Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Do the math...I wanna see it, MB.

None of that fuzzy s**t either.

Or, are you not a hydrologist, so you can't say how much a dam should cost?

Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Do the math...I wanna see it, MB.

None of that fuzzy s**t either.

Or, are you not a hydrologist, so you can't say how much a dam should cost?

Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.

A hydrologist is an engineer not an accountant. No plans have yet asked for pedestrian crossings on the dams so might as well ask for a bullet train while you're at it.

But I too would like to know how v-2025 money overages could be used. Two things come to mind that are important to this decision and they have little to do with financing.

1. The major benefits of this expenditure are going to Jenks and SS. The group asking to develop at West Bank park may or may not come through Swake, but if the project is voted in the dams are a certainty. We could be left with nothing but a living river which will not be a tax revenue producer.

2.It is going to take several more years to even get approval of the dams and river changes from the fed authorities. With that in mind the tax seems unneccessary if v2025 overages can be legally tapped for this purpose and coincide with approval dates.

[Wrinkle]

quote: Oh...And I want my dams to have Pedestrian crossings on them, so include that in your calculations.

Add 36" fence and handrails


Now I'm wondering why it is the existing pedestrian bridge is closed again for the second straight summer. Perhaps to build some enthusiasm from potential users?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:
What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?

The current plan has land purchases AND infrastructure improvements funded at only $56.4 mil, for the ENTIRE COUNTY.

So, maybe I should be asking where's that $60 mil for Branson Landing?

As an aside, it appears the City of Tulsa and the County have no plans for Branson Landing developers at that location.

[Chicken Little]

New poll says voters are unconvinced

http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070801_238_A1_hOthe57076

quote:Only 39 percent of the 500 likely Tulsa County voters surveyed July 26 through 28 for the Tulsa World and KOTV Channel 6 said they supported the proposal.

More than half -- 52 percent -- were against it.

Nine percent were undecided.

It seems that most people want streets fixed.  I do think that the River would help Tulsa's bottom line.  But I think you also have to consider this idea, as the County is proposing it, would consume some of the City's only potential resource for "street-fixing" funds, i.e., the sales tax.  

The county is setting the voters up for a clear choice, i.e., streets or River, when they have other potential revenue sources to turn to: property taxes, revisiting V2025, existing 4-to-fixes.  If they don't get creative pretty soon, they may blow this.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?

Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.

And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.

The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?

Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.

And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.

The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.

The riverbank north of 91st on the east hardly lends itself to commercial development. Too narrow, too controversial. Park expansion in reality. No tax revenue there.

The West bank north of 91st would be Turkey mountain (spoken for), a sewage treatment plant, two miles of industrial concrete and trucking companies then finally 2 miles of developable land similar to what Jenks has.

Thats preposterous to assert that the SS dam is for water flow and silt control. Don't get me started on that one. It is development pure and simple. If it was for silt control it is at their expense. It will fill with sand quite quickly. If it was just for water and silt control it would be built cheaper and more effieciently off of county land farther down stream.

I want to believe Swake, but you have to show me more.

[tim huntzinger]

I think TulsaNow should sponsor a SS to BA River Ride.

Because folk tend to view the final and first entries only, I wanted to be sure that everyone heard just the bit of the outburst that I caught on my SonyEricsson Z520 videophone.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I think TulsaNow should sponsor a SS to BA River Ride.

Because folk tend to view the final and first entries only, I wanted to be sure that everyone heard just the bit of the outburst that I caught on my SonyEricsson Z520 videophone.

Holy crap...obsessed much?

[cannon_fodder]

Man, now Im disappointed.  I'm actually been waiting for a video of Bates Gone Wild.  Instead we get Bates gets emotional.  

Call me when he throws a chair.  []

[tim huntzinger]

I would never, ever exaggerate just to have fun and give someone a hard time.  Not never! [}:)]

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Primarily Jenks and Sand Springs? You do love to play loose with facts don't you?

Jenks will have shoreline from 106th to 91st (the Jenks city limits on the west bank), Tulsa has the rest of the west Bank and the entire east bank from the 106th St dam.

And one of the main components of a Sand Springs dam is protection and improvement of water flow and silting of the lower dams.

The Kaiser plan provides for the entire Tulsa riverfront north of 106th, something like 30 total miles of riverbank. Compared to 1.5 for Jenks.

The riverbank north of 91st on the east hardly lends itself to commercial development. Too narrow, too controversial. Park expansion in reality. No tax revenue there.

The West bank north of 91st would be Turkey mountain (spoken for), a sewage treatment plant, two miles of industrial concrete and trucking companies then finally 2 miles of developable land similar to what Jenks has.

Thats preposterous to assert that the SS dam is for water flow and silt control. Don't get me started on that one. It is development pure and simple. If it was for silt control it is at their expense. It will fill with sand quite quickly. If it was just for water and silt control it would be built cheaper and more effieciently off of county land farther down stream.

I want to believe Swake, but you have to show me more.

Ok, then how about spending by city. If I recall correctly the plan has 198 million for Tulsa, 26 each for Jenks and Sand Springs and 8 for Bixby and 5 for Broken Arrow.    


I while I know these numbers are really suspect since they are from the Tax Vampires at the Tulsa World, I had Space Ghost check them out and all is good.

[waterboy]

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

It's not.

Waterboy, tell me again why we need a $90 million bar ditch in the river?

I thought I heard you stake claim to this idea. What's the benefit?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.

It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.