Most elected officials like river plan

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

4 to fix is just the offspring of the original 3 to fix.  the beast just keeps reincarnating as something different.  THe 3rd cent sales tax has been temporary for over 25 years.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.

Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.

Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.

[bacjz00]

I've been slow to chime in here, but let me share my thoughts.  I have LONG been a proponent of Tulsa doing more to beautify the river and especially to put more money into downtown and the core of the city.  But what I'm also for, is better roads for our city.  The current state of our surface streets and city trafficways is deplorable and embarrassing.  I'm not sure these things HAVE to be mutually exclusive, but more and more it just seems that Tulsa can't have its cake and eat it too.  

As another person pointed out, the geographic sprawl in the Tulsa metro area is simply outpacing the realized net effect generated by sales tax revenues within that perceived "growth" area.  All the while, the geographic movement is eating up infrastructure dollars.  

I'm a 30-something...I have a family, but I travel to other cities and see great things.  I want Tulsa to reinvest in its core and NOT become a sum of its suburban parts, so YES I think something needs to be done to differentiate itself.  I support the Master Corridor plan and what it can bring.  I support the Tulsa Landing idea.  And I also support whatever increase is necessary to repair our failing roads.  Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority in that I don't mind paying higher taxes if it gets Tulsa moving forward towards a well supported goal.  

Unfortunately, Tulsa's road situation is tragic...does that mean the river doesn't deserve attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  But it's complicated, because Tulsa simply needs more income if it's going to fix all those roads and they can't generate more income if they don't keep citizens from moving to the suburbs year after year by improving Tulsa's appeal. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't always have any easy end.  Just some rambling perspective I suppose.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


4 to fix is just the offspring of the original 3 to fix.  the beast just keeps reincarnating as something different.  THe 3rd cent sales tax has been temporary for over 25 years.

The 3rd penny is basically supposed to be permanent considering it's the city's capital budget. 4-to-fix is county, not city.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.

Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.

Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.

If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.

Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.

Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.

If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.

Blah, blah, blah.

You made the statement that Mr. Wrinkle and I were "There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be." which I have proven in my case to be untrue. Put simply you are an elitist who thinks they know better than everyone else.

I understand your passion for the river, but your tactic of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with your view is pathetic.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree.

I have some of them fancy degrees and I am an idiot.

I am not the only idiot in a town our size, but I have the most witnesses.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by bacjz00

I've been slow to chime in here, but let me share my thoughts.  I have LONG been a proponent of Tulsa doing more to beautify the river and especially to put more money into downtown and the core of the city.  But what I'm also for, is better roads for our city.  The current state of our surface streets and city trafficways is deplorable and embarrassing.  I'm not sure these things HAVE to be mutually exclusive, but more and more it just seems that Tulsa can't have its cake and eat it too.  

As another person pointed out, the geographic sprawl in the Tulsa metro area is simply outpacing the realized net effect generated by sales tax revenues within that perceived "growth" area.  All the while, the geographic movement is eating up infrastructure dollars.  

I'm a 30-something...I have a family, but I travel to other cities and see great things.  I want Tulsa to reinvest in its core and NOT become a sum of its suburban parts, so YES I think something needs to be done to differentiate itself.  I support the Master Corridor plan and what it can bring.  I support the Tulsa Landing idea.  And I also support whatever increase is necessary to repair our failing roads.  Unfortunately, I'm probably in the minority in that I don't mind paying higher taxes if it gets Tulsa moving forward towards a well supported goal.  

Unfortunately, Tulsa's road situation is tragic...does that mean the river doesn't deserve attention?  Maybe. Maybe not.  But it's complicated, because Tulsa simply needs more income if it's going to fix all those roads and they can't generate more income if they don't keep citizens from moving to the suburbs year after year by improving Tulsa's appeal. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't always have any easy end.  Just some rambling perspective I suppose.

Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!

I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I really love how you assume anyone against development is some sort of slack jawed inbred trailer living troglodyte on welfare.

Just so you'll know I have multiple Bachelor's Degrees and a Masters. I have also been employed in the same job, which I love, for 10 years this October and with my next increase will be making in excess of 6 figures.

Taxes are necessary, but should not be used for things that are unnecessary. I consider "playgrounds" as unnecessary as long as our infrastructure is falling apart. Fix those things and then we can talk about using tax dollars for entertainment venues.

If you're not confortable with your views being criticized maybe you shouldn't post in public. I never said or implied any of those things. Usually when someone brings to mind their exhaustive and impressive education or their impressive income, their argument is already lost. My feeling is education and intelligence are only marginally related and have no particular relation to income. Besides, I wasn't even talking to you. But you're smart enough to know that.

Blah, blah, blah.

You made the statement that Mr. Wrinkle and I were "There is no critic quite like the unhappy, unheard, underemployed worker which you seem to be." which I have proven in my case to be untrue. Put simply you are an elitist who thinks they know better than everyone else.

I understand your passion for the river, but your tactic of personally attacking anyone who disagrees with your view is pathetic.

The nice thing about a public post is that, like a newspaper one can go back and check for veracity. You should do that more often.

I never said or implied, that you were an unhappy employee. I did ask if his views were like yours. You made a jump to connect the two. That's twice in two posts that you have made this mistake.

Honestly, your view is so common that any attempt to make this a personal thing is a waste of your talents. I have heard this view since I was a child espoused mostly from middle income non governmental employees. Its on bumper stickers, and is used by candidates in almost every campaign. Its sort of like the "drunken painter" remarks my father always endured.

What in the world would make you think I am an elitist? I only have one miserable degree which has never made me a 6 figure income.[]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I agree.

I have some of them fancy degrees and I am an idiot.

I am not the only idiot in a town our size, but I have the most witnesses.

Ever considered trying out for "Last Comic Standing"? You could go on as Henny Youngman.[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!

I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.

Okay, I don't have multiple degrees and never played a doctor on television, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Somehow, we aren't getting what we are paying for on road maintenance.  The general condition and lack of repair I see is almost to the point of arrogant defiance on the part of the city.

I don't have a problem with ideas like toll bridges and river improvement.  However, Tulsa has a history of ignoring infrastructure maintenance and improvements while our leader's short attention spans lead them elsewhere.

To me it's like having a neighbor who's roof is crumbling off the house, paint is peeling, fence is collapsing, and the yard is over-grown because his lawn mower is broken.  All of his necessities are in shambles, then a new ski boat shows up in his driveway.

I was brought up to take care of needs first and wants second.  Streets are a need, a massive river development, in my book, is a want.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Yeah, that is the conundrum. We daily have to endure the poor road conditions yet I doubt that the public would show enthusiasm for a wide scale, long term tax increase to address them. Who would even promote it? Can you imagine the pitch? "Its time to pony up for all that poor construction work and deferred maintenance our decaying road system needs. It will take a few years and 300 million and I promise we'll use better materials and contractors this time, but we'll all be happier when its done and then we can start developing things that will make the city fun." In other words, while other cities continue to dress up their image we would still be looking for clean underwear!

I don't see anyone seriously proposing that or getting any support for it. The first blast would be that it needs to come from existing budgets and no tax increase would be needed if we just cut waste and fraud.

Okay, I don't have multiple degrees and never played a doctor on television, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Somehow, we aren't getting what we are paying for on road maintenance.  The general condition and lack of repair I see is almost to the point of arrogant defiance on the part of the city.

I don't have a problem with ideas like toll bridges and river improvement.  However, Tulsa has a history of ignoring infrastructure maintenance and improvements while our leader's short attention spans lead them elsewhere.

To me it's like having a neighbor who's roof is crumbling off the house, paint is peeling, fence is collapsing, and the yard is over-grown because his lawn mower is broken.  All of his necessities are in shambles, then a new ski boat shows up in his driveway.

I was brought up to take care of needs first and wants second.  Streets are a need, a massive river development, in my book, is a want.

Sounds like you've met my neighbors.[]

Fair enough. Start the ball rolling for no more added taxes for projects till the roads are in good shape and maintained correctly. Forget river development in our lifetimes though. I guess we could take 2025 money to do it. I'll support you, but not many other taxpayers will.

BTW did you support the V2025 tax? The roads were in bad shape back then too.

[Conan71]

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of retail development along with public use facilities.  Think about areas like the waterfront in Bricktown in OKC or the river in San Antonio.  Those areas wouldn't be near the draw with out dining, entertainment, galleries, and unique retail.  I'm not saying it has to be the central focus, but it makes it of more interest to people who don't care to bike, jog, kayak, walk, etc.  Plus it offers a payback to make it more self-sustaining.

I'd gladly pay a little more tax for river development if we had a track record of our local government managing assets and projects competently.  Unfortunately they don't and haven't.  My mind isn't made up on a tax for the river as of yet.  I believe my sentiment on new taxes is the same as others.  

I believe this is the largest single reason people are against any new taxes for any new amenities.  When a city doesn't manage it's assets very well, it's hard to believe they are going to do any better with them in the future.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of retail development along with public use facilities.  Think about areas like the waterfront in Bricktown in OKC or the river in San Antonio.  Those areas wouldn't be near the draw with out dining, entertainment, galleries, and unique retail.  I'm not saying it has to be the central focus, but it makes it of more interest to people who don't care to bike, jog, kayak, walk, etc.  Plus it offers a payback to make it more self-sustaining.

I'd gladly pay a little more tax for river development if we had a track record of our local government managing assets and projects competently.  Unfortunately they don't and haven't.  My mind isn't made up on a tax for the river as of yet.  I believe my sentiment on new taxes is the same as others.  

I believe this is the largest single reason people are against any new taxes for any new amenities.  When a city doesn't manage it's assets very well, it's hard to believe they are going to do any better with them in the future.

I personally don't mind commercialism if it is contained to specific areas with other areas designed for nature only. My gut reaction is that Tulsans are afraid that "dining" translates to "watering holes" and they don't want that.  

The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40years ago. What happened?

[YoungTulsan]

Our River plan is going to need to include lots of sandbags if it doesn't stop raining.