River tax hike vote set for October 9

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

If it passes, will we have to rename the River Kaiser River or BOK River?

Or the QuikTrip River?  Where do I get my "no river tax" signs?

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper


huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...

Wait a minute...I'm trying to remember the last time Tulsa voters agreed to raise their sales taxes in order to build some recreational facility in Owasso that would primarily benefit Owasso's businesses and people.  The answer to that would be - never.  

I think a new river project would clearly be beneficial to the city of Tulsa, but it's not quite clear how that project would improve business or property values in, say, Collinsville.  

And can anyone imagine saying, "Hey, honey, let's go for a bike ride along the river, then load them on the truck, drive to Owasso for dinner, and then go home to south Tulsa!"

This project's beneficial effects for suburban communities is largely imaginary.

wait a minute... i'm trying to remember just how owasso got to be what it is now and figure out how long it would have taken to become what it is today without being a suburb of tulsa... the answer to that would be never... give me back my water line you ****ers...

[TheArtist]

Ok apparently my sense of humor needs a little work. But I did add the " [] " guess the word "ignorant" was the wrong choice however.  I apologize. And yes I am no YP anymore they tore my card up when I hit 40. Guess I am still trying to figure out which new club I will join... the "grouchy old geezer" club or the "kind and wise old sage" club. Descisions descisions.

As for... "the rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish".  Should have said, some of the time, so I have heard... It does seem to me that there are times when the river barely has any water in it at all. Often looks like there are shallow meanders, some of which do not even connect to each other. Plus the Zink dam, I have heard, is not easy for the fish to get around either.  

My thought on the new dams "improving on nature" and what we have now. Is that they will help aerate the water more with the added stepped structures. Water flowing at more times and more constantly will help the fish and the things that eat them. I was told, and no I havent looked it up to confirm, but have seen pictures, that before there was a Keystone Dam  sometimes during the summers and certainly during drought spells the river would completely dry up.  I also keep hearing them say that they will work to clean up and improve some of the natural habitat areas. Plus do things that will recreate some habitats that may be displaced, promote the growth of and protect some habitats. Havent seen any plans or specifics, just repeating what they are saying. You are saying that the buzzards may be harmed with the lake. Would be interested in looking into that as well.

Oh and did the really distribute arm bands? I was just being facetious. lol

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper


huh? they come and use the infrastructure but scoot back out to the burbs with less of a tax burden? i don't think so... this is exactly why we need a City Income Tax just like we had in KC...

Wait a minute...I'm trying to remember the last time Tulsa voters agreed to raise their sales taxes in order to build some recreational facility in Owasso that would primarily benefit Owasso's businesses and people.  The answer to that would be - never.  

I think a new river project would clearly be beneficial to the city of Tulsa, but it's not quite clear how that project would improve business or property values in, say, Collinsville.  

And can anyone imagine saying, "Hey, honey, let's go for a bike ride along the river, then load them on the truck, drive to Owasso for dinner, and then go home to south Tulsa!"

This project's beneficial effects for suburban communities is largely imaginary.

wait a minute... i'm trying to remember just how owasso got to be what it is now and figure out how long it would have taken to become what it is today without being a suburb of tulsa... the answer to that would be never... give me back my vision2025 money you ****ers...

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

For anyone that missed it, Coburn was quoted in today's paper as saying he would not support the bill Inhofe is pushing that contains federal money for the river.

God save us from Coburn.  So bad he makes Inhofe look good.

Good for Coburn. At least he knows pork when he smells it, even if it is to help his buddy Inhofe get re-elected. Or maybe it could be the fact that Oklahoma's roads and bridges are in critical condition so that is where our resources should be focused, instead of the folly of unnecessary river "econocomic" development.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Ok apparently my sense of humor needs a little work. But I did add the " [] " guess the word "ignorant" was the wrong choice however.  I apologize. And yes I am no YP anymore they tore my card up when I hit 40. Guess I am still trying to figure out which new club I will join... the "grouchy old geezer" club or the "kind and wise old sage" club. Descisions descisions.

As for... "the rest of the time the river is barely navigable for the fish".  Should have said, some of the time, so I have heard... It does seem to me that there are times when the river barely has any water in it at all. Often looks like there are shallow meanders, some of which do not even connect to each other. Plus the Zink dam, I have heard, is not easy for the fish to get around either.  

My thought on the new dams "improving on nature" and what we have now. Is that they will help aerate the water more with the added stepped structures. Water flowing at more times and more constantly will help the fish and the things that eat them. I was told, and no I havent looked it up to confirm, but have seen pictures, that before there was a Keystone Dam  sometimes during the summers and certainly during drought spells the river would completely dry up.  I also keep hearing them say that they will work to clean up and improve some of the natural habitat areas. Plus do things that will recreate some habitats that may be displaced, promote the growth of and protect some habitats. Havent seen any plans or specifics, just repeating what they are saying. You are saying that the buzzards may be harmed with the lake. Would be interested in looking into that as well.

Oh and did the really distribute arm bands? I was just being facetious. lol

I understand you're willingness to trust that the players are watching out for the habitats of the river. Most everyone is depending on second hand info being relayed to assuage any fears that may pop up. I no longer depend upon the kindness of these strangers. All I can say is, that very, very few people have even been on this river for its length through the county, so whatever is said by planners and administrators is generally believed to be true. How would you know without first hand experience or a variety of opinions from others not associated with this group? If we embrace the pretty pictures, we want to trust them. I don't.  

Someone is feeding you information. I'm not being conspiratorial, but the efforts to "educate" the public are obvious, even quoted in the World. The vision has been described to the soldiers from the top. It is the job of the rank and file to execute that vision. "education" is their weapon.

They use such unrelated stories, such as the river completely drying up, as some sort of defense that we are improving nature. If it did dry up in the past then it was for a reason, that is if you believe that nature is logical. It also flooded in the past, yet a city was able to grow from a grungy rail head to "the oil capital of the world" BEFORE the Keystone Dam was ever built. Think about that for a few moments.

Same thing with aeration. We don't see massive fish kills on this river due to lack of dissolved oxygen. It is only where we put in a low water dam that the river stagnates, the fish cannot migrate upstream and they begin to feed near the storm drains. So we create the problem, then want accolades for solving it. And for what? No real commercial activity on or around Zink lake for over 25years that couldn't already have been there.

Therefore we are obstructing natures way by forcing a river to be a lake. Not for a basic human need, but for its alleged future commercial viability. I submit we have shown that we're not very good at such stuff here in Tulsa. We're shoppers, investors, diners and whiners. Face it, most Tulsans only want river development if it means bars and restaurants.

I'm not opposed to huge public projects like the TVA, Pensacola dam and such. The benefit/cost ratios were correct. But I am hesitant to support cosmetic changes to accomodate commercial goals. I like what Sam Kennison said when he had the balls to make fun of a human tragedy in a north African country where thousands were dying of starvation and drought because the land they lived on for generations could not support their population growth. "Here's a thought...move to somewhere there's food and water!"  Here's another thought, stop fighting nature and work with her. Its a plaines river, not a lake. If you want otherwise, go somewhere else.

[Markk]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

County Commission votes 3-0.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070802_1__Tulsa36326

I'm voting No.  If developing the river is such a good thing, then why haven't private interests stepped up and gotten it taken care of?  Am I missing something?  Is there some reason why you or I couldn't have gone ahead years ago (or right now) and acquired some riverfront land, built a restaurant or some other entertainment venue, and reaped the benefits of private enterprise?

Don't even get me started on the streets.  Charles Hardt ought to be fired.  Anyone could preside over the decay of city streets as well has he has.  I'm not interested in hearing about how the funding is out of his control;  if he can't get the job done with the funding that is given to him, he should have quit out of self respect.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Markk

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

County Commission votes 3-0.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070802_1__Tulsa36326

I'm voting No.  If developing the river is such a good thing, then why haven't private interests stepped up and gotten it taken care of?  Am I missing something?  Is there some reason why you or I couldn't have gone ahead years ago (or right now) and acquired some riverfront land, built a restaurant or some other entertainment venue, and reaped the benefits of private enterprise?

They have. Riverwalk. To a lesser extent, Westport Apartments. There is demand, but the issue is the same as streets. Infrastructure. You have to have easy access to the riverfront land and utilities to serve them. That's expensive. Those things have pretty much been ignored for 25years because of...Control. Once the county or the authority has control of all land along the river, then development according to their wishes, as outlined in the INCOG plan will proceed. Its not that they are control crazy, its that they are hesitant to provide infrastructure without some promise of tax revenues.

Then there's the problem of zoning. Who can build what? This new plan doesn't address that. Just provides an overall plan of development that allows alot of different stuff.

We don't make real estate developers pay for widening of arterials around their housing additions. We wait till the developments start generating taxes, then we tear up the roads and widen them. Thats the way govt. thinks here. Maybe everywhere for all I know.

Lots of stuff has kept private development along the river. IMO these are the obvious ones.

[waterboy]

I'm officially jumping off the fence. I originally supported this plan because I just wanted something to happen in my lifetime about the river. But the negatives outweigh the positives imo. The tipping point for me is a close look at what the plan buys and how it is paid for.

We could use a good bridge connecting Brookside to West Tulsa at 41st. Especially if West Tulsa is to get any bang for their buck out of river development. Surprise, its not included in the plan. Instead we get $30 million allotted for two pedestrian bridges, one at 41st. What pedestrians would be using it?! We already have 2 1/2 pedestrian bridges that get little use.

We have a pedestrian bridge over Zink Lake that is primarily populated with non english speaking fishermen (attracted by the low water dam) and a few joggers. We have a bridge converted to a pedestrian bridge adjacent to Riverwalk in Jenks. Even the fishermen don't use it (no dam, no shade). Just occassional joggers. Then of course there's the 11th Street bridge which has been promised for a decade to be pedestrian, retail or something. Its a favorite hangout of druggies, drunks and homeless.

And there is no return on these investments. No fees, no taxes, no commercial development on either end (but they look nice when lighted at Christmas). The tourism attraction is dubious.
Yeh, lets spend $30 mill for two more of these. If these pedestrian bridges are such a good investment why aren't those IVI private bridge builders jumping all over the idea? Cause it sucks and will be a net outflow of public $ for a small group of bikers and runners.
Its like the planners were running out of stuff to spend money on.

If that is not enough to kill it we add in millions for "connecting streets studies". Uh, is this all just too much of a sudden thing for you guys? Have you not had 50yrs to plan on how bridges, parks and low water dams might affect traffic and connectability? No details for that one are provided, we're just supposed to trust that it is necessary and can't be done without these millions.

I have watched as the low water dam cost has risen from 2.6 million (silly me, that was just for the engineering), 12-13 million and the recent estimates of 24 million!! We aren't even certain of the design yet because better ideas than concrete low water dams have been surfacing. Drop gates, inflatables, stair stepped. There is nothing to keep these dams from continuuing to balloon in cost once the tax is in place. Once the $48 million in low water dams is spent, we will then wonder why we didn't include some way to connect one lake to the next. No interconnectability. No boat docks, no piers. The irony to me is all we need do is rent bulldozers and pile rocks across the river like PSO did years ago. That shouldn't amount to the $90 million allotted to channelizing efforts.

Correct me if I'm wrong- Tulsa represents 70% of this county. In spite of the growth and money in the burbs, the bulk of sales tax receipts....are from the city. But this nearly half a billion dollars mainly drawn from Tulsa purchases, is controlled by three county commissioners (we elected one) being advised by an oversight committee with 70% of its members from outside of the city?! Even so, because it is a sales tax, there is no obligation by these three commissioners to spend the money the way it has been presented or even the same amounts. These are just guidelines. And the burbs get the two dams?! We get connector studies, channelization, pedestrian bridges and parklike gathering areas?! Poor agreement for Tulsa.

I know this won't be recieved with anything but animosity from supporters. You should know I'm not one of the anti-tax, anti-growth, conspiracy theorists that have stopped plans in the past. I don't care much about the condition of the roads either. I'm someone who knows a lot about the river and learned alot about the people involved with its development in the past few years. To be sure, there are some fine planning efforts put into this. I love the living river concept. The bulk of it is adding to the complexity of the river without adding any real flash. Lets get past this plan and get something that makes better sense.

[Kenosha]

you are wrong Waterboy...you should vote yes.

Tell me when we are going to get a better plan?

WHEN, if not now?  I don't have, WE don't have time to wait anymore.  This is a good plan, maybe not perfect, but good.  

A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Not if this vote passes. I was told by someone who would know that Mr. Cadieux does not want a four-lane road going through the middle of the gathering place he will be sponsoring at 41st and Riverside. The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.

[Breadburner]

Lets see what they can so with the private money first.....I will be voting no....Waterboy sealed it for me......

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates
The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.

This is an important point for me as well. I see no point for a 41st street pedestrian bridge. Does anybody really want to walk across the river to get to the Sinclair Refinery?

I really want a bridge for cars at 41st street. It would be the one of most significant things to help west Tulsa that we would do in my lifetime. Think about connecting Webster High School, Reed Park and the west bank soccer fields with Brookside.

I want connectivity and we have made west Tulsa that land where no one goes by limiting access to it. Our city is truly a tale of two cities.

If you were to call someone and say "I am over in west Tulsa", they would say, "what are you doing over there?" A 41st street bridge for cars would change all that. A pedestrian only bridge is not a complete deal-breaker for me, but it ain't the way I would do it.

I asked the westside Councilor Rick Westcott this question at last Tuesday's Neighborfest. He too said he wants the full bridge, but said that there was room to do both. He tried to assure me that the pedestrian bridge would not completely rule out an auto bridge in the future.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

you are wrong Waterboy...you should vote yes.

Tell me when we are going to get a better plan?

WHEN, if not now?  I don't have, WE don't have time to wait anymore.  This is a good plan, maybe not perfect, but good.  

A vehicular bridge at 41st will come...eventually. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The guts are all there Kenosha. They just arranged the parts to make Frankenstein. It didn't take but 6 months to put this plan together, 6 months more of fine tuning could make a whale of a difference.

The bridge to me was just the one thing that exposed the weakness of the plan. That weakness has to do with not serving our needs but those of Cadieux et.al.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates
The plan that is on the ballot is not compliant with the INCOG master plan on this point and will put another obstacle in the way of a vehicular bridge ever being built.

This is an important point for me as well. I see no point for a 41st street pedestrian bridge. Does anybody really want to walk across the river to get to the Sinclair Refinery?

I really want a bridge for cars at 41st street. It would be the one of most significant things to help west Tulsa that we would do in my lifetime. Think about connecting Webster High School, Reed Park and the west bank soccer fields with Brookside.

I want connectivity and we have made west Tulsa that land where no one goes by limiting access to it. Our city is truly a tale of two cities.

If you were to call someone and say "I am over in west Tulsa", they would say, "what are you doing over there?" A 41st street bridge for cars would change all that. A pedestrian only bridge is not a complete deal-breaker for me, but it ain't the way I would do it.

I asked the westside Councilor Rick Westcott this question at last Tuesday's Neighborfest. He too said he wants the full bridge, but said that there was room to do both. He tried to assure me that the pedestrian bridge would not completely rule out an auto bridge in the future.

+1