River tax hike vote set for October 9

[deinstein]

I'll be voting no.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Still on the fence.  I feel that this will have a net positive effect on our local economy. And so, I see it as an investment.  One that will raise our image and quality of life.

But it feels a lot like an impulse buy.  Sure, it's "on sale" (huge private match), but I fear that it really puts the squeeze on the City's ability to go back to the voters on things like streets.  I don't want a 8.9% sales tax (is that right?), but if we choose it,  we'll survive.  I worry though that it makes it a little harder for the City to go back to the voters for the extra penny (or more) to make the streets passable.  And I'm sure that that one can't be put off for 10 more years.

If the County were looking at property taxes, I'd be much more willing to embrace this thing.  Can one of you conservative types explain why property taxes are a sacred cow?  And it'd be particularly helpful if the answer amounted to something more than, "Because I'm a stingy cheapskate!"[]

I'll make a deal, either the county lets the city have property taxes or the whole state switches to a fair-tax system.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Still on the fence.  I feel that this will have a net positive effect on our local economy. And so, I see it as an investment.  One that will raise our image and quality of life.

But it feels a lot like an impulse buy.  Sure, it's "on sale" (huge private match), but I fear that it really puts the squeeze on the City's ability to go back to the voters on things like streets.  I don't want a 8.9% sales tax (is that right?), but if we choose it,  we'll survive.  I worry though that it makes it a little harder for the City to go back to the voters for the extra penny (or more) to make the streets passable.  And I'm sure that that one can't be put off for 10 more years.

If the County were looking at property taxes, I'd be much more willing to embrace this thing.  Can one of you conservative types explain why property taxes are a sacred cow?  And it'd be particularly helpful if the answer amounted to something more than, "Because I'm a stingy cheapskate!"[]

I'll make a deal, either the county lets the city have property taxes or the whole state switches to a fair-tax system.

I would tend to agree with that......

[midtownnewbie]

There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation.  If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing???  Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!

[bokworker]

I'll be sure to keep the board up to date on how the powers that be choose to force me and my fellow lemmings into following their directive. []

[Renaissance]

I give it a much, much better chance of passing as a special election.  It's one thing to get 40 notaxniks to show up at a meeting; it's another thing to get 40,000 of them to go vote on a single-issue ballot.  This vote won't be about popularity, it will be about publicity.  If I recall, that's how they finally started getting school bond issues passed - take them off the statewide ballots and make it a single-issue vote, where the nays were more likely to stay home than the yays.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by midtownnewbie

There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation.  If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing???  Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!

Yes, it's true...for the last two years running.  http://taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

[MichaelC]

Now, the street deal is a GO Bond isn't it?  

Do Go Bonds add to the sales tax?  I was under the impression they do not.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Now, the street deal is a GO Bond isn't it?  

Do Go Bonds add to the sales tax?  I was under the impression they do not.

They are tied to property tax

[MichaelC]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought I saw somewhere that the City was also getting ready put up another GO Bond for city streets.  Close to the total of River package.  I'll have to look for it.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by midtownnewbie

There's a recent post on this board saying Oklahoma currently has the "lowest" tax burden in the nation.  If that is true, how can the river tax and an eventual street/bridge tax (both projects will be a definite positive to the entire region) be a bad thing???  Thinking long-term, I'd vote for both!

Apparently these people haven't been to New Hampshire.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by DwnTwnTul

As a young professional, trust me, this will NOT keep my peers in town.  If anything, this will run us out even faster.  We don't want to disturb a beautiful natural river for something such as Riverwalk in Jenks.  We want a lively downtown, interesting clubs and restaurants, NOT "cookie cutter" Jenks up and down the river.  I'd vote for quality roads in a heartbeat.  Ours currently resemble roads from third world countries.

Natural River?... Since when? Keystone dam stops and starts flows of water. Releases it at peak rate hours to generate electricity. That water doesnt get to Tulsa until late night. Then it stops during the day. (except when we have had these high rains of course) The rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish. This plan will keep more water in the river flowing during more times than it would naturally, even without the Keystone dam. The Sand Springs dam will be built higher to capture some of the water at night, then will release it during the day so that there will be a more constant flow. The Zink dam will be redesigned to improve the ability of fish to migrate. The other dams will be designed to  take them into consideration as well. The more regular water flow and other things will improve the habitat for many other animals too. It will not be "cookie cutter Jenks" up and down the river. Many places are designated wildlife habitats and can not be developed. The largest chunks of the river are public park space. There are only a few places designated for private development. The one area most likely to be developed, across from downtown, will not be like the Riverwalk in Jenks. The Tulsa landing proposal alone will cost 10 times both phases of the Riverwalk and is supposed to be more urban in design with living, multi level parking garages, etc.

BTW, you sound a bit too ignorant to be any YP I know. Perhaps someone needs to look into having your YP card revoked, and you might as well bring in your arm bands too. []

[jamesrage]

I will be voting hell no on this tax.

[Bledsoe]

In public and private conversations with public officials and private parties over the last few  days I have suggested a mixed sales tax/GO bond.  I advocated a short public review process that would evaluate several tax or other options and that would promote public involvement and education.  

The specific proposal that I made yesterday to the CC was 2/10 county sales tax and GO Bonds for each Rivercity:  Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks and Bixby.(I am told that GO bonds for cities only require 50% + 1 while county GO bonds require 60%).  I argued this would be the most fair, with those whose property who would be most affected paying more.  Also this would add an element of progressiveness to the tax burden--with property owners nearest the river development paying for the development from the increased value of their property.

I suggested that home and business owners near Maple Ridge or Brookside or at the 96th and Riverside commercial node could and should pay more than the remote sales tax payer in Broken Arrow or Owasso.

I felt a tax plan similar to this would have a better chance of passing.

Comm. Perry told me that he found my suggestion attractive and would have pushed it if he had more time, but that time ran out.

I proposed this mixed tax plan for several reasons:

1.  Fairness--some form of progressive taxation.
2.  Letting the Rivercities have a direct role and more control over the development.
3.  Freeing up the other 2/10 of sales tax burden to be used for other purposes as determined by each municipality, if necessary.
4.  An opportunity to get more people, especially in Broken Arrow, Owasso, North/East/West Tulsa to support river development if they felt the tax plan was more fair--not just Mid-town/South Tulsa/Jenks/ & Bixby.

I am very concerned that activated voters in the areas not directly impacted by the river will defeat a county-wide sales tax.  The voter participation in Broken Arrow and Owasso is very high, much higher than Sand Springs and West Tulsa.  

I want the river to be developed and the INCOG plan is a good one, developed with lots of public participation.  How we pay for the development has not had the same level of public input.  It is too bad that we moved so fast on this tax plan. I hope this fast sales tax plan will not spell defeat for river development.  

I will support the plan adopted yesterday and work for its passage.  River development of the type proposed, especially with the private donations, is important for metro Tulsa.  This plan is so good it will overcome any personal concerns I have for the tax package or who will be in charge, County vs. City.  

I hope my concerns that it will be defeated are not correct.  I urge you to look at the merits of the plan and vote for the river sales tax--even if you have reservations.  It is a small price to pay for the future of our area.

[Wilbur]

Everyone already pays a street tax.  It's called the third-penny sales tax.  That is what started third-penny in the first place.  But because it got side tracked, now they want a new street tax.