Most elected officials like river plan

[swake]

A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:

The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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?

I was born around then, coincidence? []

Tulsan's are pretty conditional on what we want.  What happens is places like Jenks or OKC are constantly on our "most admired" list because they just forge ahead and do it.  We have to have a five to ten year circle-@#$% when it comes to doing anything innovative, in the meantime, other cities wind up doing what we wish we could do.

Riverwalk crossing is a classic example of what can be done with a private investment and citizens and leaders who don't try to hamstring the development at every turn.  

The develper and many of the merchants are doing quite well.  All one has to do is drive into the parking lot on a Friday or Saturday night and it's obvious there is a market for commercial establishments along the river.

To this day I still can't get the ringing out of my ears from when the Aquarium was proposed at 71st & Riverside and the animal rights crowd started piping up.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by swake

A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:

The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.

We started off probably several billion dollars behind in URGENTLY NEEDED street improvements.  I think in recent years we have been doing enough that I would think we are somewhat closing the gap, but the gap is still huge.  We are still way behind.  And if we don't keep crying about it, we'll start falling further behind again.

I dream of a day where a brand new car can maintain a good suspension for more than 1,000 miles in Tulsa

Unfortunately we also seem to be behind on police and education.

But I do see the river plan as a good investment of tax dollars.  The kind of thing that will ultimately help Tulsa prosper, and generate more tax revenue years down the line thus helping us overcome our shortfalls.

[Wrinkle]

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?

To date, I've not expressed an opinion on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

My prior posting, and most all of my postings on TN are to provide additional information (some of which, IMO, few had thought about specifically), insight and opinion.

I know of no job, educational experiences or party affiliation requirements associated with that endeavor, so excuse me if I do not post my resume.

I will say that I have enough of both job and education, including many years' experience in several areas in which I could be considered 'expert' level at this point, which makes me at least as well qualified as Roger Staubach in everything but football. Still, we all make mistakes, sometimes big ones, like that pass in the closing seconds of the big game which was intercepted.

As you noticed, I strongly oppose the One Tech deal because it's bad. I simply tried to show why. And, yes, I think Kitty's playing with us. But, it's also now obvious that deal is being handed her to implement, and she feels some obligation to attempt to see it through, no matter how wrong it is, or what it could potentially do to our City. (note that's not "for").

As for the River, I'm pretty much willing to go along with the desires of Tulsans on it. And, that plan DID have much public input, which was very non-typical to begin with. I did wish to help make sure they (Tulsans) know what it was they think they are getting. I'd bet if they were polled, there'd be quite a few versions of the Plan represented, some of which were never even actually considered.

So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there (Note: That's not City, so whatever might happen in the Tulsa stretch would require County approval), along with initiating another major new tax, which would push the overall Sales Tax here to very close to 9%. (8.917%). The National Average Sales Tax is currently 5.93%. So, suggesting we are not paying enough, or are borderline high-side is being extremely conservative.

Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.

In the last post, the intent was to make it clear to readers that was the case again in this proposal. So long as they know that, and still vote to approve the tax, then that's fine with me. It's all the deception with which I have trouble. Nobody's putting the information out for evaluation. They simply want us to trust them, even after having lied over and over again about what they're actually up to. One Tech is probably the epitome of that, but Vision 2025 is no different in most respects.

I've come to the conclusion the entire operation is future-based upon this new 'Regional Fire District Tax', which will break the glass ceiling on another new form of tax for City. Plans had to abruptly change recently when the State Legislature saw through it and rejected it based upon previous concepts which were in place (to protect us Citizens) about how Cities should be funded.

What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.

To begin with, it's a COUNTY Tax, not a City Tax. Followed closely by the fact that it's a SALES TAX and the resulting Sales Tax Revenue Bond, not a Project Revenue Bond or General Obligation Bond (which makes them do exactly what they said they would).

And, conceptually, I have trouble providing the COUNTY ANY Sales Tax, for any purpose. County operations have typically been funded through Ad Valorem Taxes or Bonds, not Sales Taxes. While Cities rely on Sales Taxes (and, by law cannot use Ad Valorem for operations). Any Sales Tax we provide the County reduces the margin available for the City (who, we say, needs more cops, street lighting, pools, etc.). As we have seen, the County type of Government (the structure) is inappropriate for handling large public projects with huge amounts of money involved. Before County is able to do this properly, it's own structure should be modified to allow both public input and the ability of Commissioners to actually speak to one another. They currently cannot unless 24-hrs prior notice is posted for the public.

Second, this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues. I think Tulsa's portion of the River should be up to Tulsans to decide.

Third, we were told both dams and the resulting required modifications/improvements to Zink Lake dam were included in Vision 2025, then, later, stated as only covering engineering and planning costs.

Whether or not that's the case, did you know they can just change their minds like this at will, anytime because the funds are not tied to actual projects when based upon Sales Tax Revenue Bonds?

The City clearly had the intent of having Federal Matching Funds to do these projects, but now don't wish to bother or wait. But, then, if they get public proceeds now for the entire project, then get Federal Funds later, it frees up a lot of discretionary money for new things they can think of which they think needs doing (not necessarily us).

Fourth, the County has failed to recognize that if Vision 2025 Sales Tax proceeds continue at the current rate, there's more than enough overage to pay the full cost of the River Plan. Yet, they seek another new tax.

So, WB, if you see these things as a personal attack by me on our Mayor Taylor, then you'll just have to live with it.

I don't particularly care for her being our Mayor. I didn't vote for her and don't believe she has the real interests of a majority of Tulsans at heart with her actions. She also lost a great deal of credibility by voting twice in the 2004 Presidential election and with some of her recent attempts at garnishing money from the populace. In particular, the initial budget was promoted as being $5M short, when in reality the prior administration ended with more than a $10M surplus. She raised water/sewer/stormwater rates to obtain that amount (9% increase). And, this year, suggested another increase (7% this time) was necessary when it was not. Last year's budget (2006-2007) was left with over $22 Million in surplus revenue just from Sales Tax revenues and the Utility Rate increase, before Use Taxes of another $18M and all the various fees, permit costs and other intrinsic costs were adjusted upward. And, starting July 1, the EMSA Tax of another $5M.

It's come to me, from an impressionists' standpoint, of a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter (One Tech).

Meanwhile, roads continue to be ignored, and planned to be ignored for the next 5 years according to her own Long Term Capital Plan. Roads are planned to be funded at 3% of the stated need through 2012.

But, back on topic, Ms. Taylor has little involvement in the River Tax Plan being promoted other than to jump on in support of the County, when, in fact and in MO, she should be doing everything she can to keep the Tulsa part of the River in Tulsa and up to Tulsans to decide.

This Plan simply attempts to get Tulsans to pay for improvements in Sand Springs and Jenks primarily. Remember, we already have a dam and "water in the river" (when not intentionally drained) as Zink Lake. So, there's nothing really preventing development along the river now, at least in a free market sense. It doesn't take the County to do that.

It should be possible now for anyone with a plan to approach our City Council and have it evaluated for its' compliance with the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and issued a permit if it so complies. The City (or County) does not need to acquire land except to control things in a heavy-handed way. Besides, land has too often been used as supplemental taxpayer contribution to projects when this is both unnecessary and an extension of benefits already being provided in the form of infrastructure improvements, tax incentives and other funding.

In the case of the West bank development, it's already a skunked up deal because The Channels, and both City/County, have 'established' the value for two of the major parcels south of 11th St and north of 21st St (with the River West Festival Park in between) at what appears to me to be top-end market values. So, right off the bat, $125M of our $277M Plan is pay those prices for that land. I say let the potential developer negotiate the land price and acquire it for their own project.

In this case, the City would have to decide whether it wants to sell the River West Festival Park to them, or perhaps donate it. But, acquiring all the land just to turn it to a [hand-chosen] developer would be wrong, IMO.

However, I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there. The current Plan is to keep the River more natural in the Tulsa section, while offloading commercial development to both ends, at Sand Springs and Jenks. It's unclear to me if this was the real intent of Tulsans when they spoke, or if it perhaps is to protect East Side development commercialization potential for other developers since current thinking suggests both may not be viable.

Remember, the One Tech deal included over $5M of Sales Tax revenues by 2012 for the current Public Works building on the south of 21st Street, while Hemilfarb himself stated only weeks ago that the building use might be "more recreational than commercial" in nature.

One last reason I just thought of, we have to also remember any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds.

As I stated, that's O.K. as long as Tulsans agree and know that's what is happening. But, between City, County persons and the Marketing Division of the Tulsa World, the information we get is "100% Rosy".

If that makes me negative, then so be it. But, I suggest, none of my postings  could be considered "revenge", a "grudge against this administration" or uncivil. I believe in good government, and I do get a bit ragged when we don't get it, especially when it has long-lasting effects which alter history beyond whomever are the current administration.

At some point you will realize I have nothing but the best interests of Tulsa, the City, in mind.

UPDATE: I blundered on the last issue. Sales Tax would still apply to any property already within Tulsa City Limits, but County owned land would be removed from the Ad Valorem Tax Roll. And, City of Tulsa Zoning and Code Enforcement would also still apply to those properties inside Tulsa City Limits.

[YoungTulsan]

Great post, maybe you should run for mayor

[PonderInc]

Um... we've got the private sector willing to make $100 Million in capital improvements to PUBLIC land/facilities if the public pays $277 million...

If someone came to you and said, "For every $2.77 you spend on improvements to your home/land, I'll give you $1.00 to invest in further improvements that will be yours to keep and enjoy forever" ...what would you say?  What would you say to someone who would turn down an offer like this?

What I like most about this plan is that it doesn't include turning the river into a giant strip mall.  It's based on the concept of improving the park/water/greenspace and making it more appealing.  What will come from this will be improvements to all private/commercial property in the vicinity of the river on both the east and west banks.  It will maximize the value of what I already believe is one of our most valuable assets: this uninterrupted ribbon of green space and the water that flows down the Arkansas.

Visitors to Tulsa are always impressed by the river and Riverside Drive.  I believe that this investment will result in it being a true showpiece.  At least that's my hope.

[Townsend]

I wouldn't mind a few places with a river view for cocktails and dining.

[waterboy]

That point is now. Your remarks up to this point had been cryptic, and referring to the Mayor in a perjorative way, "Kitty", made me think you were just one more anti-growth, anti-tax hard head. I didn't vote for her, I voted against the incumbent who infuriated me.

So there are some revelations for me in your post and if true, some answers to the odd behavior I have observed in re river development. Geez, what took you so long?

Having raised so many questions and with so much to digest, I will read your post a few more times and attempt some reasonable questions. Thank you.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Um... we've got the private sector willing to make $100 Million in capital improvements to PUBLIC land/facilities if the public pays $277 million...

If someone came to you and said, "For every $2.77 you spend on improvements to your home/land, I'll give you $1.00 to invest in further improvements that will be yours to keep and enjoy forever" ...what would you say?  What would you say to someone who would turn down an offer like this?

What I like most about this plan is that it doesn't include turning the river into a giant strip mall.  It's based on the concept of improving the park/water/greenspace and making it more appealing.  What will come from this will be improvements to all private/commercial property in the vicinity of the river on both the east and west banks.  It will maximize the value of what I already believe is one of our most valuable assets: this uninterrupted ribbon of green space and the water that flows down the Arkansas.

Visitors to Tulsa are always impressed by the river and Riverside Drive.  I believe that this investment will result in it being a true showpiece.  At least that's my hope.

You've apparently never heard of 'Matching Funds', which is really what the $100M donation is, read the fine print.

I also don't believe I mentioned strip malls either. But, as was stated by another, it would be nice to enjoy dinner and a drink at rivers' edge at sunset.

Extremes are to be avoided. And, as far as I'm concerned, the King's Landing or whatever it's called should pretty much fill the category you describe.

It also seems like people don't yet understand the shear magnitude of the space the banks of the river represent.

[TheArtist]

I just say let the voters decide.  I really want to see these plans or ones like it done NOW. If I had the money I would do it myself. But seeing as I cant pay for the whole shebang it will require others like me who want it done to gather together and pay for it. Hence a vote and a tax. If that tax passes, you dont like it, and the city isn't worth living in, move.

If I had a dime for every time someone asked me, "With your talent why do you choose to live here? You could really do well any place in the world."  But I have always thought Tulsa has had a lot of potential and that I should hang in there and hope it fulfills that potential, and perhaps I could even do some small things to make it a better place. Many of my friends have left. They say they are not going to wait, they are not getting any younger and want to enjoy life now. I am in my 40s now and I wonder if I made the right choice.  Things are turning around, but I lost a lot of my youth waiting and working for things to get better. How much longer do I have to wait to see something wonderful along our river? (the Kings Landing and a Kum n go aint gonna cut it) Downtown, Brookside, and Cherry are showing signs of sustainable growth.  And I am so glad I have lived to see the day that we actually have a public graduate university system starting here.  The last of the big "dreams and wishes" for our city is to make the River Parks really become a full fleged destination, with a wide range of things to do and enjoy for all types of people. It would really set up all the pieces that we can then start to build and improve upon.

If you dont like this plan for goodness sakes come up with your own and push it. Its not as though any of them over the last 50 years or so has been perfect. Lets throw it up for a vote, if it doesnt pass, we can try another idea. Frankly I am not up to waiting another 40 some odd years. That will cost us all too much.

[Wrinkle]

There is absolutely nothing which prohibits more than one question being on a ballot.

They can even be variations of the same thing, with the one getting the most votes winning. What a concept.

So, when was the last time anyone here was asked to help word the actual ballot?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

I wouldn't mind a few places with a river view for cocktails and dining.

dont forget mosquitos.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I just say let the voters decide.  

I share your frustration. But do the voters know what it is they're deciding on or have they just been worn down like you and I and are about ready to accept anything just to get it started?

Let's take this comment:
So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there

Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.

I had not thought of the plan in just that way. We are about to vote away the retail portion of the development in favor of an "uninterrupted ribbon of green space and water" that will "impress visitors".  But not encourage them to spend any money or do any commerce on our strip of green. Jenks, Bixby, Sand Springs and BA will reap the tax money and the small business income, while we get approving nods for our good stewardship.[]Not what I had in mind.

I was hoping for districts along the river separated by entertainment, restaurant, water activity, shopping and gathering spots. And control by the county is enough to run off most voters who watched the county vs. city in the center ring this spring. County control of the whole river will be similar to how the fairgrounds is operated if you like that.

On Point #1 I agree with Wrinkle. I doubt the average voter has looked at it this way.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by swake

A message to the "lets do roads and infrastructure first" crowd:

The citizens of Tulsa passed a $459 million infrastructure focused sales tax issue last April with $125 million of that going to general street projects alone and another $12 million for the rehab of downtown streets. Also, in April of 2004 Tulsa passed a $250 million streets and sewers bond issue. Vision 2025 also had millions for streets, stormwater and other infrastructure work. So, with something like $700 million in recent city money alone going to streets and infrastructure can we now move onto the river? If that's not enough, you can also toss in hundreds of millions in new federal, state and county money.

700 million isn't even a quarter of the 4 billion dollar backlog of needed, unfunded  maintenance identified on existing infrastructure.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

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?

To date, I've not expressed an opinion on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

My prior posting, and most all of my postings on TN are to provide additional information (some of which, IMO, few had thought about specifically), insight and opinion.

I know of no job, educational experiences or party affiliation requirements associated with that endeavor, so excuse me if I do not post my resume.

I will say that I have enough of both job and education, including many years' experience in several areas in which I could be considered 'expert' level at this point, which makes me at least as well qualified as Roger Staubach in everything but football. Still, we all make mistakes, sometimes big ones, like that pass in the closing seconds of the big game which was intercepted.

As you noticed, I strongly oppose the One Tech deal because it's bad. I simply tried to show why. And, yes, I think Kitty's playing with us. But, it's also now obvious that deal is being handed her to implement, and she feels some obligation to attempt to see it through, no matter how wrong it is, or what it could potentially do to our City. (note that's not "for").

As for the River, I'm pretty much willing to go along with the desires of Tulsans on it. And, that plan DID have much public input, which was very non-typical to begin with. I did wish to help make sure they (Tulsans) know what it was they think they are getting. I'd bet if they were polled, there'd be quite a few versions of the Plan represented, some of which were never even actually considered.

So, it's important, IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan (since it has NOT been stated explicitly) is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, who will do that form of development, and will reap the benefits of any revenue produced. Why do you think the Branson Landing folks haven't been embraced? It's an attempt to bring about another COUNTY Authority to rule the River, and whatever happens there (Note: That's not City, so whatever might happen in the Tulsa stretch would require County approval), along with initiating another major new tax, which would push the overall Sales Tax here to very close to 9%. (8.917%). The ational Average Sales Tax is currently 5.93%. So, suggesting we are not paying enough, or are borderline high-side is being extremely conservative.

Personally, I'm not so sure I wish to shed all commercial development of the River to Sand Springs & Jenks. I thought others might have an opinion on this. There are many Tulsans who believe "City" officials have too long distributed Tulsa's assets out to suburbs to their advantage and then turned around and moaned about how our revenues, jobs, population and services are shrinking, and that we need to increase revenues.

In the last post, the intent was to make it clear to readers that was the case again in this proposal. So long as they know that, and still vote to approve the tax, then that's fine with me. It's all the deception with which I have trouble. Nobody's putting the information out for evaluation. They simply want us to trust them, even after having lied over and over again about what they're actually up to. One Tech is probably the epitome of that, but Vision 2025 is no different in most respects.

I've come to the conclusion the entire operation is future-based upon this new 'Regional Fire District Tax', which will break the glass ceiling on another new form of tax for City. Plans had to abruptly change recently when the State Legislature saw through it and rejected it based upon previous concepts which were in place (to protect us Citizens) about how Cities should be funded.

What I do oppose in the current Plan is the method by which River improvements are funded. It's important to distinguish the Plan from the Funding. In virtually EVERY case, Tulsans have been provided a single choice for both Projects and Funding mechanisms. There should be combinations to consider, with perhaps a City preferred/recommended plan, but still leaving some options for the public to consider.

To begin with, it's a COUNTY Tax, not a City Tax. Followed closely by the fact that it's a SALES TAX and the resulting Sales Tax Revenue Bond, not a Project Revenue Bond or General Obligation Bond (which makes them do exactly what they said they would).

And, conceptually, I have trouble providing the COUNTY ANY Sales Tax, for any purpose. County operations have typically been funded through Ad Valorem Taxes or Bonds, not Sales Taxes. While Cities rely on Sales Taxes (and, by law cannot use Ad Valorem for operations). Any Sales Tax we provide the County reduces the margin available for the City (who, we say, needs more cops, street lighting, pools, etc.). As we have seen, the County type of Government (the structure) is inappropriate for handling large public projects with huge amounts of money involved. Before County is able to do this properly, it's own structure should be modified to allow both public input and the ability of Commissioners to actually speak to one another. They currently cannot unless 24-hrs prior notice is posted for the public.

Second, this plan eliminates the City of Tulsa from any involvement in River development as the Prime party. It makes them subservient to the County on River development issues. I think Tulsa's portion of the River should be up to Tulsans to decide.

Third, we were told both dams and the resulting required modifications/improvements to Zink Lake dam were included in Vision 2025, then, later, stated as only covering engineering and planning costs.

Whether or not that's the case, did you know they can just change their minds like this at will, anytime because the funds are not tied to actual projects when based upon Sales Tax Revenue Bonds?

The City clearly had the intent of having Federal Matching Funds to do these projects, but now don't wish to bother or wait. But, then, if they get public proceeds now for the entire project, then get Federal Funds later, it frees up a lot of discretionary money for new things they can think of which they think needs doing (not necessarily us).

Fourth, the County has failed to recognize that if Vision 2025 Sales Tax proceeds continue at the current rate, there's more than enough overage to pay the full cost of the River Plan. Yet, they seek another new tax.

So, WB, if you see these things as a personal attack by me on our Mayor Taylor, then you'll just have to live with it.

I don't particularly care for her being our Mayor. I didn't vote for her and don't believe she has the real interests of a majority of Tulsans at heart with her actions. She also lost a great deal of credibility by voting twice in the 2004 Presidential election and with some of her recent attempts at garnishing money from the populace. In particular, the initial budget was promoted as being $5M short, when in reality the prior administration ended with more than a $10M surplus. She raised water/sewer/stormwater rates to obtain that amount (9% increase). And, this year, suggested another increase (7% this time) was necessary when it was not. Last year's budget (2006-2007) was left with over $22 Million in surplus revenue just from Sales Tax revenues and the Utility Rate increase, before Use Taxes of another $18M and all the various fees, permit costs and other intrinsic costs were adjusted upward. And, starting July 1, the EMSA Tax of another $5M.

It's come to me, from an impressionists' standpoint, of a squirrel gathering nuts for the winter (One Tech).

Meanwhile, roads continue to be ignored, and planned to be ignored for the next 5 years according to her own Long Term Capital Plan. Roads are planned to be funded at 3% of the stated need through 2012.

But, back on topic, Ms. Taylor has little involvement in the River Tax Plan being promoted other than to jump on in support of the County, when, in fact and in MO, she should be doing everything she can to keep the Tulsa part of the River in Tulsa and up to Tulsans to decide.

This Plan simply attempts to get Tulsans to pay for improvements in Sand Springs and Jenks primarily. Remember, we already have a dam and "water in the river" (when not intentionally drained) as Zink Lake. So, there's nothing really preventing development along the river now, at least in a free market sense. It doesn't take the County to do that.

It should be possible now for anyone with a plan to approach our City Council and have it evaluated for its' compliance with the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and issued a permit if it so complies. The City (or County) does not need to acquire land except to control things in a heavy-handed way. Besides, land has too often been used as supplemental taxpayer contribution to projects when this is both unnecessary and an extension of benefits already being provided in the form of infrastructure improvements, tax incentives and other funding.

In the case of the West bank development, it's already a skunked up deal because The Channels, and both City/County, have 'established' the value for two of the major parcels south of 11th St and north of 21st St (with the River West Festival Park in between) at what appears to me to be top-end market values. So, right off the bat, $125M of our $277M Plan is pay those prices for that land. I say let the potential developer negotiate the land price and acquire it for their own project.

In this case, the City would have to decide whether it wants to sell the River West Festival Park to them, or perhaps donate it. But, acquiring all the land just to turn it to a [hand-chosen] developer would be wrong, IMO.

However, I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there. The current Plan is to keep the River more natural in the Tulsa section, while offloading commercial development to both ends, at Sand Springs and Jenks. It's unclear to me if this was the real intent of Tulsans when they spoke, or if it perhaps is to protect East Side development commercialization potential for other developers since current thinking suggests both may not be viable.

Remember, the One Tech deal included over $5M of Sales Tax revenues by 2012 for the current Public Works building on the south of 21st Street, while Hemilfarb himself stated only weeks ago that the building use might be "more recreational than commercial" in nature.

One last reason I just thought of, we have to also remember any land purchased by the County becomes County land, not City. So, City taxes would not apply, to either Sales Tax or Ad Valorem, along with City Zoning and Code enforcement, for anything built, just as with the Fairgrounds.

As I stated, that's O.K. as long as Tulsans agree and know that's what is happening. But, between City, County persons and the Marketing Division of the Tulsa World, the information we get is "100% Rosy".

If that makes me negative, then so be it. But, I suggest, none of my postings  could be considered "revenge", a "grudge against this administration" or uncivil. I believe in good government, and I do get a bit ragged when we don't get it, especially when it has long-lasting effects which alter history beyond whomever are the current administration.

At some point you will realize I have nothing but the best interests of Tulsa, the City, in mind.

Excellent post. You've got my vote for Mayor.