River Plan- Taxes/Funding

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

for ease of reading.

Artist-"And if you say its not even feasible because of the high flow rate to sail, why ask for those locks?"

I've never considered sailing appropriate on this river. However, dinner cruises, sight seeing & historical excursions, canoeing, river taxis that could take shoppers from RiverWalk to entertainment venues up to the Zink Lake, and rental boats could all make this river alive.

How do you know they're too expensive? The cost figures are not available because they refuse to consider them. OKC has them though so they are available. You should be asking bluntly, "Why are we spending so much to put water in the river, if we aren't going to put boat operations on it?" Just to look pretty?

when a formal anti river tax lobby is organized please post it here, I'd like to get involved.  let tulsa do tulsa's river development, jenks do their, bixby, etc.  But THIS proposal is not a county issue, it is tulsa and MAYBE jenks issue.  the county needs to pass a tax to fix our ROADS.

Unfortunately, the roads inside the city limits are the responsibility of the city, as far as I know.  I think the county handles streets that share city borders, and streets outside of city limits and within the county.  Harvard Ave. between 181st St. South and 191st St. South really needs repaving, but I really doubt more than 10 people really care about that road.

People complain about how inefficient suburban infrastructure is, but if you go beyond the suburbs, rural infrastructure is even worse.  Only bottom feeders who live way out in the boonies, working in the city and hiding out in some hut along a county road, would really need to support a county road tax hike.   The exact same thing you said about Tulsa needing to take care of Tulsa's part, Jenks needing to take care of Jenks' part, is true about road maintainance.     But I highly agree with those who have stated that cities in Oklahoma have a huge problem raising capital funds under current law.  It is basically raise sales tax or else, but we have already maxed out our sales tax potential, while  the counties and the state have more options.   We need to keep raising this issue until something is actually done about it, instead of saying "oh well."

For the record, I'd be willing to pay for roads/infrastructure, even in a high sales tax, if that was its sole purpose.  I'd pay an extravagant sales tax for a short period just to play "catch up" on our infrastructure woes.  I do have reservations though, such as, while I am a young man, I can imagine the people talked into the first 3rd penny sales tax actually thinking of THAT as the same thing I'm thinking of  - some hypothetical infrastructure 'catch up' tax.  MatureTulsans:  When the 3rd penny was first being pitched, did it seem like the end-all-be-all "Fix Tulsa's infrastructure woes" tax that we wish we had now?  If that is the case, maybe I shouldn't be so gung-ho about a "catch-up" tax, or else my grandkids would be voting on the 15th penny.

[Rico]

Maybe this item has already been completed....?It is worth asking.

Several months back the Mayor asked the TMAPC to put in place "zoning" for the Arkansas River corridor.......

Was this completed..?

If not... all this hoopla regarding attracting development to the Arkansas could lead to the type of development undesirable for the area...

Randi Miller seems to jump on board any and all River Development with both of those big long feet of hers....

Thank Goodness this Lady did not make the cut for Mayor.

In any event... If there are not zoning guidelines for the Development this sort of an investment would attract....... You could have Kum and Go, Mickey D's, and Chuck E Cheeze every 100 yards or so...

Nice........!

[waterboy]

It's also worth noting what one of the "just vote no" characters relayed to me on yet another river thread. That is, as a sales tax, this .4cent revenues can be spent any way the governnment wishes to spend it. Non necessarily on river development or on this plan of river development. Its only an obligation bond that requires that they specify what the money will be spent on and then have to spend it there.

Is that correct? We could end up spending this money on propping up laggard arena revenues.

[TheArtist]

As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river. Some sort of Form Based Codes would be helpful.  But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed. Some areas are definitely off limits because they are designated natrual wildlife habitats, others are public park space. However I would like to see some type of Zoning in the areas where commercial development is possible.

Which leads to this question. Is the reason the city is wanting to purchase the concrete plant property so that it can have some influence on what goes in there?  If the Tulsa Landing guy wanted to build there couldnt he just buy it himself? But if the city uses its option to buy it can then have some influence on who develops there and what they build?

I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary.  I would really like to at least see some sort of statement about what is the desired outcome for that area.  Even what the INCOG plan has there as an "idea" is terrible. The mere thought that someone could think that would be desirable there is beyond me.


Back to the boats thing....


I can only now imagine that you, Waterboy, see those renderings and think boats and water activities. I have never even given that type of thing a passing thought. I just went back and looked at the pics I have posted and there aren't any boats other than the occasional Kayaks. Unless your talking about the Bridges, and I sure as heck wouldn't want large steam boats and yatchs on our little lakes. To me having a beautiful river with water in it to walk along, bike, rollerblade, have docks that go out into it, have some beautiful plaza and community areas, hardening of some shorelines, activity areas,great commercial and residential development areas, fountains, new pedestrian bridge or two, etc. is enough of a reason to do this.

BTW is this what you were talking about in Arizona? http://www.tempe.gov/lake/LakeHistory/historyandfinance.htm

But it does sound nice to be able to have some smaller boating activities if it was not too difficult and expensive and if the areas were made safe for it. Question  or two about the locks though. Don't they have to be manned? How many of them would we need? What kind of maintenance is required on the mechanical systems? Would they work on a river like ours that is prone to such water flow variations?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river. Some sort of Form Based Codes would be helpful.  But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed. Some areas are definitely off limits because they are designated natrual wildlife habitats, others are public park space. However I would like to see some type of Zoning in the areas where commercial development is possible.

Which leads to this question. Is the reason the city is wanting to purchase the concrete plant property so that it can have some influence on what goes in there?  If the Tulsa Landing guy wanted to build there couldnt he just buy it himself? But if the city uses its option to buy it can then have some influence on who develops there and what they build?

I would like to say, "Trust the city officials" because they understand that area is the most important commercial development area. However, after the Kum and Go incedent, one has to be very wary.  I would really like to at least see some sort of statement about what is the desired outcome for that area.  Even what the INCOG plan has there as an "idea" is terrible. The mere thought that someone could think that would be desirable there is beyond me.


Back to the boats thing....


I can only now imagine that you, Waterboy, see those renderings and think boats and water activities. I have never even given that type of thing a passing thought. I just went back and looked at the pics I have posted and there aren't any boats other than the occasional Kayaks. Unless your talking about the Bridges, and I sure as heck wouldn't want large steam boats and yatchs on our little lakes. To me having a beautiful river with water in it to walk along, bike, rollerblade, have docks that go out into it, have some beautiful plaza and community areas, hardening of some shorelines, activity areas,great commercial and residential development areas, fountains, new pedestrian bridge or two, etc. is enough of a reason to do this.

BTW is this what you were talking about in Arizona? http://www.tempe.gov/lake/LakeHistory/historyandfinance.htm

But it does sound nice to be able to have some smaller boating activities if it was not too difficult and expensive and if the areas were made safe for it. Question  or two about the locks though. Don't they have to be manned? How many of them would we need? What kind of maintenance is required on the mechanical systems? Would they work on a river like ours that is prone to such water flow variations?

I have to go to work now so can't answer at length. Two things though, If this project is only as you've described, I would actively work against it. We don't get any bang for our buck by creating more park land that we won't be able to take any better care of than existing parks. Walking around fishing piers is just not that rewarding. And two, locks and dams is a convenient way to describe interconnectability. There are other methods, besides portage, to connect the lakes. Since none of the planners considers it a navigable river, no one has considered other ways.

[waterboy]

And riolagocruise.com. BTW, I sure remember seeing barge cruise boats on some of the European fantasy designs you posted. Since threads are routinely shredded they may no longer exist. They wouldn't think of not using a waterway in Europe for boats. Only in land locked Tulsa would we think it odd.

[tim huntzinger]

H2Oboy said the one thing some time ago about the Arkansas that sticks with me every time I am down there: 'It is a river, not a lake' (DAMN YOU WATERBOY, GET OUT OF MY HEAD - AHHHHHH!!!)  Is the River navigable right now, BTW?

The drar-rings do not impress me at all.  From the Route 66 bridge to Bartlett Circle to the A-rheam-a, whatever is penciled in has not represented the final product. There are too many people in this town who have played Sim City and have access to drar-ring tools.

In terms of the payment options, the rest of the County can suck eggs and pony up.  The City is stuck footing the bill for the A-ream-a even though it is touted as benefitting the Region.

Tulsans should have choices of packages and costs to choose from.  $277M at one whack is too much to trust this group with.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

It's also worth noting what one of the "just vote no" characters relayed to me on yet another river thread. That is, as a sales tax, this .4cent revenues can be spent any way the governnment wishes to spend it. Non necessarily on river development or on this plan of river development. Its only an obligation bond that requires that they specify what the money will be spent on and then have to spend it there.

Is that correct? We could end up spending this money on propping up laggard arena revenues.

As to another Sales Tax Blitzkrieg about to be launched on the hapless Tulsa County citizenry circa August 2, my Question is:

WHAT'S THE RUSH?

Tulsa has been a city only a little more than 100 years.

The river has been under flood "control" a little more than 40 years.

The river has been there for millions of years, and will be there millions more.  That's simple due to the NATURAL geography of the area.

Is the real reason for the TAX RUSH to keep the positive cash flow FLOWING to the Rooney and Flint construction companies, who are going to actually finish the major Arena work in the Fall of 2008?

And, the NEED to FEED their GREED being what it is, they need some tasty new tax morsels from the beleagured citizenry (and our friends the MesoAmerican Guest Workers who also pay local Sales Taxes on all their necessary purchases, too - I say Thanks, Amigos!)?

The local Oligarch Families simply need a replacement Goobermint revenue source to replace the $200 million BOK Arena honey pot.

You'll notice in the recent company newspaper profile on the Flint Co's that the large majority of their construction work is Government-related:

City, county and State construction projects, school construction (Union P.S.'s UMAC Center - ANOTHER Arena!), college construction projects, etc., etc., etc.

In Tulsa, the Cranes-in-the-Air promised by former Mayor Bill MisFortunate are heavily predominate on local government-funded construction projects.

Which means, this city's major private construction activities to expand office space and industry are curiously dormant.....Hmmmmh?  

Meaning, Unnecessary???  Hmmmh........

What does the SMART-MONEY know about the Tulsa economy and specifically the Tulsa Commercial Real Estate market that the Taxpayers don't know?

I know we did manage to rope a multi-millionaire out-of-state rube who had more money than sense to buy 25% of the downtown Tulsa Office space a while back, sold a dream of an emerging Tulsa downtown Je ne sais quois:  RENAISSANCE.

I was astounded to catalog just how much downtown Tulsa Real Estate was actually FOR SALE?

I thought the Arena was the latest key to the penultimate downtown revival?

Oh, they now say:  It's the River!

When you actually see a critical mass of middle-class residents LIVING downtown, followed by a self-supporting grocery store, you might be witnessing a genesis of downtown Tulsa re-development.

Just how long has the Safeway Store on Denver Avenue downtown been closed?

Hmmmh?

I would also be curious if any KNOWS whether the Kaiser River Tax media-buys with TV Channels 2,6, and 8, and KRMG have already been entered, and if so, who paid for them?

Do the promoters already have the TV ads packaged by Littlefield, and the air time slots reserved with a Deposit?

Again, who paid?

And would $100,000's in TV ads possibly influence the news-room coverage by Channels 2,6 or 8?  Just Maybe?

If anyone cares to tell, please provide.....

[]

[sgrizzle]

What's the rush?

The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

What's the rush?

The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.

I think that's what they said when they started the "Big Dig" in Boston 20+ years ago too. [B)]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

What's the rush?

The riverparks have been largely as-is for around 30 years. I wouldn't say we're rushing, we're just (hopefully) striking while we can get a good deal.

The Tulsa RiverParks "Authority" was formed in 1974, and progress was gradual.  The park trail was an early addition.  Then, the Railroad Bridge was a subseqeunt donation by the Railroad.  

Later, a land swap with Lincoln Properties for land south of 71st in exchange for the valuable city land that became Westport Apartments was another "improvement", that made possible the subsequent funding of the 31st Street Low Water dam in 1983.

While Mr. Kaiser's philanthropy, if genuine, could be put to good use, overall I am wholly unimpressed when Philanthropy is CONDITIONAL, i.e. used as BAIT to gull the voters into contributing an enormous premium above the purported private gift.  The Kaiser River Tax is only PHASE I of the River Tax.  Check back in with us in 2050 when we're still paying for Phase V.

Ultimately, it could end up costing Tulsa County Taxpayers even more than the $660 million that the Warren Financial Interests were going to vacumn from the County residents pockets.  

Of course "$100 million" in private donations Warren promised (non-specific, of course just in case a donation really turns out to be an INVESTMENT) was the potential BAIT again used to gull the voters into Voting for yet another Sales Tax.

Like the Schusterman's offer a few years ago of a downtown parcel of real estate, they claimed as worth $2 million that they could not ever sell for $2 million, their philanthropic offer was BAIT to get another $58 million in tax money to build a new Grand Central Library DOWNTOWN.

On the other hand, Mr. Kaiser's $12 million offer to simply expand and improve the walking and bicyle trails along the river was closer to an ideal of No-Strings Attached philanthropy.  

The timing of the $12 Kaiser Foundation million River Parks gift appears to have been closely coordinated to coincide with the launch of the $282 million Kaiser River Tax, in order to "Prime-the-Pump" and break down public resistance to higher taxes, and get the tax dollars flowing from the public well into the coffers of the local Oligarch Families, where they think it belongs:

Into their pockets.

Stepping back for a moment at this new giant tax increase proposal, you'd think that the Tax Vampires are somewhat in danger of overloading us with their Tax-and-Spend-More plans:

Since Mayor Taylor came into office last year, we've seen the following new taxes:

1.  Renewal of the Third-Penny Sales tax in May 2006, but with a key difference.  There is NO specific expiration date of the tax.  It's just $463 million for however long it takes.  5, 6, 7 or more years, depending on the level of prices, tempo of collections, and inflation.

2.  Renewal of the 4-to-Fix-the-County Tax, when we thought that the county was already fixed.  Guess they need a new Golf Cart Barn at LaFortune County Golf Course for Bob Dick's buddy.

3. Imposition of the EMSA $50 annually per water customer charge, for Ambulance Service that was formerly free.

4. TMUA audaciously Retaining $6.00 of the $7.00 dollar charge from the EXPIRED monthly debt service for the Walter B. Hall Trash-to-Energy Plant.  They have the arrogance to give us a $1.00 per month reduction in our Trash Charge, which pocketing the other $6.00 which we've been paying for the past 20 years to pay-off the TARE White Elephant that we don't even own!

What a bunch of TMUA Sweethearts!

5.  $76 million in additional spending to move City Hall to the OTC Chrystal Palace.  It's all about IMAGE, after all.  

Anyone notice the IMAGE of our streets lately viewed out the front windshield of their car?  Looks like roads in a poorly run Third-World country.  

But we are, my dears, we're located in the BANANA Republic of Tulsa.

6.  Supporting a $0.004 additional sales tax to move SAND around in the River.  Again, if it passes, I suspect it will have the patented Vision 2025 feature of NO CAP on the amount to be raised. Or, like the latest 3rd Penny Tax Renewal, it may lack an EXPIRATION Date.

Methinks Mayor Taylor's legacy will be remembered as a the biggest Tax-em-More and Spend-more Tax-A-holic in Tulsa history.  That is, before she re-locates to Washington, D.C., as Congressman, Senator, or working for President Hillary Clinton.

 

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Maybe this item has already been completed....?It is worth asking.

Several months back the Mayor asked the TMAPC to put in place "zoning" for the Arkansas River corridor.......

Was this completed..?

If not... all this hoopla regarding attracting development to the Arkansas could lead to the type of development undesirable for the area...

Randi Miller seems to jump on board any and all River Development with both of those big long feet of hers....

Thank Goodness this Lady did not make the cut for Mayor.

In any event... If there are not zoning guidelines for the Development this sort of an investment would attract....... You could have Kum and Go, Mickey D's, and Chuck E Cheeze every 100 yards or so...

Nice........!

RICO:  Great Digital Photo-Pics; you can sure pick 'em.

Coming through the Tulsa City Council, Tulsa County Commissioner Randi Miller is very experienced with working closely with City Employees to meet City-County goals.

In fact, so closely is her coordination that a certain Assistant Public Works Director worked as her personal residential Pool Boy, servicing her swimming pool needs.

Maybe subbing to liberally apply Suntan Lotion as well:

"Mike, come back here again, you missed a spot, honey".

Wonder if her personal Pool Boy drove over to her residence in a city-owned Public Werkes SUV?

Calling Counselor Christiansen???

[}:)]

[rwarn17588]

I see that Friendly Bear still hasn't learned subtlety and conciseness during his hiatus. [}:)]

[Friendly Bear]

I learned:

Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper....

...........From Master Po

and,

Snatch the taxes from your hand...

.........from Bob Poe.

[]

[Rico]

Originally posted by the Artist.
"As for Zoning guidelines, I really wish we had those along the river."


This is exactly what the Mayor had asked the TMAPC to come up with...

Originally posted by the Arstist.

But the implication that we could have gas stations and Micky-D's every hundred yards doesnt seem to ring true. With the INCOG plan there are only certain areas along the river that can be developed

You are an awfully trusting soul Sir.........

INCOG planned it.... True...

INCOG can not enforce what is built on property that is not yet zoned..

Without the "zoning" in place Charles Norman, and others, could make these up as the interest in the private development became an issue.

There would be no "appropriate use" designated because we would be dealing with property that was not zoned....
In other words..... We would have no "guarantee".... What we would wind up with....

If this vote were to be put off until the TMAPC finished the zoning on the corridor..... I think it would be more palatable.

I, for one, am not handing money to developers.... and you may say it is the City, County etc., with no promised results....

Then .... 5 years or so from the start of this tax... "well construction costs have doubled" "we will have to spend more to get the desired results....?"