River tax hike vote set for October 9

[TheArtist]

Yea I hate to say it, because I really want to see something happen, but I am going to go ahead and say that I am officially against this tax hike and river plan.  I wanted something to happen and have argued for it, but as I have learned more and listened to the responses to my arguments, the balance keeps tilting further and further to this not being a good plan. The cons simply outweigh the pros.  

I like the dams and I think we need to do all 3 of them for they each support the other. Sand Springs holds water to put flow into the rest of the river during the day, etc.

But I still think they should have been paid for by the 2025 tax. They keep arguing that it is not possible or intended. But I havent seen the proof in writing to prove otherwise. I dont think "what they intended" would hold water in a court of law. What mattered is what the voters voted for. If this new tax fails then I would be right there to push a lawsuit to make sure they built the two dams as promised with the 2025 tax.

The purchase of the west bank property for development doesnt sound so bad.

I would like the pedestrian bridges but I dont see how 30 mill for them is worth it at the moment. Too little benefit for too high a cost when there are other things, like the Pearl District Plan, that would BOTH beautify the city, improve park and recreational space, and promote actual growth.
I would also rather see the 15million for "downtown connectors" be added to the 30 mill for the Pearl District. What the heck are they really going to do to connect downtown with the river anyway? I remember seeing a rendering of a little waterfall thingey and decorative landscaping elements down one street. I was like, Why bother? It just wasnt worth the bother at all. Too rinky dink looking and not worth the 15 mill. Actually the two new park/ponds and the canal for the Pearl are not expected to cost a lot more than 15 mill. Property acquisition for high density development around the ponds and canal, 8 mill and 2 mill for streetscaping starting at the inner dispersal loop and going to TU. All still less than the cost of the pedestrian bridges in Tulsa and waaay more impact. The Tulsa bridges could be added later by Tulsa after everyone saw some actual private development happen.

And if they are going to block the planned 41st bridge on top of it with this plan. I think they are stepping way out of bounds.

Again, I would like to see the dams built and the "gathering places" and I dont mind paying for it, but... this just seems like a rushed plan and a mess of one too.

BTW where are our volleyball courts in this new 71st park area? I guarantee you more people go down there and play vball on a regular basis, lousy facilities and porta potties though it may be, than will go trapsing around those fountains and a pier. Make what is attracting people there now, better, and add more things. Its like they didnt even know it existed or cared.

I really wish they had given people a chance to comment on this plan, then made constructive changes, then put it up for a vote. It was like, here is the plan, take it or leave it no adjustments can be made.

If they had done...

One pedestrian bridge as a compromise perhaps, along with no 15 mill for the "connector" and instead use those funds for the Pearl District Plan. (It would have appeared as if the positive impact had greatly improved and on top of it the tax would have been less... or you could have made the amount the same and not done either Tulsa bridge at the moment and given a little something more to BA, Bixby and Owasso) Simply move the 41st park space a bit so that a 41st bridge could eventually be built. Leave our vball courts in with the new gathering area. Put some money aside to maintain the dams or at least the park space like the donors are doing to maintain the gathering places... and you would have had me. Funding issues aside.

[Wrinkle]

Now one's mentioned it yet, but isn't Mr. Kaiser going to have the same income tax problem again next year as this year? And, the year after that? At least, similar.

For this deal to be rushed through in order to satisfy some unrelated income tax issue is obscene.

There is no urgency there, or with anything related to the river plan. In fact, if it were passed today and all the funds collected, it'd still be years before anything of significance could start.

But, THIS deal should not pass anyway.

[Conan71]

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.

No silly, there's a spectacular concrete plant, Arrow Trucking, and Tektube to look at when you walk across a 41st St. pedestrian bridge.

Anyone who can comment on it from this viewpoint:

quote:
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.

is putting far too much faith into a plan with a lot of gaping holes in it.  Kenosha, you aren't alone, that's what worries me about there being a larger majority who won't look closely and will trust this is best.  Saying we need a river plan is one thing.  Getting sucked into a plan that a very small handful of Tulsans are saying is the right way to do it, is basically giving away your equal rights as a taxpayer over the interests of a wealthy and influential few.  We have plenty of time to wait for something better.  

I really don't get the bed-wetting nature of this "want".  This is not the type of expenditure which will make Tulsa a destination city, which is one of the biggest reasons cited for the need to develop our waterway(s).

Why vote for something which is imperfect?