Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out."  Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.

That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.

Isn't it terrible how that F&M Bank at 71st and Harvard has just ruined the neighborhood. It just looks awful. I drive by there all the time think "what an eyesore" (sarcasm alert).

Compare that to the new Arvest Bank building at 15th that they didn't fight. That building destroyed homes in a HP area for surface parking and IS an eyesore. It makes you wonder how they choose their fights and why. The arguments and fights they start are inconsistent, and like claiming that they didn't know that 2025 was just matching funds for the river the arguments are less than truthful.

These arguments certainly aren't trying to accomplish anything in the best interest of the city of Tulsa. What are they serving?

[tim huntzinger]

Sorry for cross-posting Swake.  Those are great points.  I am going to sign off for the day.  Ya'll be nice.

[cannon_fodder]

Not to steer this article back on topic or anything, but...

1) Bates certainly did more than "raise his voice."  His fight or flight bell went off and he chose fight.  Aggressive posture, raised voice, and advancement on his opponent.  If this was a debate, he got DQ'd.   Call it what you will, but at least he admitted he went too far and that the passion got the best of him.

2) Politics is too civil anyway.  A little passion every now and then might make people think or heaven forbid consider another viewpoint.

3) Michael was right.  I like to think of myself as fairly informed, and I was under the impression that the dams were to be part of 2025.  Perhaps it was explained at times in more detail, but certainly the impression was they were to be included.

"Who honestly thinks two dams cost...?"  Well, I did.  I have no idea how much dams cost, so when I was told we would get low water dams in the package I believed what I was told. No matter how many times I learn the lesson, I still default to WANTING to believe my government at face value.  Intentional or not, in this instance I feel I was misled.
- - - - -

In spite of all that, I'm still a probable "YES" on the river plan.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Go ahead, IP, attack the messenger,  [sniffle sniffle] if it makes you feel better.

Nope.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who constantly complains about others being hateful and negative when they themselves deal in the same wares.

quote:
Yup, that is me, just a jealous troll.  Unlike yourself, I am just a loser, not a loyyah like you with so much time on his hands he wastes thousands of dollars of billable time arguing anonymously on chat boards.  What is your name, anyway? Tell us so we can steer some bidness your way, sounds like you need it.

No thanks.  I have more business than I can handle already...really good lawyers in my field don't need to advertise.  There are only two people on this board who know my real name, and I plan on keeping that way so that cranks like you can just keep guessing...

quote:
Or are another of Tulsa's indolent trust-fund class who does not know the meaning of work?

Nope.  Born into a middle-to-lower class, single parent family and the first in my family to go to college, but nice try.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out."  Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.

That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.

I got a chance once to meet that Mona lady from Guier Woods.  Don't remember her full name.  She seemed like a decent person, fairly well spoken.  If she had a mean streak, she was hiding it well.

But, she was campaigning for Medlock and GW had attached itself to that whole Bates/Medlock lovefest.  It was always in the back of my mind, "you've done yourself and the city a disservice by attaching yourself to those folks."  All they did was take a huge crap all over everything, and F&M was built anyway.  GW had few legal avenues, all they could do was cry and claim "conspiracy."  And so, that's what they did.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

What little I saw, on the KOTV piece, looks like a "freak out."  Looked worse than that classic Bates rant at the City Council over that F&M vs Fortress Guier Woods deal.

That bank is a great example of this group and their impact on this city.

I got a chance once to meet that Mona lady from Guier Woods.  Don't remember her full name.  She seemed like a decent person, fairly well spoken.  If she had a mean streak, she was hiding it well.

But, she was campaigning for Medlock and GW had attached itself to that whole Bates/Medlock lovefest.  It was always in the back of my mind, "you've done yourself and the city a disservice by attaching yourself to those folks."  All they did was take a huge crap all over everything, and F&M was built anyway.  GW had few legal avenues, all they could do was cry and claim "conspiracy."  And so, that's what they did.

I don't have a problem with the neighbors being against the bank. Every project has people that are for and against for many reasons. I have a problem with the Bates and the Medlocks of the world being to damn hypocritical and while acting so self-righteous.

Mr Midtown preservation Bates almost brokered the deal that paved over Mayo Meadow for a Wal-Mart. This is the right-wing preservation guy's version of good infill? Give me a break.

Another great example of a fight they are carrying that is not in the best interest of the city of Tulsa is the south bridge. There are hundreds and hundreds of homes being built right now in the area of Jenks and Bixby served by this bridge. The residents in this area today find it pretty hard to get to Tulsa to shop. Today they are going to go into Bixby and soon will be going to the now under construction Walmart in Glenpool. With the bridge Tulsa would be able to capture a lot more of the shopping dollars (and sales tax) of these south county residents. Why are they fighting this bridge again? Certainly not for the betterment of the city of Tulsa.

And don't even get me started on blocking the annexation of the area up north by Owasso.

It's all just a political game to them and the goal isn't a better Tulsa, it's power. Fighting F&M and the bridge makes wealthy Republican contributors that live in these areas happy, fighting Arvest and Walmart didn't, even though in all four cases, their position and actions harm the city of Tulsa.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake

I don't have a problem with the neighbors being against the bank. Every project has people that are for and against for many reasons. I have a problem with the Bates and the Medlocks of the world being to damn hypocritical and while acting so self-righteous.

Mr Midtown preservation Bates almost brokered the deal that paved over Mayo Meadow for a Wal-Mart. This is the right-wing preservation guy's version of good infill? Give me a break.

Another great example of a fight they are carrying that is not in the best interest of the city of Tulsa is the south bridge. There are hundreds and hundreds of homes being built right now in the area of Jenks and Bixby served by this bridge. The residents in this area today find it pretty hard to get to Tulsa to shop. Today they are going to go into Bixby and soon will be going to the now under construction Walmart in Glenpool. With the bridge Tulsa would be able to capture a lot more of the shopping dollars (and sales tax) of these south county residents. Why are they fighting this bridge again? Certainly not for the betterment of the city of Tulsa.

And don't even get me started on blocking the annexation of the area up north by Owasso.

It's all just a political game to them and the goal isn't a better Tulsa, it's power. Fighting F&M and the bridge makes wealthy Republican contributors that live in these areas happy, fighting Arvest and Walmart didn't, even though in all four cases, their position and actions harm the city of Tulsa.

There were two important issues with the 71st and Harvard F&M Bank, issues involving the integrity of Tulsa's land use planning process. It wasn't a matter of whether the bank would look nice or not.

The first was that the development was not only a change of existing zoning but out of accord with the Comprehensive Plan, which had the parcel designated for low-intensity residential, not office or commercial. That designation went back to a commitment made when 71st Street was widened to six lanes.

The second and more crucial issue for all property owners was the way the protest petitions were handled by INCOG and the city attorney's office. There were sufficient signatures to require a 3/4 council supermajority to approve the zoning change. But INCOG and city legal changed the rules in the middle of the game and ultimately the city attorney declared the protest petition ordinance a violation of the city charter, even though it predated the charter. We passed a charter amendment last year to restore the provision.

Nothing could be done to stop the Wal-Mart at 21st and Yale. The land was already zoned CS. Wal-Mart did not need a zoning change or a PUD to build. The owner, John Nidiffer, whose father built the center in 1955, requested one BoA variance to allow Yale Cleaners to build a new location on an outparcel, but approval or disapproval would have had no effect on the supermarket. I was sorry to see the old center go, and I wish they could have at least incorporated the old neon sign in the new design, but there wasn't any leverage to change the plans.

Both the old Mayo Meadow center and the new Wal-Mart are auto-oriented suburban development, but at least they aren't segregated from the adjacent residential area. I got involved to try to retain the two connections between the shopping center and the neighborhood, connections that had been there since the subdivision and shopping center were developed. I live two blocks from the shopping center, and I believe it's to the neighborhood's advantage to have pedestrian and vehicular access to the shopping center without having to go out to one of the arterials. We got agreement on that point, and the Vandalia entrance will be reopened, north of 21st Place, when the northwest pad site is developed. It is now possible, for the first time in many years, for the Mayo Meadow neighborhood to pass the "popsicle test."

I supported the efforts of the Yorktown Neighborhood to stop the erosion of their HP district by Arvest Bank and the successful effort by 41st & Harvard area homeowners to stop a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market at that corner. I didn't take a leading role in either fight, although I did write about both issues in support of the homeowners on my website, and I answered questions from neighborhood leaders who were trying to get a handle on the zoning process.

I don't see a reason to annex 23 square miles north Tulsa County right now. We have a fenceline that protects that area from encroachment by other municipalities (something we should have had to the southwest, and something we still need to our west). Annexation of such an elongated area would force the city to spend more on police and fire coverage, streets, and utilities, but without bringing in a significant source of new revenues to pay for it all. It was the opposite of fairgrounds annexation in that regard.

Regarding the south Tulsa bridge, I'm sympathetic to the homeowners' concerns, but it was the cozy insider financing of the deal and the lack of scrutiny by the county commissioners that bothers me most. STCC's work to connect the bridge to Riverside and avert heavy truck traffic on Yale seem reasonable to me. There's a way to make the bridge happen that will satisfy the concerns of everyone except IVI.

I'm on the mailing list for the expensive fundraisers, and I know who the big donors are, but with the possible exception of the south Tulsa bridge issue, I don't think there were any wealthy Republican donors involved in any of these fights. In fact, I'm pretty sure that many of the neighborhood leaders I've worked with are politically active Democrats.

[Chicken Little]

Michael Bates,

Did Inhofe even try for matching funds?  This would effect my decision.  I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through.  How about Sullivan?

Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake


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.

swake, I don't claim we were promised low water dams for $5.4 million. I claim we were promised low water dams and all the other projects on the list if we approved the Vision 2025 sales tax.

Read the rest of that article. In the context of talking about potential overages, here's what Commissioner Bob Dick had to say about the possibility of not having enough money to fund the projects:

quote:


Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.

"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.

Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

The message Dick was conveying to the voters was that while the tax may collect more than the total of the project cost estimates, the overage would be used, if needed, to make sure all the projects are built as promised.

I don't think he or his colleagues were trying to mislead us on that point. In fact, both he and Miller indicated  in June 2005 that they gave completing the Vision 2025 river projects as highest priority for spending any projected overages. I'm paraphrasing, but you can read it for yourself.

quote:


While they aren't ready to act on projections for what the 13-year, sixth-tenths of a penny sales tax will bring in, Commissioners Bob Dick and Randi Miller both believe the Arkansas River is a likely candidate to see additional funding.

"It's too soon to start spending money above those things that have already been identified," Dick said. "But there's one real easy one, to say if we do have that, I think a high priority would be on the river."

The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.

"If there's any money that's available, in my opinion because we do not have enough for the dams, then I'm going to go with river
development," she said.

I think Miller and Dick meant what they said, back then. But I also think Miller is trying to mislead us now about what she has said on this issue in the past.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Michael Bates,

Did Inhofe even try for matching funds?  This would effect my decision.  I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through.  How about Sullivan?

Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.

The authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.

[Admin]

I have met Tim Huntzinger and while he does look a little bit like the one in the middle, he is clearly human.


Please keep the personal attacks and troll accustation to a minimum please. Many people one here are by one definition or another a public figure and as such, draw both praise and criticism. However, that can still be done in a civil manner and tone.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Michael Bates,

Did Inhofe even try for matching funds?  This would effect my decision.  I can't find any information on whether or not he tried to follow through.  How about Sullivan?

Oh, and I can pretty much guess Doctor Senator Coburn's reaction, but I wonder about the others.

I don't know for sure. I've been told that the county never made a formal request, but they may have not made a request because they had no hope of getting funds.

There was a KOTV report on or about July 31, 2003, that federal funds for low-water dams on the Arkansas River were an "impossibility for the forseeable future." Emory Bryan spoke off the record with congressional staff who told him that funds for the cleanup of Tar Creek were a higher priority.

I blogged about it at the time, but none of the proponents of Vision 2025 seemed alarmed by the news. Unfortunately, I can't find the full story in the Wayback Machine or on KOTV's website, so I don't know if KOTV had reaction from any of the county commissioners. As I mention above,  Bob Dick seemed confident that Vision 2025 overages could handle any underestimate of cost or overestimate of outside funding.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by swake

The authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.

Okay.  Thanks, swake.  It's guys like you that keep the TN boards a font of knowledge...or, fount?  

So, it's clear then that matching funds were sought.  I'd still like to hear from Michael if he believes that the $5.4 was contingent on receipt of federal funding.  

There does appear to be some evidence that this was a quid pro quo arrangement.  I think it rates a straightforward answer.

UPDATE:  Thanks, Michael.  I don't know is straightforward, I guess.  Were you aware of the attempt that swake mentions?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by swake

The authorization and money for the dams was actually on a Inhofe backed bill in the Senate this year, but the final version of the bill stripped all money out of the dams leaving only the authorization. Inhofe has no influence in the current Senate, and that is unlikely to change.

Okay.  Thanks, swake.  It's guys like you that keep the TN boards a font of knowledge...or, fount?  

So, it's clear then that matching funds were sought.  I'd still like to hear from Michael if he believes that the $5.4 was contingent on receipt of federal funding.  

There does appear to be some evidence that this was a quid pro quo arrangement.  I think it rates a straightforward answer.

UPDATE:  Thanks, Michael.  I don't know is straightforward, I guess.  Were you aware of the attempt that swake mentions?

Here is the only news article that I can quickly find on the subject. The story is from three months ago and it talks about the bill passing the house and going to the Senate. It's not in this article, but I do know the final bill stripped our $12 million for dams out of the bill.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0507/421624.html

Also, I found a version of the 2005 version of the Water Resources Act, it also had $12 million in it for the Arkansas in Tulsa that was stripped, the text of the act is here:

http://www.waterways.org/WRDADebate18July.doc

[deinstein]

I just got another flat tire from a pothole today.

Thoughts?

In all seriousness, I met Micheal Bates last night as he was walking by along the sidewalk. I've been reading his blog and column for a while and what impressed me about him was how intelligent and well-spoken he was in person. I personally, have a hard time believing the original poster and have an irking he's over exaggerating for some other reason.

That being said, if he did get mad. Good for him. He's only looking out for the good of the city and wants responsible spending.