Tulsa Has Never Faced Truth About 1921 Race Riot

[shadows]

There is an old cliché that is silent in the intent of the tread.  It is "Divide and conquer." Looking back over the history of the white people rioting against the North City it is self evident that the intent was to disburse the North City and leave it in such turmoil that it just would go away.  These citizens had no funds to go somewhere and were forced to rebuild shelters that they called homes.  

Yes in the 60's some of the business had rebuilt but these were closed and the buildings on Greenwood stood vacant for years. Why because the economy of the North city was suffering as it is today.

There are many stories during the rebuilding up to the 80's when people looked down on persons when they employed Blacks, even for servants.  There are many stories that will never be told.

At the present, as pointed out by a previous poster, gunshot does not alarm the TPD or any other function in the North City.  Dividing to conquer is in effect, being the aftermath of the intent of the total destruction north of the tracks.  

As long as the gangs, killings, Shots, and drugs are everyday occurrences, then that is what the silent government of the city south of the tracks wants.   With gangs presumed to number in the hundreds, if they came together, the smoldering ashes could again burst into flame.   Then we would have reverse action.

Again it would be better to pour on the smoldering ashes the waters of reparation to those who are descendants and take away the threat that seem about to burst into flame.

When one becomes a resident of a city they become obligated for the debts of the city and they have no grandfather clause to stand behind.    

[iplaw]

Huh?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows


At the present, as pointed out by a previous poster, gunshot does not alarm the TPD or any other function in the North City.
[/quote

I work in North Tulsa.  Drive through on Harvard every day.  East lunch on Lewis very often.  OR find some BBQ on Apache.  Never heard a gunshot in North Tulsa.    Plus, it would be impossible to respond to a non discrete "gun shot"  somewhere near.  Do the cops just show up in the area and drive around asking everyone if they heard something that might have been a gunshot until they learn it was a backfire?  Unless it is "so and so at blank shot at X" it is impossible to do anything.  I hear what I think are gun shots on occasion at my house, they probably arent.

quote:
Dividing to conquer is in effect, being the aftermath of the intent of the total destruction north of the tracks.  

The difference being a few on the North Side are diving the many with crime, violence and drugs.  I have yet to see the news story of "3 White Union High Teens Drove into North Tulsa Today to Shoot Black People."  The North Side's crime is within the North Side Community, it is not influenced from outside and it will be difficult for the outside to stop it.  (REFERENCE:  man in the north side agreed to participate in a murder investigation.  He got shot yesterday.)

quote:
As long as the gangs, killings, Shots, and drugs are everyday occurrences, then that is what the silent government of the city south of the tracks wants.

Other than a north side precinct, increased presence, federal help, drug stings, and murder investigations - yep, the government is silent.  Propose a solution and perhaps they will listen.

quote:
Again it would be better to pour on the smoldering ashes the waters of reparation to those who are descendants and take away the threat that seem about to burst into flame.

Black people of North Tulsa!  Take some money and then stop doing drugs and killing each other.  Thank you.

For some reason, I'm not thinking that will work too well.

When one becomes a resident of a city they become obligated for the debts of the city and they have no grandfather clause to stand behind.    

No resident of Tulsa is liable for any of the debts of the city.  The city, as a public entity, is responsible for those debts and may declare bankruptcy or default independent of the assets of any of its residents.  No grandfather clause is needed.

Not to mention the fact you are arguing for the creation of a liability, no such financial liability currently exists.

[shadows]

CF says;
No resident of Tulsa is liable for any of the debts of the city. The city, as a public entity, is responsible for those debts and may declare bankruptcy or default independent of the assets of any of its residents. No grandfather clause is needed.

Sometimes I get the idea that many citizens believe they are in la la land and in their dreams place the governing bodies on pedestals.  Cities are made up of corporate bodies and can sue and be sued.   It is the citizens and residents that are liable for the corporate body through a little word "Taxes".  A city is not a "for profit venture" and should be guided by the residents who support the total functions of the city.  

I do not see where I am trying to establish liability when the city creates the liability that also fall on the shoulders of new citizens that moves into the city.   No resident is shielded from liability .

Ever hear the phrase "Government by the people"?  

With a near nine trillion national debt and increasing, it might be advantageous to declare bankruptcy and include the billions of dollars the 400,000 that the city residents are being strapped with.

[cannon_fodder]

Shadows:

I'm not arguing with you, I am telling you.  As a matter of fact and law, citizens of a city ARE NOT liable for its debts.  We are liable for the taxes the city levies on our property, income, or expenditures and thus, we end up paying for the debts.  But we are not liable for them.

Do you see the difference here?  I can voluntarily move to OKC and POOF, not more debt burden for me.   I can run my credit check and I have no dings for "400mil in City of Tulsa debt burden."  The citizens end up paying for it, but it is the entities debt.

and no, declaring bankruptcy is a bad idea for a public entity.  Orange County could get away with it because they have the tax base to make it work, Tulsa does not nor is Tulsa under any life threatening debt load.  A nation, as you propose, declaring bankruptcy is a tottaly and utter disaster for the nation state and the populace ( by virtue of a collapse economy).

[shadows]

CF quoted:
I'm not arguing with you, I am telling you.
______________________________________
In the real world that some of us live in, the individual owns nothing as all property is rented from various governments. (City, State and Federal)   We can use and have certain right to occupy such property as long as we pay a cute substitute word called taxes.  If you do not pay this rent then they will take your property and give it to someone else who will pay the rent. (taxes)

Yes it is the law that this liability of the corporate political body to make the renter of the property liable for the debts through bond issues and operational budgeting.  Every issue proposed to increase the debts or create more, in the real world, is an increase on the rent to use the property.      

Very few today live in the real world.    []

[cannon_fodder]

I applaud your unique perspective on property taxes.  But it has a flaw.

What of the citizens that do not own property in Tulsa and are either exempt from sales tax or shop elsewhere to avoid it?  All of a sudden they are not liable. Wow.

There is a difference between having to pay for something and being liable for it.  If it is a true liability, you cannot just avoid paying it by shopping somewhere else or moving out of town.

I understand your concept, the issue is dead.

[aoxamaxoa]

While the huge sucking sound in east Tulsa continues, I will tell you that the race riot museum needs to be here for the mere importance of teaching tolerance.

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I applaud your unique perspective on property taxes.  But it has a flaw.

What of the citizens that do not own property in Tulsa and are either exempt from sales tax or shop elsewhere to avoid it?  All of a sudden they are not liable. Wow.


I understand your concept, the issue is dead.

Good buddy I am unaware of any place where a person is exempted from sales, use or property tax even through the third person and I have not seen anyone put pontoons under their house and send it down the Arkansas River, now at high tide.  Until I do so I believe the topic should die a quick death.[][][][][]

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

I have not seen anyone put pontoons under their house and send it down the Arkansas River

You can move out of the city and not pay.  You can rent and therefor not pay.  You can live in Osage county, and therefor not pay.  

Who said anythign about floating a house?

As a matter of law, citizens are not personally liable for the debts of their governments in the United States or under international law.  Period.

/QED

[shadows]

If I am permitted to point out the renter pays property taxes through the third party,   They are paid to the leasing agency in rent, to the property owner, who rebates the renters portion to the city, through the county millage split.  Everything is well covered and the free lunch has been taken off the bar long ago.

One can move out of the city and not pay taxes but when one moves into the city they pay taxes on the liability that the city created.  

(In checking the timing of posts I assume some posters are PR persons)

[iplaw]

Taxes are not paid to offset liability, such as someone "assuming" the debt of another, which is what you are implying.  Taxes can be imposed upon citizens without "debt" even being a factor.  A city is free to levy taxes apart from any specific purpose for the taking of those taxes and they can be used as the city sees fit.

We are not repaying a "debt" when the city collects taxes.  You're walking an impossibly thin line with your comparison that just doesn't analogize.

Also, the renter does not pay property tax.  If the homeowner fails to pay taxes the city will look to collect from the owner, NOT the renter.  The renter is under no duty to ensure that property taxes are paid.  It's a hopless splitting-of-hairs to state that rent money is used by the owner to pay that tax so the renter is actually paying the taxes...

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Taxes are not paid to offset liability, such as someone "assuming" the debt of another, which is what you are implying.  Taxes can be imposed upon citizens without "debt" even being a factor.  A city is free to levy taxes apart from any specific purpose for the taking of those taxes and they can be used as the city sees fit.

We are not repaying a "debt" when the city collects taxes.  You're walking an impossibly thin line with your comparison that just doesn't analogize.

Also, the renter does not pay property tax.  If the homeowner fails to pay taxes the city will look to collect from the owner, NOT the renter.  The renter is under no duty to ensure that property taxes are paid.  It's a hopless splitting-of-hairs to state that rent money is used by the owner to pay that tax so the renter is actually paying the taxes...

I am sure you are aware of the Oklahoma Statues detailing the conditions that are available to municipalities to access and limit the collection of taxes subject only to the budgeting procedure.  Under very vague circumstances would the renter be liable for the property taxes.   Thus this obligation falls on the property owner (although the renter can vote to increase the taxes)whereas govern bodies look to owner for the taxes.  It being your assumption that bond issues are not liabilities assessed against the citizens?

Does the city takes on an identity separate to that of the citizens?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows


Does the city takes on an identity separate to that of the citizens?

Yes.  The same way a corporation has an identity separate from shareholders.  Except instead of being 'owners' of the city, residents are merely have the right of participation.  But regardless, yes, cities have separate legal identities from their citizens.