Tulsa’s fiscal priorities are out of whack

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

 

They are trying the Electric Indoor Racing thing in OKC. Tried it in Tulsa at two locations, but they both failed.  Gator's and Mickey's tried the Electric Indoor Karting.  

The one in OKC appears to have much more invested in the facility and equipment.

http://www.racep2r.com/

Well they didn't promote it much. I would have tried one here had I known.

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.

If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?

Also, how long have you lived here?  Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years?  Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.

I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.

I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.

Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.

I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.

I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.

[swake]

We may have fewer theaters than before (and I'm not even sure that's true) but we have far more screens than ever before, and that is a national trend. I know of two new 8 screen theaters that have opened in the past 18 months (Riverwalk and Sapulpa) and we have something like 40 new screens coming at two more new theaters at Tulsa Hills and somewhere in BA.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.

If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?

Also, how long have you lived here?  Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years?  Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.

I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.

I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.

Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.

I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.

I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.

Now you don't have to flake out.  And they were honest questions.  And you didn't answer them either.  You brought it up.  How is that a "bad business" decision?  For a corporation, that would be a great decision.

And if you can't make that case, what are you basing your opposition on?  Do you know nothing, do you know something, what is it?

You're right.  Tulsa is hurting.  It's been hurting for several years now.  All the activity you see now, is a result of the economic downturn.  Not the "cause of."  V2025 was passed 3 or so years after we started to hit bottome.

For HT it's easy, Hometown is opposed to this along architectural lines.  Now, HT will throw anything else in there too, but HTs argument is architectural.  What's your argument?

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

The city hall thing was and is a bad idea - just as Hometown said above - bad business decision. A waste of money. A giant risk. Political bling. I can't see how it improves Tulsa one bit.

If a company bought a building, on the presumption that current rental agreements would pay off the loan completely, and get them an essentially free building, how is that a bad business decision?

Also, how long have you lived here?  Have you kept up to speed on say last say 4 years?  Just wondering, how much of the current "goings on" you've followed.

I've only been here about 15 years. I am not a political animal, most of what goes on in politics is a monumental waste of time. Local politics are usually a mere stepping stone for a politician to get something bigger and better.

I admittedly do not know a lot about "what has gone on before". Face value tells me that spending 70-some million dollars on a building you don't need, and cannot be proven to bring in more corporations - is a risky move at best.

Face value and common sense tell me that the local economy is suffering; people are not spending as much on frivolous things (see above posts about local stuff shutting down, losing business, etc.). The people who can't spend that money cannot and will not approve a new tax that will take more money out of their budgets so we can have river development that will only make the rich richer and maybe provide some minimum salary jobs.

I may not be a born Okie - but I've lived here long enough to have paid my share in taxes.

I've seen it done here before in my short time on this forum: If you ain't a true Okie, born and bred, somebody will inevitably bring that up, so as to take away your credibilty.

Now you don't have to flake out.  And they were honest questions.  And you didn't answer them either.  You brought it up.  How is that a "bad business" decision?  For a corporation, that would be a great decision.

And if you can't make that case, what are you basing your opposition on?  Do you know nothing, do you know something, what is it?

You're right.  Tulsa is hurting.  It's been hurting for several years now.  All the activity you see now, is a result of the economic downturn.  Not the "cause of."  V2025 was passed 3 or so years after we started to hit bottome.

For HT it's easy, Hometown is opposed to this along architectural lines.  Now, HT will throw anything else in there too, but HTs argument is architectural.  What's your argument?

My argument is that buying a new city hall is based on speculation - "If we can rent out the spaces..." Businesses are fleeing downtown (at least according to the posts in this thread) and we are risking 70-some million that a new city hall will attract more people downtown, into that specific building. Doesn't sound like a solid business decision.

My argument about the river development is much weaker. I've seen some urban renewal in other towns (Baltimore Harborplace, and rebuilding of downtown) and it CAN work.

I guess I see the weakness there as a handful of rich and generous (not that there's anything wrong with that) individuals as the core of what goes on there. Money talks BS walks. Once the people say "go" via a vote - who's in charge? If stuff goes downhill, who will be left holding the bag?

I doubt that Tulsa can convince young up-and-comers that Tulsa is the place to live. Afterwards, we'll have a really cool river - and still very few new jobs that these "up-and-comers" can or will do.

Why is everyone taking it for granted that if we develop the river - corporations, investments, yuppies, etc will automatically flock into Tulsa? What are the incentives? In Baltimore Harborplace development - the ancient row houses were bought by the city, offered at $1 apiece and people were offered very low-interest govt loans to renovate. They also had to sign a contract that said they would make that house their primary residence for a certain number of years. This brought in people of vision and affluence, and kept them (and their tax dollars) in the city. The Harbor was renewed one step at a time - not by one vote and over. The city actually planned and created their own tax base instead of building and waiting for the magic to happen.

Maybe the argument is stronger than I thought - but it's just my opinion.

[MichaelC]

Your argument has been the prevailing current in Tulsa for a long time.  In that period, we've seen buildings come down, the burbs boom, Tulsa's population stagnant, and our tax base failing to keep pace.  We've seen jobs leave at an incredible rate.

I kind of see what your saying with the River, and how it doesn't have to all be done at once.  I see this as a "base" project.  It won't solve everything, it's a start, and we already have some of the financing available (public and private), and we already have other private projects in the area (current, expected, or potential).  The question is, for me, will we sit on it and let a lot projects slide and ignore private offers.

The One Tech Center move fits with everything else, very well.  The economics, part is already in place in the form of renters.  The question is, can they maintain what they've got and expand as necessary.  For a corporation, it would be a good purchase, at a relatively low price (thanks to the downturn).  10 years from now, that building may be worth double what it is currently.

I kind of buy the "it's good for the GOB" line, but it's kind of like lawyers, I may not like them much, but the system won't move without them.

I'm glad we're moving, instead of standing still.  We could have taken this downturn and all the lost jobs, and turned it into a permanent loss for Tulsa.  Instead, we've done a few things that we're not used to doing.  Getting a little inventive.  I think we're heading in the right direction.

[Hometown]

No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture.  That's ancient history.  That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow.  People with money in the bank worry about architecture.  People with no money need to worry about getting some money.

I just spent several months working with a girlfriend in Dallas.  Her marriage fell apart and she has having a hard time getting her financial house in order.  I just spent several months coaching her on basics.  Get the income rolling in.  Make your house payments.  Find a new anti-depressant.  Pay your bills.  I think I may have brought her out of her tail spin.

I'm a strong believer in first things first.  You make sure you have a drawer full of clean underwear before you plop down $100 for a cashmere sweater.

And Waterboy, putting a middle aged man on a diet might help him get a date, but in my experience, by the time a man reaches middle age, the women are usually checking out the bulge in his wallet, not his biceps.

I'm learning a lot from this thread, but so far I'd say it still boils down to -- Tulsa doesn't have enough income to take care of her most basic responsibilities.

For an individual, that's a prescription for disaster.

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Your argument has been the prevailing current in Tulsa for a long time.  In that period, we've seen buildings come down, the burbs boom, Tulsa's population stagnant, and our tax base failing to keep pace.  We've seen jobs leave at an incredible rate.

I kind of see what your saying with the River, and how it doesn't have to all be done at once.  I see this as a "base" project.  It won't solve everything, it's a start, and we already have some of the financing available (public and private), and we already have other private projects in the area (current, expected, or potential).  The question is, for me, will we sit on it and let a lot projects slide and ignore private offers.

The One Tech Center move fits with everything else, very well.  The economics, part is already in place in the form of renters.  The question is, can they maintain what they've got and expand as necessary.  For a corporation, it would be a good purchase, at a relatively low price (thanks to the downturn).  10 years from now, that building may be worth double what it is currently.

I kind of buy the "it's good for the GOB" line, but it's kind of like lawyers, I may not like them much, but the system won't move without them.

I'm glad we're moving, instead of standing still.  We could have taken this downturn and all the lost jobs, and turned it into a permanent loss for Tulsa.  Instead, we've done a few things that we're not used to doing.  Getting a little inventive.  I think we're heading in the right direction.

I agree with you - and when the time comes to vote - I'm pretty sure that I'll vote "yes". (River development) It IS a step in the right direction. The devil is in the details, which I hope are stretched out before the voters beforehand. This kind of dialogue (TulsaNow) is incredibly cool. Not everybody knows or is considering all sides - with this kind of dialogue - we will be prepared to ask the right questions.

[swake]

Among all the conspiracy theories and the complaints about streets and the arguments over what was intended in 2025 something important is not being talked about.

This is a good plan and I am for it, but little is being said about the private development on west bank at 21st. The money is there for the land and there is the Branson Landing developer wanting the site. We need to be clear that we as citizens get what we want out of that development.

I'm very glad that the county has not just signed up with the Branson developer and made him part of the project from the start. It leads one to believe that there will be competitive bidding on the land and that we will have controls even if he is the only bidder, but the county has not said there will be bidding. Branson Landing is NOT what I would want build at this location. That does not mean that the Branson developer is incapable of building something worthwhile there.

So, I want to hear what the plans and process would be for choosing a developer and development for this site.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture.  That's ancient history.  That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow.  People with money in the bank worry about architecture.  People with no money need to worry about getting some money.

The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut?  City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes.  TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long.  A year or two I think.  Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace.  We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.

Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense.  But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut?  If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?

I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble.  If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

I agree with you - and when the time comes to vote - I'm pretty sure that I'll vote "yes". (River development) It IS a step in the right direction. The devil is in the details, which I hope are stretched out before the voters beforehand. This kind of dialogue (TulsaNow) is incredibly cool. Not everybody knows or is considering all sides - with this kind of dialogue - we will be prepared to ask the right questions.

Yeah, it's just going the right direction.  Can't prove to you that it's perfect, not going to bother trying.

It took us a couple tries to get an Arena built, I'm hoping it doesn't take too much longer to start working on the river.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

No Sweetie, my issue in this thread is not architecture.  That's ancient history.  That was before I found out we don't have enough money to mow.  People with money in the bank worry about architecture.  People with no money need to worry about getting some money.

The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut?  City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes.  TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long.  A year or two I think.  Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace.  We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.

Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense.  But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut?  If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?

I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble.  If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.

Stop discretionary spending for now and work to increase income.  If you can't tap into property taxes then look to a city income tax.

[MichaelC]

Oh my, you want to get brutal.  I think at one time, I actually knew how property taxes are figured.  I don't remember now.

But a city-wide income tax, holy crap, you really want to send people to the burbs don't ya?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

The next question you might ask, is where do you want the cut?  City employees lost several pay hikes, TPD lost some pay hikes.  TPD went on a hiring freeze for a while, can't remember how long.  A year or two I think.  Streets are being replaced, just not at a quick pace.  We're down to services and employees, there's not much "fat" if you will.

Mowing, to me is probably one of the last things we need to worry about, in a technical sense.  But, if mowing is more important, what do you want to cut?  If streets are more important, where are you going to get the money?

I kind of hate to say it, but if it boils down to a slight gamble OR waiting it out with fiscal responsibility to a fault, I'd say lets gamble.  If you're looking for a city wide tax hike for mowing and city streets, you've got another entire set of problems.

S'not a gamble, it's an investment.  The return is folks moving into Tulsa instead of out, thus fixing the leaks and making it easier to maintain what we have in the long run.  Finding a new balancing point, one where the city creates only the amount of infrastructure than it can sustain...that's important, too.  But, in the end, I think you also need to face the music and admit that Tulsa's taxes are unreasonably low, some of the lowest in the country, and these "choices" we make are false ones when you think about what other communities pay to sustain and improve their own quality of life.

Tulsa is getting pretty creative on the investment side, but they need to get equally creative on the sustainability side like building at transit-friendly densities, infill development, and disincentives for sprawling growth (almost a non-issue since there are few greenfields left in the City Limits).  And they also need to get serious about the revenue side...get a spine and start demanding our due from the County, State, and feds...and also have some frank talks with the citizens about stepping up a little and paying taxes that are more in-line with other places that are serious about their survival.

[Hometown]

If you set the threshold high enough city income tax might fly.

Wouldn't hurt to have more federal help via our representatives.

And do we have a full time staff person working with the state legislature to look for more income from the state?