Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[iplaw]

quote:She was a master debater in high school

So was I...wait...what?

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:She was a master debater in high school

So was I...wait...what?

Still? Pouting?

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:She was a master debater in high school

So was I...wait...what?

[}:)]

[inteller]

well, I have no like for Master Bates, but Randi Miller is a flat out LIAR.  Bates was right to call her out on it.  It is high time they quit playing the public for fools and someone brings up what THEY proposed.  Look at the video, she is sitting there DENYING what the actual ballot said!  I hope everyone at the meeting figures that out.  The ballot said what the ballot said.

Now Inhofe is making another play for those funds again, if the county was smart they would put off this vote until that is resolved, because if they have a vote proposal while these federal funds are being sought, people are going to have doubts when they go to the polls.

[swake]

From the Tulsa World article:

included in the latest version of the Water Resources Development Act, a much-delayed and much-anticipated piece of legislation that could go to final vote within days.

The congressional vote will likely take place well before the commission even votes, much less the public.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

Am I?

Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.

Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.

You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.

So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.

And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else  saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"

Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.

But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".

I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

Am I?

Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.

Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.

You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.

So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.

And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else  saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"

Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.

But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".

I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.

The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.

You really need to study this issue further

[tim huntzinger]

DSchutler has this but edited it out of HisTulsaWhirled.

Looks, sounds, walks like a . . .

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

Am I?

Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.

Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.

You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.

So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.

And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else  saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"

Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.

But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".

I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.

The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.

You really need to study this issue further

Semantics. [not the AV folks]

V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.

[tim huntzinger]

I am sorry if it was unclear in the above post, but I have uploaded what little bit I could capture on my SonyEricsson Z520's VGA onto videogoogle.

Just another hallucination, that 'screaming' description . . .

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

Am I?

Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.

Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.

You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.

So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.

And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else  saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"

Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.

But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".

I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.

The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.

You really need to study this issue further

Semantics. [not the AV folks]

V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.

And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.

What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake


And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.

What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.

swake is correct that Vision 2025 did not include any work on the river between 31st and 71st. It included:

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

Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification

Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal

The 31st to 71st work could be potentially be done by borrowing against projected Vision 2025 overage -- I believe there would be enough for this as well as the projects promised in Vision 2025 --  by borrowing against projected 4 to Fix the County overage, or by extending Vision 2025 and borrowing against those future revenues.

In reference to what Wrinkle said about interest rates and bonds, remember that even if we had the cash on hand today for the new dams, the Zink modifications, and the "living river" section, construction wouldn't be able to start for some time because the Corps 404 permitting process isn't complete. I'm not sure what the time frame is -- years, I would guess -- but the key point is that the bulk of funding for "water in the river" won't need to be bonded right away, which means a shorter gap between issuing the bonds and collecting the revenue.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

Am I?

Then you have not been paying attention very closely. The two dams that 2025 provides matching funds for are to be located in Sand Springs and at 106th. The Sand Springs dam will impound water in Sand Springs only. The 106th St Dam will create a lake from 106th to somewhere between 81st and 71st.

Vision 2025 allocated nothing for the reach between the 31st St Dam (the existing one which backs up water to downtown) and 81st. No money, no promises, there's nothing in it for that part of the river. The Kaiser plan address that part of the river too.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "water in the river" is.

You may have some inside info. I've been paying attention and there's been no public distinction made there. V2025 was waiting on the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to determine requirements, placements, etc.

So, to now suggest one solves a 'problem' with the other isn't reality.

And, I never heard Randi Miller or anyone else  saying, "Oh, you guys wanted water in that part, too!"

Appears to me the dams themselves are discrete issues in need of public input and guidance. Sounds like there's quite a few behind-the-scene decisions being made ad hock.

But, it's not being presented either way. And, the public is thinking "water in the river" means "water in the river".

I can't wait for Ms. Miller to stand up and tell Tulsans they can expect absolutely no visible change in their section of the river.

The Kaiser plan does put water in this section, but 2025 does not address it.

You really need to study this issue further

Semantics. [not the AV folks]

V2025 said it'd do what the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan recommended.

And where did it say that? Not on the ballot, that's for sure. You were either educated on what was planned, or you were not.

What was said at the time of the vote is that the 2025 money was matching funds for two dams and that placement of the dams would follow the master plan, and they are. The master plan recommended the first two dams built be at 106th and in Sand Springs. You have a pretty selective memory it seems.

We're not saying anything different with regard to the location of the dams.

You're contending V2025 provides only $5.4 mil when the clear intent was to include them regardless of Fed funding.

Still, that plan puts no additional water in Tulsa's section of the river. So, Tulsans could take a snapshot now and it'll do for generations.

And, the current plan only digs a 500' wide channel to flow water, about 1/3rd the river width, and, apparently, on the west side. So, wouldn't look much different either, for $90 mil.

Here's your ballot:
http://www.vision2025.info/includes/pages/downloads/uploads/04/file.pdf

It says "construct two low water dams on Arkansas River locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan." ($5.4 mil)

and, "design and construct Zink Lake upstream catch basin and silt removal" ($2.1 mil)

Matching funds (to use your words) were not addressed.

[aoxamaxoa]

Years.... but worth the wait. I won't be here but think it's a blessing to have this opportunity.

Where's the money?

Maybe Mr. Crowe might know....

[Wrinkle]

Funding is but one issue of several LARGE ones.

This plan is primarily funding for Jenks and Sand Springs, courtesy of Tulsa once again.

And, it's a County Sales Tax, reducing the margin available to Tulsa and all the rest of the communities in the entire County for their own local needs of police, fire, etc.

But, the largest, overriding reason to oppose this plan is the NEW County Authority.

That would be something of great regret.
Let Tulsa, and each other river community decide how to develop their own portions of the river. If they decide to adopt the Master Plan, fine. But, it's their choice. We don't need 5 people (the Commissioners usually place themselves and two others they select onto the boards of these authorities) deciding who gets what when and would also own the land.