Most elected officials like river plan

[USRufnex]

yikes.

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2007/05/15/state_would_cap_big_dig_payments_set_budget/

quote:State officials disclosed earlier this month that the final price of the Big Dig could be closer to $15 billion, $333 million more than previous estimates. They emphasized, however, that cost recovery from contractors and other expected income from insurance claims should keep the final cost below that figure.

Compare to the price of Tulsa's iconic arena... or the proposed cost of Arkansas River development... rinse, repeat.

Of course Chicago residents pay very high sales taxes... but most groceries are exempt... last I checked... Chicagoans pay 15.25% combined sales taxes...(which includes a 6.25% state sales tax) but grocery and non-prescription drugs have a sales tax of 1%.

[YoungTulsan]

At $15 billion the Big Dig was $333 million over RECENT estimates.  The project was estimated at $2.8 billion in 1985.  When construction began, the estimate was at $5.8 billion (early 90s).  The chairman of the Mass Turnpike authority was fired, and his replacement committed to a cap of $8.55 billion (year 2000).

Spiraled way out of hand.

[inteller]

when Tulsans don't need 15" thick tires and air suspension to not feel the potholes on various city streets, THEN we can start to talk about river playgrounds.

FIX TULSA ROADS FIRST!

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by T-TownMike

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I'm all for the plan. I just don't want to see a new tax created or taxes increased to pay for me.

Only .4 percent tax for 7 years and in exchange we get at least $100 million of investments being matched without coming out of our pockets. This is a great plan. Did I mention it will GENERATE additional tax revenue for the city?

Some people would complain about everything, including this time, when there's a Hell of a return on our invetsment. Let's make Tulsa better and make this happen. It takes money to make money. .4 percent is a SMALL amount in exchange of the quality of life it will give the community.

.4 for 7 years?  Someone else already said it....the best permanent tax is a temporary one.  think will just think up of something else in 7 years, just like they are already scheming for the next vision 2050 or whatever the ****.

want a good example?  just look at the "4 to fix the county"  its been
temporary" since the 80s.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller
****.

want a good example?  just look at the "4 to fix the county"  its been
temporary" since the 80s.

No it hasn't

[sgrizzle]

4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.

If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.

If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.

I has been revoted once, I want to say 4 to Fix was first voted on in 2002, hardly "since the 80s"

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.

If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.

I has been revoted once, I want to say 4 to Fix was first voted on in 2002, hardly "since the 80s"

Yeah, I voted on the original 4 to fix and I wasn't eligible to vote until 1994.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.

We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones  regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.

Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.

And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?

Hear, hear.  Without thinking and without the facts.  We get "nickeled and dimed" less than anyone in the country.

What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?

You now have changed from concerns about ineffective, wasteful government to tax rates and when shown our tax rates are low, you're still not satisfied! In answer to your "damn stupid" remark, I wouldn't mind the Ct or Mass tax rate if it brought a better lifestyle, more affluence, better roads, better educated residents and such. What do you want Wavoka? No taxes? What is a reasonable rate and where do you draw your conclusions from? No answers so far, means you are just reaching for the comfort food.

Successfully mining the potential of the river will leverage our economy and make for a better lifestyle. If you want the lowest taxes consider moving to a rural area.

No answer so far means I had something better to do than hang out on an Internet forum arguing.

Like someone else said. When our roads and bridges are no longer in need of major repair we can talk about public funding of playgrounds. I will go even further and say that once our police department is fully staffed and academies are being held yearly, when our medians aren't overgrown, when our street lights don't have to be turned off to save money, etc, etc, etc.... then we can talk about using public money to fund non essential services. Until then I will continue to be against raising taxes to build anything in or along the river.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

Sorry, but I won't drink the Kool-Aid.

We are already being nickeled and dimed to death with taxes. We don't need additional ones  regardless of how small they might be. A tax is a tax is a tax no matter the size.

Again I think the plan is great, but if it is to be built they need to find the funds without raising taxes.

And there, in a few short pre-programmed sentences, is why Tulsa continues to slide into mediocrity. You drink the Kool-aid, just a different flavor than we do. I think your tax statements are like comfort food. Whenever a new opportunity arises that might cost public money, just reach for the anti-tax statements without thinking and it all feels better. Just how much in taxes is acceptable Wavoka? Only enough to provide water, police and jails?

Hear, hear.  Without thinking and without the facts.  We get "nickeled and dimed" less than anyone in the country.

What does it matter if we are taxed less than other states? That is a damned stupid argument. Would you be happier if we were taxed at the rate of say Connecticut or Massachusetts?

You now have changed from concerns about ineffective, wasteful government to tax rates and when shown our tax rates are low, you're still not satisfied! In answer to your "damn stupid" remark, I wouldn't mind the Ct or Mass tax rate if it brought a better lifestyle, more affluence, better roads, better educated residents and such. What do you want Wavoka? No taxes? What is a reasonable rate and where do you draw your conclusions from? No answers so far, means you are just reaching for the comfort food.

Successfully mining the potential of the river will leverage our economy and make for a better lifestyle. If you want the lowest taxes consider moving to a rural area.

No answer so far means I had something better to do than hang out on an Internet forum arguing.

Like someone else said. When our roads and bridges are no longer in need of major repair we can talk about public funding of playgrounds. I will go even further and say that once our police department is fully staffed and academies are being held yearly, when our medians aren't overgrown, when our street lights don't have to be turned off to save money, etc, etc, etc.... then we can talk about using public money to fund non essential services. Until then I will continue to be against raising taxes to build anything in or along the river.

Sounds like you'll have a lifetime of railing against taxes. Enjoy.

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

4 to fix the county has come and gone and come again. I believe it also sets a monetary limit instead of a time limit.

If they go for 4/10ths then they should go a bit higher.. I think it's be nice if our tax rate was a round number. Give the excess to TPD, roads and transit.

Whoa Whoa Whoa! SON, don't ya know, here in Tulsey, people like thar cars!  Stop with all this transit gobbledygook, y'hear?

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

when Tulsans don't need 15" thick tires and air suspension to not feel the potholes on various city streets, THEN we can start to talk about river playgrounds.

FIX TULSA ROADS FIRST!

I agree that Tulsa has some pretty bad road conditions, but frankly I would rather live in trendy city with potholes over a boring, nationally unknown city with immaculate street conditions.

[perspicuity85]

It seems to me that many of the same people in Tulsa that complain about city streets also are against any form of downtown or river development,  both of which have the potential to raise the demand for housing in the central city area, and somewhat curb suburban sprawl, which exhausts city infrastructure budgets due to rapid expansion/repair of roads, utilities, etc.

[Wrinkle]

Quick, name one revenue producing project (i.e., "retail", which actually might pay Sales Tax) between 11th St and 71st St on either East or West bank of the River in this proposal?

Let me save some time. There's none.

But, in the given descriptions, do the same for any which simply suggest 'preparation' for said.

[waterboy]

Do you actually support any change in Tulsa mr. Wrinkle? Or are you like Wavoka who simply never saw a tax that was justifiable. There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be. I recognize the persona, I've been one before. I am impressed with your inside knowledge which you have displayed in re the city hall move. That makes me think you may have some grudge against this administration. If so you should fess up.

Anyone who knows me, knows I have little admiration for authorities who have had the responsibility of the development and maintenance of the river. From Mayors down to administrators. However, I respect how difficult a job they have and I stay civil while encouraging the good ideas and diminishing the bad. If I devoted the rest of my life to revenge and criticism it wouldn't be long enough or effective at changing anything.

I actually enjoy the different perspective you have added with your arguments. But given that the public has expressed a want of development on the river, regardless of whether it returns huge retail taxes, and that the public does not want to see a very commercial development, what would you have the leaders/planners do? And, isn't there a wider impact from such development than just retail taxes?