Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[tim huntzinger]

To an astonished group of curious Tulsans attending the River Vision question and answer session Sunday, a red-faced foam-flecked mouthed Michael Bates needed to be calmed down following a bizarre outburst.

Unsatisfied with the panel's answer to a question, Bates escalated rapidly, standing just yards from the presenters and screaming.  Hands still shaking from a caffeine rush of Cherry Coke, the blogger rushed the table demanding answers.  Eventually, Lady Kathy needed to sit next to Mikey to calm him down.

Whether or not sometime Tulsanow lurker DSchutler will post his video of the embarassing freakout is yet to be seen.

The audience was tipped slightly in favor of the Visioneers.  Dan Hicks was back with hand-crayoled signs, accompanied by some pot-bellied chicken-legged dude who paced around the whole time.

[guido911]

Any media there? If so, maybe they have video. I would enjoy seeing that tough guy act out.

[MichaelBates]

Tim, I did raise my voice, and I wish I hadn't, although I don't believe it's fair to characterize me as screaming. Speaking in a loud voice, yes, but not screaming.

It infuriated me to hear politicians claiming they didn't make a promise when they clearly did, promising Tulsa County voters four years ago that if Vision 2025 passed they would build two low water dams and fix Zink Lake. But that's no excuse, and I am embarrassed for getting carried away.

Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.

Vision 2025 ballot resolution no. 4, approved by the County Commission on July 7, 2003, clearly lists the following projects:

quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million

Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million

Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 million

The list of projects is followed by this language:

quote:
While the cost estimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects, such excess funds shall be expended for caputal improvements for community enrichment (which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose), as determined by a public trust having Tulsa County, Oklahoma, [and all Tulsa County municipalities], as its beneficiaries.

Mayor Taylor came over to me to see the text of the ballot resolution to which I was referring. She had never seen that ballot resolution or the language in it that I've quoted above,  acknowledging that the costs may be inaccurate and that commits the county to use Vision 2025 funds to complete the listed projects.  

What particularly set me off was Randi Miller's claim that they couldn't possibly have promised to build low water dams as a part of Vision 2025, because the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan wasn't complete at the time.

The point I tried to make, but wasn't allowed to make, is that the ballot resolution clearly anticipates that the plan was still to come. Read it again: "Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." In other words, once we figure out where the dams should go, we will use Vision 2025 tax dollars to build two dams and fix Zink Lake.

It was interesting that Mayor Taylor (during the meeting) and (in a conversation before the meeting) Chamber CEO Mike O'Neal both said they'd been told, incorrectly, that the Vision 2025 money for the dams had mostly been spent on engineering and studies. I mentioned (in a calm voice this time) that Vision 2025 program manager Kirby Crowe had said that only $275,000 has been spent on environmental filings necessary for dam construction, and the remainder of the money for the dams and all the money for fixing Zink Lake was "unspent and protected." Kirby Crowe was in the room and indicated his agreement with my account of what he said.

I want to see water in the river happen, and we can do that without raising taxes if the County Commissioners will be honest and keep their promises from four years ago.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Tim, I did raise my voice, and I wish I hadn't, although I don't believe it's fair to characterize me as screaming. Speaking in a loud voice, yes, but not screaming.

It infuriated me to hear politicians claiming they didn't make a promise when they clearly did, promising Tulsa County voters four years ago that if Vision 2025 passed they would build two low water dams and fix Zink Lake. But that's no excuse, and I am embarrassed for getting carried away.

Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.

Vision 2025 ballot resolution no. 4, approved by the County Commission on July 7, 2003, clearly lists the following projects:

quote:
Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million

Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million

Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 million

The list of projects is followed by this language:

quote:
While the cost estimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects, such excess funds shall be expended for caputal improvements for community enrichment (which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose), as determined by a public trust having Tulsa County, Oklahoma, [and all Tulsa County municipalities], as its beneficiaries.

Mayor Taylor came over to me to see the text of the ballot resolution to which I was referring. She had never seen that ballot resolution or the language in it that I've quoted above,  acknowledging that the costs may be inaccurate and that commits the county to use Vision 2025 funds to complete the listed projects.  

What particularly set me off was Randi Miller's claim that they couldn't possibly have promised to build low water dams as a part of Vision 2025, because the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan wasn't complete at the time.

The point I tried to make, but wasn't allowed to make, is that the ballot resolution clearly anticipates that the plan was still to come. Read it again: "Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." In other words, once we figure out where the dams should go, we will use Vision 2025 tax dollars to build two dams and fix Zink Lake.

It was interesting that Mayor Taylor (during the meeting) and (in a conversation before the meeting) Chamber CEO Mike O'Neal both said they'd been told, incorrectly, that the Vision 2025 money for the dams had mostly been spent on engineering and studies. I mentioned (in a calm voice this time) that Vision 2025 program manager Kirby Crowe had said that only $275,000 has been spent on environmental filings necessary for dam construction, and the remainder of the money for the dams and all the money for fixing Zink Lake was "unspent and protected." Kirby Crowe was in the room and indicated his agreement with my account of what he said.

I want to see water in the river happen, and we can do that without raising taxes if the County Commissioners will be honest and keep their promises from four years ago.

Mr Bates, you are not telling the full truth and you know it.



Here is an acticle from before the vote on 2025.


Tulsa World, 7/23/03:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven

Quote:
Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River. The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

Here is a quote about the $5.4 million being for MATCHING funds. Your well loved Republican senator, James Inhofe has long said he would secure the matching funds and has never done so.  The feds are not coming through, Inhofe has failed, largely due to Katrina, but he has failed to do what he said he would do.

And Mr Bates, I know you read this particular article, because YOU are quoted in it:


Quote:
Bates said he would rather have seen the tax package structured so that it would expire once the $885 million is raised, rather than for a finite period of time.


You are being disingenuous when you claim we were promised low water dams for $5.4 million. We were correctly told we were getting matching funds and it's your party, you being a official of the Republican party, that has failed to live up to what was promised.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates



Of course, I've seen it happen to you, too, Tim, both in person and on this forum (it got bad enough that you were banned for a time) -- sometimes your passion gets the best of you.

Nope, not me.  You have me entirely confused with someone else.  I got there late and videod the end of your tirade.  It was bad enough the Mayor had to implore you to stop yelling.  I sure hope DSchutler posts the video.  

Y'know, they do make decaf soda pop . . .

[waterboy]

You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.

Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?

[RecycleMichael]

I was at the meeting...

There were 80 plus people in the room and the crowd was about one third opponents, one third proponents and one third city/county/incog/chamber/media.

The people against did most of the speaking after a long presentation from Rich Brierre on the INCOG plan and new suggested improvements.

Michael Bates did get pretty passionate about making his point, but I would not describe it as "freaking out". There were some loud words between him and Commissioner Miller about the language in vision 2025, but the meeting moved on pretty quickly. When the Mayor stood up and asked the audience to be civil, Michael sat down and the meeting went on.

It was a bizarre day at the fairgrounds. The usual "NO" people were all there, Bates, Chris Medlock, Dan Hicks, etc. as well as many of their group of like-minded citizens. The bloggers all were there taking pictures and video as well as three television stations and a Tulsa World reporter and photographer.  

Representatives from private sector investment were there and some vocal citizens who were clearly in favor of the river plan.

I learned a lot and there were some good questions asked. There was also some stupid arguments like Dan Hicks saying that he was repainting his little mock-up to reflect the fact that the river was brown, not blue like in the drawings. He just talked babble and kept holding his little model, like it was some sort of school project diorama.

One other couple kept bringing up the fact that a special election was going to cost money and tried to embarass Randi Miller because the Tulsa County Republican platform committee had voted last spring to oppose a river tax. The guy also twice tried to explain to the audience the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The meeting didn't discuss the river improvements much, instead focusing on vision 2025 language, street bond issues of the future, and why do temporary taxes seem permanent.

I am curious as to the tone of the next meetings being held by other commissioners. It is going to be an interesting week.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.

Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?

I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.

Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.

The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.

Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?

I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.

Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.

The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.

You can't throw this off that easy. No one expects candidates to list their issues. I have seen long paragraphs on ballots written to explain much smaller impact resolutions. There have been lawsuits and ballots overturned for less than what this one did.

The same goes with TV reporting. It is sketchy, often poorly written and as we all know can be biased. The ballot is the last place that defines just what the initiative is and the voter relies on it, not the media. Even so, 11.2 million won't get the job done, so what was their intent?

Do you really want to get in a battle with who can be more disingenuous, anti-tax republicans or suburban river supporters? This puts you on their level.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

You may be right Swake that Bates and others knew that this was matching funds. That would be a total of 11.2 million for both dams and Zink improvements. That is not enough being quoted now for one dam.

Nonetheless, less than 50% of Tulsa addresses receive the Tulsa World. But 100% of the people who voted read what that ballot said. And it said the dams would be built with money from that initiative and for 5.6 million. Why was such a controversial, carefully drafted ballot so obviously be misleading?

I recall KOTV and KTUL also reporting that these were matching funds and the issue was widely discussed on this forum and was on the 2025 web site. It was well publicized.

Candidates for office do not list all their positions on issues on the ballot. It's incumbent on the voter to become informed before entering the polling station. If you vote without being informed, that's your own fault.

The only double dealing here is by the no taxes crowd in trying to claim that we have already paid for dams. We have voted on a partial funding of the dams and our Republican congressional delegation has failed to get us the matching funds, failed us yet again.

You can't throw this off that easy. No one expects candidates to list their issues. I have seen long paragraphs on ballots written to explain much smaller impact resolutions. There have been lawsuits and ballots overturned for less than what this one did.

The same goes with TV reporting. It is sketchy, often poorly written and as we all know can be biased. The ballot is the last place that defines just what the initiative is and the voter relies on it, not the media. Even so, 11.2 million won't get the job done, so what was their intent?

Do you really want to get in a battle with who can be more disingenuous, anti-tax republicans or suburban river supporters? This puts you on their level.

Waterboy, you knew it was matching funds, I recall discussing this at length before you YOU on this forum. Hell, the channel idea was YOURS years ago. I know you want a navigable river, and it sounds nice, but how much would it add in cost?

[waterboy]

Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.

Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.

I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.

Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.

I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it

The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.

Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.

I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it

The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.

We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.

Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.

I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it

The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.

We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.

Yes, sorry, channelization of the riverbed, that was your idea, I recall you even had done drawings of the concept.

The Channels was very different and was never a good idea, well intentioned maybe, but not a good idea.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Honestly, I was in a haze during that period, don't know what I knew and when I knew it! And by the time I arrived here... well lets just say I was not myself. Thanks for remembering one of my brain explosions.

Doesn't matter so much what I thought though, the ballot was what they voted on, and it was misleading. This is an effort by anti-tax people to further diminish the credibility of the plan promoters, I know that. But, I already question their credibility.

I disagree with the plan for other reasons so I'm not carrying either banner into the battle. Had anyone responded to my hard earned, first hand concerns instead of continuuing to tout this plan as "having public input" so it must be unassailable, I would be on the front lines. As it is, they made the plan, they need to defend it

The channel idea was yours, and I thought you were nuts, my thought was that the cost of something like that would have to be off the charts, it looks like I was wrong.

We should distinguish that we aren't talking "Channels" which was the islands in the river plan but a concept I weakly promoted to channelize the river using wing dams (jetties) to do the natural dredging and then hardening the banks. It is eerily similar to the "living river" concept. I hope it is incorporated.

Yes, sorry, channelization of the riverbed, that was your idea, I recall you even had done drawings of the concept.

The Channels was very different and was never a good idea, well intentioned maybe, but not a good idea.

So convince me that these are people we can trust to shovel $300,000,000 into their control and they won't spend chunks of it somewhere else. Or that they would execute any plan close to its presented form without some public input.
I want to be persuaded.