River Plan- Taxes/Funding

[Renaissance]

Waterboy - as I understand it, the main sources of your reservations seem to be: a) the absence of navigable locks in the dams; and b) the tax issue.

Since this is the tax thread, I'll just deal with the fiscal question.

It seems like we have to balance aspirations for river development with a reluctance to raise taxes.  That reluctance to tax is compounded by an apparent mistrust of municipal authorities to use the funds.  Understandable.  But I will suggest this:

It's not going to get any better.  

We're never going to see a "perfect" river plan, even if one existed.  We're never going to have perfect management and oversight.  As a conservative I sympathize with the urge to demand fiscal responsibility of our leaders.  But as a Tulsan I must balance that urge with the needs of the municipality.  Those needs include road maintenance and crime enforcement, to be sure.  I would support reasonable taxes necessary to solve those problems.  But perfect asphalt would does not create a sense of place.  My outlook is such that river renewal is just as necessary as pavement renewal.  We're never going to get a perfect plan, but this one seems to have sprung from a long process of civic discussion and honest feasibility studies.  

We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront.  I support the latter.  For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Waterboy - as I understand it, the main sources of your reservations seem to be: a) the absence of navigable locks in the dams; and b) the tax issue.

Since this is the tax thread, I'll just deal with the fiscal question.

It seems like we have to balance aspirations for river development with a reluctance to raise taxes.  That reluctance to tax is compounded by an apparent mistrust of municipal authorities to use the funds.  Understandable.  But I will suggest this:

It's not going to get any better.  

We're never going to see a "perfect" river plan, even if one existed.  We're never going to have perfect management and oversight.  As a conservative I sympathize with the urge to demand fiscal responsibility of our leaders.  But as a Tulsan I must balance that urge with the needs of the municipality.  Those needs include road maintenance and crime enforcement, to be sure.  I would support reasonable taxes necessary to solve those problems.  But perfect asphalt would does not create a sense of place.  My outlook is such that river renewal is just as necessary as pavement renewal.  We're never going to get a perfect plan, but this one seems to have sprung from a long process of civic discussion and honest feasibility studies.  

We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront.  I support the latter.  For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.  

I don't need perfect to support it. The lack of connectivity, the lack of a focal point and the lack of credibility for a sales tax make it flawed. I remember when v2025 was touted as both a downtown arena AND river development. That was a falsehood. A fraction was spent on river 'engineering studies".  Unless this is a bond issue or has public oversight I just can't depend upon the kindness of strangers anymore. Especially for Channel lite.

Do you remember voting to have the Meadow Gold sign moved at a cost of over $130,000 even though the pre v2025 bid had been around $75,000? It was then stored away for future erection at a different site which will probably cost more v2025 dollars. And that was with oversight from a mayoral appointed v2025 committee to protect our interests. They could have at least moved it to the river and pretended it was development.

Do you remember the public input phase? I was working long days at that time ferrying boat passengers upstream to the dam and back so I wasn't able to participate until phase 2. It sure didn't feel like anything but benevolent dictatorship to me by then and I didn't see any new ideas. Some people like that sort of patronage, I don't. No one outside of the press ever showed any interest in getting my input. I wasn't part of the network of engineers, lawyers, partisans and contractors who lined up at the trough and promised to carry a battle flag. Sorry but thats the way I feel.

It seemed odd to me that a lot of people who knew nothing about tourism, development, river dynamics, history, science and politics were invited to come up with "input" and anyone expected something imaginative to come of it. All it did was lead to the Channels.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd


We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront.  I support the latter.  For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.  

What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.

With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by Floyd


We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront.  I support the latter.  For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.  

What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.

With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.

Very logical.  Sounds perfectly feasible and reasonable.

Problem is:  The local controlling plutocrats lust for that extra $0.004, because they already CONTROL the overages from the $0.006 Vision 2025 sales tax, and they ALWAYS want more.

And, they just aren't going to let go of either of them, until our Sales Tax is 8.917% on the dollar.  Nearly 10% of every dollar we spend.

They need to feed their greed.

And, they are always hungry.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Yeah, or else the public is intensely interested in whether the naysayers will quash yet another improvement opportunity.  

Of course, we get to come here and read fool's conspiracies while we attempt engage in reasoned discussion, but I suppose that's the beauty of the internet - any idiot with a computer and a cute animal nickname gets a voice.

That's not fair. I originally am on record as supporting this plan, any plan to get moving on developing the river. After seeing no one able to refute the criticisms presented and beginning to see some patterns emerge on these projects, I changed my mind. It doesn't help that no one seems to care about mine and others reservations. Do they know and hope no one notices? Or do they figure I'm a crackpot and no one will pay attention?

I know they read these forum threads and when they've had enough, they respond or incorporate our ideas. Here's hoping.

WB:

The Vote Yes to Higher Taxes group fully expects that:

their million dollar media buy,

the endorsement by local notables and politicos,

their positive news and editorial coverage in the Lorton's Daily World,

the thousands of Vote Yes Yard Signs placed under implicit threat of immediate termination for non-compliance in the yards of captive employees of companies controlled by the local power elite,

the VACUMNING of the paltry number of yard signs put out by the impotent Vote No Volunteers by the suspiciously recently re-invigorated Yard Sign Nazis,

the very favorable Vote YES slanted news provided by "news" Channel 862,

and, finally and probably MOST IMPORTANT, the heavy thumb of the Tulsa County Commissioner-controlled County Election Board on the ballot count will be more than enough to pick our pockets to fill the pockets of the Flint, Rooney, Lorton, and Kaiser financial interests for many, many years to come.

They NEED to FEED their GREED.

Ain't Democracy Great?

Welcome to the Banana Republic of Tulsa!  

[B)]

Yea would hate to see those local people and companies getting rich. Lord knows they don't do anything for or give back to the community. Especially that greedy Kaiser fella. Yea, we should just not do anything to our river. That would show them greedy sob's. Or if we do, don't do it in an area of town where they or anyone else might make money on it. I would never ask for anyone else to help make my home or business interests, heck it might help my neighbors and other businesses do better as well. We sure wouldn't want that.

I said earlier in this thread that while Mr. Kaiser's philanthropy, if genuine, could be put to good use, but that 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.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by Floyd


We can dither and argue for another 50 years, or we can seize this moment as a chance to take an affirmative step toward a unified waterfront.  I support the latter.  For that reason, I can get behind reasonable taxation to that end.  

What if we could fund the two new low water dams and upgrading the Zink Lake dam using Vision 2025 funds, without adding a new tax? These projects were promised as part of Vision 2025. They're listed on the official ballot resolution. There's more than enough overage to cover the cost of the three dams (about $25 million each is the estimate I've seen), and if the overage is going to be spent, first priority should be to complete the promised projects.

With the dams paid for by the Vision 2025 tax, the individual cities could then decide how or whether to fund things like pedestrian bridges and land acquisition for private development. We can have water in the river without increasing taxes.

I like thinking big, but as a feasible alternative I could certainly get on board with that.

[Conan71]

Michael Bates, are you posing a hypothetical or is it really there?

If there really is money in already available via the V2025 tax for the dams and they can be built for $25mm or less each, there's no reason to not support it.

If it is, I don't get the point of the money-grab for this project if the funds supposedly exist.  I also don't trust estimates as it relates to municipal projects any more, considering the over-runs on the arena.

Floyd, I have a hard time comparing funding an "update" to the river as even remotely relevant to the priority of funds to fix and upgrade our crumbling and insufficient infrastructure that all of us must use to carry on our daily commerce and convenience.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

There is no focus for the river plans. If this were a business plan that a bank was considering funding, that would kill it.

That's the funny part WB- Don Walker with Arvest is one of the big proponents...LOL!

Sgrizz- the Derek Zoolander character is one of the mover-and-shaker TYPros or YP's or whatever they call themselves when they are patting themselves on the back whilst having drinks at Suede's or McNellie's.

are tose turds hired professionals because they Ypros or whatever look NOTHING like the majority of young workers I see downtown.

[brunoflipper]

i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...

but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...

the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok  or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...

i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...

the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...

but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...

the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok  or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...

i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...

the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...

Bruno:

Why WAIT for the new Sales Tax?

Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...

Join the "Tax Me More Club".

Send your donation to:

Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK          74103

[Conan71]

Bruno,

I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:

- Managed existing assets better

- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose

- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management

- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements

- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting

Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

...our taxes are too low for how i want to live...

Well said.

I am not for nor against the river tax yet... waiting to see the final package, but am OK to pay a little more for the right additions to our community.

I want better, and I am willing to pay more.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Michael Bates, are you posing a hypothetical or is it really there?

If there really is money in already available via the V2025 tax for the dams and they can be built for $25mm or less each, there's no reason to not support it.

If it is, I don't get the point of the money-grab for this project if the funds supposedly exist.  I also don't trust estimates as it relates to municipal projects any more, considering the over-runs on the arena.

Floyd, I have a hard time comparing funding an "update" to the river as even remotely relevant to the priority of funds to fix and upgrade our crumbling and insufficient infrastructure that all of us must use to carry on our daily commerce and convenience.

In this week's Urban Tulsa Weekly (available online at http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17675

Michael Bates analyzes the overages being collected in the Vision 2025 Sales Tax, and does some pretty thorough calculations that show that there will be adequate overcollections of the Vision 2025 tax to fund the majority of the Kaiser River Plan projects.

All without raising a "New" $0.004 Sales Tax.

Makes perfect sense.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

i don't really give a ****...
our taxes are too low for how i want to live...
tax me and give me a great city...
give me a great city with a vibrant downtown and impressive river development and i'll get people to move here... well paid people who'll make this town back into what it once was...

but i guess that is just me, i've come to terms with the fact that anything worth having costs something and better things cost more...

the "notaxniks" need to move on to cookson, ok or stilwell, ok  or dismalseepage, ok or twiddleyourballsack, ok and enjoy the amenities that those tax bases support... no one wants to pay for anything, but everyone wants to ***** about how ****ty everything is... give me a ****ing break...

i'm tired of waiting and tired of us being backwards...

the okc notaxniks said the same thing before maps and look what it got 'em... like the execution or not, they are spanking our asses...

Bruno:

Why WAIT for the new Sales Tax?

Feel like you're not taxed, enough, then...

Join the "Tax Me More Club".

Send your donation to:

Tax Me More Club
c/o County Commissioner Randi Miller
500 South Denver Avenue
Tulsa OK          74103

FriendlyBear:

Why ***** ABOUT the new Sales Tax?

Feel like you're taxed too much, then...

Move to some low tax ****hole...

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bruno,

I think the underlying current (excuse the pun) is many of us wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if our city and county:

- Managed existing assets better

- Had a history of using money not subject to a general obligation bond for the promised original purpose

- Didn't have a history of cronyism and nepotism which benefits a small circle of contractors who get most of the projects regardless of merit, capability, and efficient project management

- Showed even the slightest semblance of intelligence when it comes to designing, developing, and implimenting public infrastructure improvements

- Didn't send so much of our tax dollars outside the city for circle-^&*$ studies and consulting

Why give more money to approve more money for the same people who have shown such blatant incompetence in the past?

all of your points are theories or conjecture at best... at the very least, they are issues that exist in EVERY other goddamn city in the US...

if we approve the package, we might just get something great... if we don't approve it, we won't get anything anytime soon/ever... if we ever get something else approved, we'll be that much further behind the eight-ball...
we have not gotten anything in 30 ****ing years...
aside from the 70-80's run, we've been dying on the vine since the 30's...

maybe the man isn't screwing us, maybe we screwed ourselves...