Tulsa’s fiscal priorities are out of whack

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

The polls look like a majority get it.

Did the majority get the "gay marriage ban" right too?  You may not be, but I'm fully aware who is on your side.

You want to sit here and act like no one knows what they're talking about, where were you when all this latest activity started?  Where were you when arguably the biggest local Neocons on the block were saying "we're at the point where we'll be cutting flesh and bone.  The fat is gone."   I don't think you know, even marginally, what you're talking about.

Well Lord knows I've been wrong before.  I hear and understand your argument.  I simply do not agree with you on this issue.  And I have tried to make plain that I don't think there is any fat to cut.  And I certainly don't think that the majority in any Oklahoma poll support gay people.  All gay people in Oklahoma are painfully aware of that.

[MichaelC]

I'm with ya.

And that was probably a low blow, I apologize.  We probably should leave God, gays, and the majority out this discussion.

And I'll have to disagree with you too.  This town for a long time shot down nearly every attempt for public improvement.  Got em jack and squat.  I'm trying to avoid the slide here.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Now if I were to borrow money to buy a house and I had enough income to make the monthly payment and based on real estate's historic performance of about 8% a year I could say that borrowing the money constituted an investment.

Unfortunately Tulsa's self improvement schemes don't have a good record.  And I am doubtful that city hall and the river really qualify as solid investments.

Tulsa has had a series of schemes that were supposed to save Tulsa going all the way back to urban renewal in the 60s and early 70s:  Williams Center and Main Street mall to name two.

I am confident that Tulsa received some benefit from these past schemes even it if the only benefit was the income it provided for workers and business.  And given the fact that Tulsa is a company town that lost its company, she certainly could have done worse.

Is the river a solid investment?  AMP's points about the risks of mixing industry and recreation are good.  No one has really addressed Tulsa's dirty weakness – the Refineries cause the city and river to stink.  Regardless I would support the river plan if we could first address our streets and other basic responsibilities.

Increasing the sales tax also raises fairness issues.  When we consider increasing the city's income we need to remember that sales tax is a regressive tax and it hits poor and elderly harder than the rest of us.  I have called for the elimination of sales tax on groceries and I think we should face up to the difficult task of developing income from sources other sales tax.

I understand Swake's point about capital budgets and operating budgets and it appears that we have a major structural defect in our funding of operating budgets that must be addressed.

Discretionary items like city hall and the river really can wait while we focus on meeting our most basic obligations.

Waterboy's prediction that our city council and mayor might find that there is a price to pay for the city hall move seems to be born out by the polls reflecting citizen support for street improvement instead of discretionary items.  

Anyway, All of you folks that are aching to see the river plan implemented are like the young married couple that goes shopping for a mansion when they have no savings for a down payment and not enough income to make the monthly payments.  Like that couple, we need to develop a solid financial plan and delay gratification until our financial situation improves.

And then there was some noise in Washington from Inhofe.  Now Inhofe's tease of finding more federal money is a step in the right direction even though it is too little too late.  And it sounds like Coburn is going to oppose Inhofe's meager efforts in that regard.  God save us from Coburn.  God lead Tulsa down the path of fiscal responsibility.  The polls look like a majority get it.

If you understand the issues that Tulsa faces, then get this. First, a metropolitan area is much healthier with a healthy central city. I can't think of a single growing and active metro without a strong central city or pair of cities.

The closest area to that situation that I can think of is Northwest Arkansas and that is a small city and is very much a company town. Outside of the impact of Wal-Mart aspect that region remains rural and poor.

I can think of many metros that struggle that lack a central city or have a weak central city. Detroit, Quad Cities, Hampton Roads, and St Louis come quickly to mind.

Metro Tulsa needs a healthy and growing Tulsa. To be that Tulsa has to compete better with it's own suburbs. People choose where to live based on cost of housing, schools, safety, proximity to jobs and area amenities.

I have never heard anyone say they moved to have great streets. And anyway most suburban streets are as bad or worse than urban ones. Safety is not a real issue in the vast majority of Tulsa. Tulsa can't compete in low cost new housing, no land. (Thanks again by the way to Chris Medlock for blocking the annexation of the area next to booming Owasso).

The three issues left are proximity to jobs, which Tulsa should win in most cases, schools and amenities. Amenities go right to heart of this, the river plan builds something most suburbs can't (that's why BA is against the plan). And then there are schools. Cities and counties really don't have anything to do with schools, the districts are run independently, but schools are largely funded by property taxes and the plan helps TPS there in two huge ways. First a half billion dollar commercial development is going to pay a LOT of property taxes and second by helping with overall property values by making the city a more desirable place to live.

The suburbs still should support the plan, just because again what is good for the central city is good for the metro as a whole, Broken Arrow is being short sighted and stupid.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by AMP



To attempt to blend in public areas and retail shops to coexist with those heavy industrial businesses that are noisy and produce obnoxious fumes, dust and odors does not seem logical to many.   Without those heavy industrial businesses it would be difficult to construct the buildings, pave the streets, provide power to the businesses, and remove the solid waste from the employees and customers.

I beleve one of the main reasons for locating these heavey industrial businesses on the West side of the Arkansas River was for a few reasons. One to contain dust that would settle in the river, two to contain a major fire when or if the refineries were to explode, and three to subdue the noise from the residential and retail areas.  

I can't let these go. The reason for the location is two fold. The land was cheap because no one considered river bank property very valuable. And two, the industry needed a source of water for running the steam powered refinery and a drain for their effluent. Concrete production requires water for mixing and dust settlement. They also dumped left over cement from the trucks along the banks. Once the refinery located along the river, all their contractors, suppliers and labor did too. Even though they no longer use the water from the river they did then.

Commercial development will not be merging with a lot of that industry, they will be supplanting them. Especially the trucking interests that hold the best land on the west side between 41st and 51st.

[TheArtist]

It may be that the taxes on groceries are a regressive tax. But until that is changed....

I went to one of the meetings the other night and heard what I also have heard on here and on the TW online. Basically "Why build a playground for the rich yuppy types" And " Clubs and restaurants downtown and along the river,, bike trails and things like that will not grow the economy" "A Riverwalk or Tulsa Landing will only have low paying jobs".

One point that ties both those above statements together is this. YP people like me spend a lot of money. I can easily spend 300 dollars or more for me and a couple of friends to eat dinner. And people like me eat out a lot. We enjoy going out and having a "latte" or a nice meal. We buy fancy cars, expensive furniture, etc. We like rollerblading, bikeriding, jogging, great trail systems, park facilities etc.


If we have 600 million dollars of immediate road improvements someone is going to have to pay for them. The more people like me that you have here the less groceries those poor and elderly people will have to buy in order to pay for that 600 mill. Without us, and more of us, means more of a burden on the poor and elderly. Just how much groceries can they eat to make up for people like me leaving?

If they dont like this river tax, they sure as heck arent going to like the road tax and paying for it by themselves.

Great park facilities and a Tulsa Riverwalk, (with low paying jobs) will help attract more YP people who make and spend good money. Again, I can live anywhere. I and people like me can make money anywhere. The businessed come to where we are,and or we create and grow our own businesses. You already have roads downtown and around the river. Do some more things to get people down there to live, work, shop, and play. Increased density, and an increased density of YP types looking for a great environment will pay for those roads. Those roads are going to have to be paid for and repaired whether its only a few old and poor people or nobody at all. The more YPs thrown in the mix the better. One of me probalby pays more taxes for roads and police than 10 or 20 poor or elderly people combined.

Took a friend to the River Parks the other day. Question they always ask is. Why no development along your river? Why the facilities so lame? I love playing volleyball and we were over there. Guess the porta potties didnt impress him that much. Yep Tulsa is competitive alright. Look at these here world class facilities. Have ya ever seen such a glorious row of porta potties in your whole life? [xx(]

[AMP]

supplanting

noun
act of taking the place of another especially using underhanded tactics  

[AMP]

Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few.  Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.

I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.

[waterboy]

A pox on both your houses.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few.  Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.

I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.

Actually there is a good point in that first part about how many Tulsans actually go to the river each year. The point being that there should be a lot more going down there. If we had more health conscious people in this town or people that like running, jogging, bikeriding, volleyball, rollerblading, etc. there would be more people down there. The shame is that we dont have more of those types of people in this town and or cant seem to attract them. Another point is that if there were more and better facilities I bet more people would and could be encouraged to go and join their friends there in these activities. Also if there is more private development, oops I meant to say, if there actually was private development along the river this too would bring more people to the river to shop and eat and it would be nice to have more of it spruced up for when more of them do start coming.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

Wondering how many Tulsans actually go to the River on purpose each year? I don't know of too many that do, but I guess there are a few.  Just wonder how many of them are sober at the time.

I avoid that area of Tulsa along with attornies, nuclear waste and de-railing trains.

What?

Just where do you live?

[AMP]

I reside north of downtown Tulsa about 4.5 miles North West. My office is by Tulsa University.  

Last time I was near the river was about 25 years ago.  There were many drunk people drinking beer and smoking ciggrettes and stinking up the place.  I was there for about five minutes before I got disgusted with all the drunks and funky people there. Never been back.

I was involved in a near fatal traffic accident along Riverside drive in the mid 80's and have avoided driving on that street ever since.  Nothing there will ever attract me.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

I reside north of downtown Tulsa about 4.5 miles North West. My office is by Tulsa University.  

Last time I was near the river was about 25 years ago.  There were many drunk people drinking beer and smoking ciggrettes and stinking up the place.  I was there for about five minutes before I got disgusted with all the drunks and funky people there. Never been back.

I was involved in a near fatal traffic accident along Riverside drive in the mid 80's and have avoided driving on that street ever since.  Nothing there will ever attract me.

You live in Tulsa and haven't been by Riverparks  in 25 years?

[Hometown]

Well, you know, come to think of it $200M isn't that much for a city Tulsa's size.  And whatever it will cost us to move to new city hall isn't that much.

I understand your prior points about the river ultimately adding to the tax base and I am convinced there might be some benefit.

I have also heard the city making noise about needing to develop more revenue for operating budgets, that it is ham strung by the current set up.  I would say that is a bigger issue than the river and more important.

But the river has momentum and private money pledged so, and it's not that big of a deal and would really be a wonderful amenity for Tulsans.

We just need city operating budgets that are realistic and that make regular contributions to reserves to maintain the city's property which will eventually all have to be rebuilt or replaced.

We have to face the fact that no one else does the job that government does and that it costs money and we are responsible all of us to one degree or another.

It is not acceptable for Tulsa to depend on volunteers to fulfill her basic obligations.  We need to fully fund government.  It might be possible to make an income tax pretty painless with a high income threshold and progressive.  Sometimes I think your average Joe is ready to face fiscal reality again.

I would ask you also to consider another task that faces us -- finding a replacement for the company that left the company town.  Quality jobs that pay well would work magic for drawing and retaining talented workers.

[perspicuity85]

I don't understand the political behavior of the Tulsa County citizens.  Vision 2025 passed, with a 4/10 cent tax to be given straight to a single company to entice them to build manufacturing jobs.  Many of those same voters are adamantly against any tax increase at all that would provide infrastructure that would help Tulsa's unique identity and culture to effloresce.  Many young professionals want to live in a unique urban environment that is open to a diverse business climate.  Many companies like to open offices in those same locations.

It boggles my mind that there are so many educated people I have met in the Tulsa area who pride themselves on being politically conservative, and who say they are so pro-business, against government's interference with capitalism, that voted for a plan to increase taxes to give millions of dollars in government incentives to a single company!  Those same people are explaining to me why their conservative nature would never permit them to vote for this river tax-- and alleged government takeover of the right of individual property developers.

I personally would much rather spend tax dollars on the river than give my money to Boeing, or any other corporate bailout, for that matter.  We already have pledged $600 million for street improvements, yet we're against revitalizing the urban parts of Tulsa, thus promoting more sprawl?  The population of Tulsa's city proper has decreased by about 10,000 in the past seven years, but the metro area has grown at a healthy rate.  Hmmmmmm, that's odd...  Could that possibly mean that perhaps we are actually creating more of a burden on our street infrastructure budget by failing to curtail any suburban flight?  This is typical of Tulsa's foresight.  Missed opportunities have historically cost Tulsa about as much as the oil bust of the 80s did.    

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

I don't understand the political behavior of the Tulsa County citizens.  Vision 2025 passed, with a 4/10 cent tax to be given straight to a single company to entice them to build manufacturing jobs.  Many of those same voters are adamantly against any tax increase at all that would provide infrastructure that would help Tulsa's unique identity and culture to effloresce.  Many young professionals want to live in a unique urban environment that is open to a diverse business climate.  Many companies like to open offices in those same locations.

It boggles my mind that there are so many educated people I have met in the Tulsa area who pride themselves on being politically conservative, and who say they are so pro-business, against government's interference with capitalism, that voted for a plan to increase taxes to give millions of dollars in government incentives to a single company!  Those same people are explaining to me why their conservative nature would never permit them to vote for this river tax-- and alleged government takeover of the right of individual property developers.

I personally would much rather spend tax dollars on the river than give my money to Boeing, or any other corporate bailout, for that matter.  We already have pledged $600 million for street improvements, yet we're against revitalizing the urban parts of Tulsa, thus promoting more sprawl?  The population of Tulsa's city proper has decreased by about 10,000 in the past seven years, but the metro area has grown at a healthy rate.  Hmmmmmm, that's odd...  Could that possibly mean that perhaps we are actually creating more of a burden on our street infrastructure budget by failing to curtail any suburban flight?  This is typical of Tulsa's foresight.  Missed opportunities have historically cost Tulsa about as much as the oil bust of the 80s did.    

The window on river development is moving towards shut. So much controversy between city and county but now they link arms and say its time for the river? The time is almost past. But I love lost causes. Its the American way. The fence is wobbling and I'm about to fall. Perhaps there are more pressing needs, but if it becomes a choice for more and better roads vs. imperfect river development? Screw the cars.