting development proposals. "It's a priority for me for it to go forward and develop one of the most significant, yet underdeveloped assets in Tulsa," she said.

Councilors Bill Martinson, Dennis Troyer, Maria Barnes, John Eagleton and Cason Carson also praised the package as a tremendous opportunity to leverage private-sector funds. Martinson said he supports river development, but his focus is fixing the streets. Eagleton said he does not want to raise taxes to do the plan, but will keep an open mind. He suggests the plan be tabled until Vision 2025 projects are complete, which would allow for funding, but lower taxes. Troyer said that if the river is going to be developed, then officials "have to seriously consider a light-rail system to get people down there." Carter said he supports letting the voters decide "their own future, and river development is something that this community has been talking about and seeking for a long time."

Councilor Roscoe Turner said he knows nothing about the river plan and wants nothing to do with the county.

[Double A]

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

[sgrizzle]

I love roscoe's quote. I like when you know you can depend on people to be who they are. You can depend on bikerfox to wear spandex, Paul Tay to ride his bike on highways, and Roscoe to hate on the county.

Is it just me, or does every story involve Roscoe saying he knows nothing about what he's being interviewed on? Is it just that he wants "All the details" before he says anything?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

I would like to see Cities be able to assess a couple of cents fuel tax for roads, make it a use tax.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I love roscoe's quote. I like when you know you can depend on people to be who they are. You can depend on bikerfox to wear spandex, Paul Tay to ride his bike on highways, and Roscoe to hate on the county.

Is it just me, or does every story involve Roscoe saying he knows nothing about what he's being interviewed on? Is it just that he wants "All the details" before he says anything?

yeah, unlike some of the other councilors who simply join the circle for a big county [cough].  roscoe is one of the few councilors that is always looking out for Tulsa.

I remember on the EMSA deal he said he would be back in May to talk about the mortgage we have paid off but are still paying.  As far as I know its still on my bill....I guess the county tools have managed to shut him up on that one.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

 I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

 I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.

So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.

See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

 I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.

So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.

See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.

It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.

No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.

No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

[Conan71]

So what did "four out of five dentists surveyed" have to say about it?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

 I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.

So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.

See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.

It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.

No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.

No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

When and where have you ever NOT heard those remarks made in regards to even the best governments? Never. I challenge you to find $150 million or so of waste in our local government. Thats what it will take to build two dams, remodel one and get the ball rolling.

Also, I worked at a store that sold office furniture to city employees. Had everyone from Parks to the Mayors office buy chairs and furniture through me. Never sold one for more than $150 or that wasn't on sale. They know the taxpayers are watching and go cheap all the way.

Lastly, our government pretty much taxed its way to prosperity several times in its history. The depression, the post war boom of the fifties, were both high tax rate periods. The Reagan era shifted the tax burden to local communities through unfunded mandates which forced raises in property taxes, Clinton raised taxes (the economy flourished under them both)and on, and on.

But that's politics, this thread is in development.[]

[rwarn17588]

Roscoe's heart is in the right place, but the more time goes by, the more I question his lucidity on occasion. I figure that advancing age is catching up to him.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I would rather see our elected officials propose a tax to fix Tulsa's two biggest problems: failing roads and schools. Or maybe a tax that would focus on river development, streets/transportation improvements, and education improvements equally. I agree with Roscoe, given the way Vision 2025 was  misrepresented as it was brought to a vote and the misappropriation in the distribution of funds for projects promised by the County. The County has not lived up to their pledge of progress as promised as so many V2025 projects have shown no progress and even been postponed or put on hold. I don't trust County oversight of taxes like this based on their handling of Vision 2025.

I would like to see a tax that fixes our roads and schools as well.  Plus something to make improvements along our river.  We could still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, if not the lowest, and have a wooonderful standard of living with lots of promise for renewed opportunity and growth.  We could truly have the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need are more taxes. How many times have we passed a tax to "fix" something and yet the problem still remains? HB 1017 was supposed to save education. Yet the educational system still sucks. Why? Lack of $? No. The problem is the $ is being spent in the wrong places and wasted.

The same goes for our roads. The City, County and State collect plenty of $ for the roads. The problem is that they aren't spending it correctly. When they do spend it the quality of workmanship sucks. Just look at what is going on between Tulsa and Sand Springs on 412. They have actually made the roads worse after a year of work.

 I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would hope that if our elected officials are determined to tax our way into prosperity I would rather see it used to improve/maintain public schools and public infrastructure(ya know, the traditional meat and potatoes business of government) instead of subsidizing our elected officials penchants for privatization of public infrastructure(EMSA, South Tulsa Bridge) and providing corporate welfare for private development.

So, the public's longstanding demand for river development should just be ignored until streets, education, infrastructure are repaired and corporates stop trying to feed off the public trough? Might as well throw in reducing crime too. Won't happen folks.

See this as leveraging capital so that those other issues are more effectively addressed. This is how a community, a family, a company grows. You can't wait till everythings ship shape to start your projects.

It doesn't have to wait if the various government entities would tighten their belts and stop wasting money. Cut government waste and there would be all kinds of $ available to do nifty things without increasing taxes.

No more $1500 office chairs at the Education Service Center(or whatever they call it), the Mayor's office, police department, etc, etc, etc... would be a good start.

No society has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

When and where have you ever NOT heard those remarks made in regards to even the best governments? Never. I challenge you to find $150 million or so of waste in our local government. Thats what it will take to build two dams, remodel one and get the ball rolling.

Also, I worked at a store that sold office furniture to city employees. Had everyone from Parks to the Mayors office buy chairs and furniture through me. Never sold one for more than $150 or that wasn't on sale. They know the taxpayers are watching and go cheap all the way.

Lastly, our government pretty much taxed its way to prosperity several times in its history. The depression, the post war boom of the fifties, were both high tax rate periods. The Reagan era shifted the tax burden to local communities through unfunded mandates which forced raises in property taxes, Clinton raised taxes (the economy flourished under them both)and on, and on.

But that's politics, this thread is in development.[]

Just because we have heard the remarks before doesn't make them any less true. The government is wasteful and is too often given a pass on its waste.

I don't have a copy of Tulsa's budget but I'm sure there is a lot of waste in there.

As for the chair issue. I beg to differ. I know that the full leather executive chairs I see any time they are interviewing a city or county official cost well in excess of $150. In fact I have seen several of the model, can't remember the brand right now but OSU bought a ton of them as well, that are over $1200 per chair.

As for the tax issue. Except for the wealthy the tax rates during the Great Depression were fairly low. Started at 4% I believe and went up to somewhere around 10% for what the average Joe would be making. I wouldn't exactly call that a period of prosperity either. Kind of flies in the face of the very meaning of a depression.

As for the 50's we had high taxes to pay for our debt incurred during WWII. The prosperity during that period was brought about by the end of the war much as it was during the post WWI boom.

As for Clinton. The booming economy he had the luck to preside over was brought about by the .com boom. Something that as we have seen is not sustainable.

I'll shut up for now since this isn't politics.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

Originally posted by waterboy

Originally posted by wavoka

Originally posted by waterboy

Originally posted by Double A

Originally posted by wavoka

Originally posted by TheArtist

Originally posted by Double A

Thanks. Disagree with everything you said except this is not politics.

So, after the government waste is eliminated to the tune of $277 million from the state university level down to the local public education level, would you support this plan that the people of the city of Tulsa have asked for? Would you support letting the people vote on the tax?