Most elected officials like river plan

[TheArtist]

Ok I had a long rant on here but I deleted it because I want to make sure I understand what you all are saying. In a nutshell...

-----If this County tax passes, the property that we are hoping to develop across from downtown will now be owned by the County.

" 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." " 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."

-----And that the intent of this plan is to actually have no development within the Tulsa section of the river.

"IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan.... is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, "
"I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there."

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Ok I had a long rant on here but I deleted it because I want to make sure I understand what you all are saying. In a nutshell...

-----If this County tax passes, the property that we are hoping to develop across from downtown will now be owned by the County.

" 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." " 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."

-----And that the intent of this plan is to actually have no development within the Tulsa section of the river.

"IMO, that Tulsans are aware that the 'concept' of this Plan.... is to shed retail and commercial development along the Tulsa section of the River in favor of Sand Springs & Jenks, "
"I think the truth here is the City/County wants to own the land so commercial development can NOT occur there."

In my haste on that last item, I blundered.
County purchase of land does NOT automatically make it less subject to City Sales Taxes if it is currently within the Tulsa City Limits.

It would, however, remove it from the Ad Valorem Tax rolls, as I understand things. And, so long as it's within the City Limit, it would also be subject to zoning and code provision of the City.

But, the County Authority could suggest it be de-annexed, although the Tulsa City Council would have to authorize such a transfer.

So, that was an error on my part.

It does make me wonder how much current Ad Valorem Tax is being paid by WestPort (what, 400 units or so?) and the Concrete Plant properties.

As for your second item, I don't think the Plan, or concept, is for no development. Just not retail and/or commercial so much. And, this Plan provides for none at this point.

Look for terms like "public gathering points" rather than "mult-storied residential", "mixed use" or "drunken dancing".

[Wrinkle]

Thought I'd mention something else.

How much sense does it make to buy and destroy an existing 400 unit housing project (WestPort) to potentially develop new housing, along with some other more retail type stuff at the same site?.

There's plenty of river edge there without having to do that. And, we don't loose housing and tax revenue. Let the market decide when it's time for the site to be cleared. The City or County really has no reason to be buying and shutting it down prior to the need.

Why do I have this funny feeling this also has something to do with OSU Med School?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Thought I'd mention something else.

How much sense does it make to buy and destroy an existing 400 unit housing project (WestPort) to potentially develop new housing, along with some other more retail type stuff at the same sight?.

There's plenty of river edge there without having to do that. And, we don't loose housing and tax revenue. Let the market decide when it's time for the site to be cleared. The City or County really has no reason to be buying and shutting it down prior to the need.

Why do I have this funny feeling this also has something to do with OSU Med School?

That is one of the odd behaviors I referred to. It made sense in the Channels proposal to clear off the area. But not in the other plans. I run past Westport every day and know people who live there. They are in good condition and frankly haven't been able to capitalize on their river bank status because of shortsighted policies of the park authorities. The owners are pretty aggressive and would sell at the above market offering price in a hearbeat though.

Knowing the political power of the east side of the river between 11th and 31st, it isn't surprising to see no real efforts at retail, mixed use and drunken dancing in that area.

[waterboy]

I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.

1.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.

From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.

This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?

[TheArtist]

Well in that case here is my rant lol.

Every meeting about river development I have been to or every article about this plan in the TW online and others has been followed by angry comments of people saying we are destroying the river with development.  There are many people who want NO development along the river, even seeing parks as horrible.  Have any of you read the many comments in the TW online after the article about this plan?  There were many people, not ones just complaining about a tax, they were primarily complaining that this was ruining the river with development. A lot of people don't want their trees, birds, raccoons, view or anything else messed with along the river.  If this went up for a vote it would likely fail not because there was not enough development and development going to the suburbs as you may see it, but because many think it already has too much development in it and this plan would completely destroy it.
They have some image of the whole river being turned into a strip mall or something. To hear you all talking about it as not being enough development is shocking in this context.

I think this plan strikes a decent balance for both sides. It improves the park space, and allows for development on the West Bank across from downtown. Everything I have been "getting from the ether" is that the city and mayor WANT a large mixed use development in that area. As for shedding retail to the suburbs. I get your point but I also see that if something like the Tulsa Landing goes in that alone will be far larger than all the suburban developments combined.  No need to spread stuff all along the river in Tulsa fighting with the no development crowd. Its easier to get this going by pushing for more dense urban development in one area. (plus there are quite a few hints here and there that long term after this stuff is done that there will be other areas open for development.) This pretty much goes with the old INCOG plan which has developed park spaces concentrated in certain areas and also shows where there are areas that should be set aside for future commercial and residential growth. ( like the area across the river between 41st and 31st)

This plan seems to me to be a good start and reasonable approach, not perfect for the no development crowd but able to convince enough of them that its not going to destroy the whole river with development to get something done... not perfect for you who want more development, but I think has some very promising development potential if we do get a Tulsa Landing type project.  Its not perfect, but show me a better plan, its small, not too expensive, and politically passable if we work at it.  

I dont think you have to worry about it not being enough commercial development when so many people are arguing that its too much. We are going to get nothing once again if argue it this way. My feeling is that your going to have a heck of a time convincing enough people that this is not going to commercialize the river to get even this much potential development passed.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Well in that case here is my rant lol.

Every meeting about river development I have been to or every article about this plan in the TW online and others has been followed by angry comments of people saying we are destroying the river with development.  There are many people who want NO development along the river, even seeing parks as horrible.  Have any of you read the many comments in the TW online after the article about this plan?  There were many people, not ones just complaining about a tax, they were primarily complaining that this was ruining the river with development. A lot of people don't want their trees, birds, raccoons, view or anything else messed with along the river.  If this went up for a vote it would likely fail not because there was not enough development and development going to the suburbs as you may see it, but because many think it already has too much development in it and this plan would completely destroy it.
They have some image of the whole river being turned into a strip mall or something. To hear you all talking about it as not being enough development is shocking in this context.

I think this plan strikes a decent balance for both sides. It improves the park space, and allows for development on the West Bank across from downtown. Everything I have been "getting from the ether" is that the city and mayor WANT a large mixed use development in that area. As for shedding retail to the suburbs. I get your point but I also see that if something like the Tulsa Landing goes in that alone will be far larger than all the suburban developments combined.  No need to spread stuff all along the river in Tulsa fighting with the no development crowd. Its easier to get this going by pushing for more dense urban development in one area. (plus there are quite a few hints here and there that long term after this stuff is done that there will be other areas open for development.) This pretty much goes with the old INCOG plan which has developed park spaces concentrated in certain areas and also shows where there are areas that should be set aside for future commercial and residential growth. ( like the area across the river between 41st and 31st)

This plan seems to me to be a good start and reasonable approach, not perfect for the no development crowd but able to convince enough of them that its not going to destroy the whole river with development to get something done... not perfect for you who want more development, but I think has some very promising development potential if we do get a Tulsa Landing type project.  Its not perfect, but show me a better plan, its small, not too expensive, and politically passable if we work at it.  

I dont think you have to worry about it not being enough commercial development when so many people are arguing that its too much. We are going to get nothing once again if argue it this way. My feeling is that your going to have a heck of a time convincing enough people that this is not going to commercialize the river to get even this much potential development passed.

I pretty much agree with your comments. I just didn't have a feel for how large and vocal the no development contingent was in reality. As I stated, that's fine as long as that's what they want, from my point of view. I'd still want to be able to relax, enjoy a good meal with a drink and watch the sun set inside the City of Tulsa. There's really quite a LOT of space for a number of things to occur without affecting each other.

My real problem, as I also stated, is the funding mechanism along with the establishment of a County Authority to rule. I'd favor the County stepping aside on this deal since virtually the entire river in Tulsa County is contained within one or another City Limits.

We now see a Bixby developer planning a $50M development in Bixby. I'm all for Bixby residents deciding if it's appropriate for them rather than the developer having to go to the County Authority and seek approval. It could become a situation where Broken Arrow, with somewhat more politcal clout than Bixby, could get the project killed if they felt it affected their plans.

Somewhere along the line, INCOG's Arkansas Corridor Master Plan becomes a real 'plan' as opposed to a guide, which it really is.

Still, there's something odd about that west bank parcel. IAC, I don't feel the land needs to be purchased by citizens, especially at premium rates and what appear to be unfavorable terms (compared to the 7% bond rate and added commision costs on the One Tech deal).

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.

1.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.

From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.

This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?

The County is counting on voter ignorance.

They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.

I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.

No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.

If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term. Say, rounding the current Sales Tax Rate to 8.6%, giving the City 0.083% for whatever term is needed to generate the required amount of funding. (Note: If County's current 1.017% is producing over $1.25B in 13 years, small percentages add up to big numbers over time, the 0.083% for the same term is about 8.16% of that amount, or $102M)

Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.

I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.

This scheme also gives the individual communities much more control over river development by being able to petition their local Councils on each and every project as opposed to having to take some good/bad with a big package of stuff as a compromise.

If some developer wants to build a "Bowling Ally with a View", it could be their view is fine, but our view of it is not so good. Local interests could become involved in the Council approval process and inject their opinion as it's being considered. Like we do on many things now.

The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.

1.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.

From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.

This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?

The County is counting on voter ignorance.

They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.

I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.

No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.

If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term.

Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.

I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.

The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.

I agree and I like the idea of bond issues that require what is planned to be executed. That leads to why both of these mayors (LaFortune and Taylor) have not insisted on preserving our interests? Is the county stronger, more devious, than the city or colluding?

Secondly, noting the possible adversarial positions that cities along the river will be in regarding their own plans, isn't there some need for a regional authority to referee the parties? I could see SS deciding not to release water for downstream activities if it hampered their own development.

Lastly, yes free market development would be preferable using Incog as guidance but that doesn't seem feasible given the myriad amount of regulatory bodies. If not, it already would have happened within the Tulsa boundaries of the river. When Jenks acted as facilitator and not controller of their portion of the river we got Riverwalk. Control is something Tulsa will not give up.

Oh, and Artist, there is not a solid consensus that the river needs to be preserved as green belt. A noisy, insistent minority of nearby landowners, environmentalists and well meaning elitists wants little or no change on the Tulsa portion, but put to a vote with specific descriptions of commercial/retail development ala RiverWalk, the city at large would approve. This small group will never let that happen.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I'd like to continue commenting on your lengthy post and get your response.

1.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.

From my experience this ballot structure would assume a vastly more sophisticated population that was well informed and able to discriminate the pap from the steak. You yourself admit that most Tulsans could not correctly identify what this plan really entails. I had not recognized the shuffling off of commercial development to the burbs and I am more informed than most. Besides, the trusting sheep will vote the recommended plan anyway.

This plan uses a "temporary" tax and matching private funds. What other funding sources are practical?

The County is counting on voter ignorance.

They feel voters want river development so bad, they could post a gasoline refinary which dumps into the river as 'river development' and they'd go for it.

I think the County should use existing Vision 2025 collection overages to build the two dams at Jenks and Sand Springs, along with Federal Matching Funds. Then, step aside.

No tax increase, no County Authority, no County rule.

If Tulsa (the City) wants additional river development, then let them pass a Bond issue for specific projects and amounts, using perhaps the same 0.4% Sales Tax the County wanted, or something much less for longer term.

Or, 3rd Penny project funds could be used. BUT, those are now tied up for the next 6 years yet thanks to LaFortune.

I personally think much more can be accomplished by opening it up to free market development with the Master Plan as a guide (i.e., 'zoning') and local authority to approve projects based upon that.

The River Parks Authority should be primarily depended upon for parks, paths, trees, etc. So, it could be a specific list of projects can be funded there with a Bond Issue.

I agree and I like the idea of bond issues that require what is planned to be executed. That leads to why both of these mayors (LaFortune and Taylor) have not insisted on preserving our interests? Is the county stronger, more devious, than the city or colluding?

Secondly, noting the possible adversarial positions that cities along the river will be in regarding their own plans, isn't there some need for a regional authority to referee the parties? I could see SS deciding not to release water for downstream activities if it hampered their own development.

Lastly, yes free market development would be preferable using Incog as guidance but that doesn't seem feasible given the myriad amount of regulatory bodies. If not, it already would have happened within the Tulsa boundaries of the river. When Jenks acted as facilitator and not controller of their portion of the river we got Riverwalk. Control is something Tulsa will not give up.

Oh, and Artist, there is not a solid consensus that the river needs to be preserved as green belt. A noisy, insistent minority of nearby landowners, environmentalists and well meaning elitists wants little or no change on the Tulsa portion, but put to a vote with specific descriptions of commercial/retail development ala RiverWalk, the city at large would approve. This small group will never let that happen.

River flow control is never a local issue. That's the realm of the Corps.

I should've added whatever channelization is required for the dams to work properly as part of the County's involvement, along with the Corps.

After that, it all becomes the process by which RiverWalk was developed, or the new Bixby plan.

------
Wanted to add that Tulsa's City Council relies a great deal on INCOG for the approval process. Plans are submitted to them for their 'blessing' prior to coming to the City Council. While the Council DOES NOT have to follow that advice (INCOG's is a 'recommendation'), they usually do.

So, INCOG would generally be the overriding authority (Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?) as to whether a particular proposed development complies with their own Master Plan. Isn't INCOG and MAPC essentially the same thing? I'm not sure.

Each of the affected Cities along the river could choose to do this method, or not. It's up to them.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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

Maybe you just thought they were doing a good job.  At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday.  Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.  

If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers.  That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point.  I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase.  I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.

We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago.  Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago.  I don't think they deserve praise, they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all.  In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too.  But I guess that's someone else's problem.

There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever.  "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable.  It's shameful.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

...Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago.  I don't think they deserve praise, the[ir] sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all.  In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too...

Thank you!  I'm in the process of trying to prevent the same thing from happening in Skiatook.  With all the development going in at the lake, development is starting to pick up and the last thing I want to happen is to turn into an Owasso.  That's another subject, though.

I look forward to the day that Tulsa's development is sustainable and hotels like aloft are forced to move downtown.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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

Maybe you just thought they were doing a good job.  At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday.  Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.  

If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers.  That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point.  I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase.  I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.

We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago.  Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago.  I don't think they deserve praise, they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all.  In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too.  But I guess that's someone else's problem.

There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever.  "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable.  It's shameful.

I'm sure you're right. I was just 16 at the time. I judged that on a new BA expressway, fairly new civic center complex, good roads, lots of downtown building and a new girlfriend.

The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm and probably wouldn't care anyway. It was a time for big money to be made in building the burbs.

I beleive the way you described the dilemma is worthy of printing out and keeping somewhere to recite whenever people tell me how bad the roads are here.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm

Absolutely.  But it's forty years later and most people, including our politicians, haven't changed.  The thing that bothers me most is that sustainability is good business, and our business community still turns away.

It's not just $3.00/gal gasoline that I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the security of investing in a piece of ground that you know will still have value in 10 years.  I'm talking about allowing bigger buildings and more flexibility in the way that you use them.  I'm talking about mass transit that works.  I'm talking about less waste and inefficiency.

In the end, I'm talking about more people making better and more efficient use of the infrastructure that we've already built.  We could end up with lower taxes, not to mention a City that is more walkable and interesting to visit.

The folks who really upset me are the dead-enders who want to continue having low taxes, but refuse to consider investments in efficiency, or change of any kind for that matter.  Unlike our parents generation, we cannot have it both ways.

If you want to continue to have your low taxes, then you had better start supporting efforts to beef up efficiency...and that means mass transit, land use changes, redevelopment, etc.  It'll be a different town in the end, but at least it'll be sustainable.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The builders who ran the show back then could never had understood what they were doing longterm

Absolutely.  But it's forty years later and most people, including our politicians, haven't changed.  The thing that bothers me most is that sustainability is good business, and our business community still turns away.

It's not just $3.00/gal gasoline that I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the security of investing in a piece of ground that you know will still have value in 10 years.  I'm talking about allowing bigger buildings and more flexibility in the way that you use them.  I'm talking about mass transit that works.  I'm talking about less waste and inefficiency.

In the end, I'm talking about more people making better and more efficient use of the infrastructure that we've already built.  We could end up with lower taxes, not to mention a City that is more walkable and interesting to visit.

The folks who really upset me are the dead-enders who want to continue having low taxes, but refuse to consider investments in efficiency, or change of any kind for that matter.  Unlike our parents generation, we cannot have it both ways.

If you want to continue to have your low taxes, then you had better start supporting efforts to beef up efficiency...and that means mass transit, land use changes, redevelopment, etc.  It'll be a different town in the end, but at least it'll be sustainable.

]

Chicken Little for mayor!