Tulsa Councilors to vote on River Tax

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

O.K., we get you don't like Roscoe.

And, it was nice of the County to stay out of the annexation issue the way they did, too, especially since it wasn't formally any of their business.

Annexing county property into the city limits is very much the business and interest of the county. You expected the county commissioners to stay out?

                                          I guess the Mayor of Broken Arrow should mind his own business too. BTW, if increasing sales taxes is such a problem for the Arabian Horse Show, why are the County Commissioners pushing one? This is an issue of trust, and we're roughneckin' for truth.

I also believe this is an issue of truth and credibility. The lack of the former in leadership has led to a crisis of the latter.

Everyone I mention this to seems surprised and befuddled about what we're voting on and when. I predict 3:1 failure.

And funny, the TN poll is still in favor.  I guess we are a bunch of walking (or is that swimming?) anachronisms.

[RecycleMichael]

They didn't vote tonight.

Councilor John Eagleton made a motion to continue this vote till next week and it passed 6 to 3 with the councilors from districts one, two and three dissenting.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

They didn't vote tonight.

Councilor John Eagleton made a motion to continue this vote till next week and it passed 6 to 3 with the councilors from districts one, two and three dissenting.

Wellll.... That means by the inverse effect of the vote... my numbers may have gotten me one large box of  "Big Bob Dick's"  Cookies....

Oh....! lightly sprinkled with Cinnabar.[B)][}:)]

[shadows]

In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks.  I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow.   The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there.  This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.

When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?  

Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks.  I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow.   The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there.  This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.

When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?  

Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows

In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks.  I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow.   The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there.  This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.

When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?  

Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.

I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows

In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks.  I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow.   The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there.  This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.

When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?  

Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.

I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.

I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.

Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.

So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.

Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.

I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.

[shadows]

Low water dams as being designed are to be lowered in the time of flood releases from Keystone.  Their design is not to deter the necessary flow down the river.   Flood of greater magnitude of 86 are predicted and are expected with the climatic changes that we are encountering in the present year.   The only thing the low water dams will do is increase the depth of the flooding as in no way will the water be contained in the present channel nor stop the continued erosion.

The mechanics of lowering the low water dams will require continues maintenance as the sand has an abrasive effect on all working parts.  

As it has been pointed out the River Parks Authority will assume the authority to take over the maintenance.  Who will maintain and  fund the River Parks Authority ?  The maintenance of the proposed (either plan) will run into millions of dollars.  One would assume that Tulsa would be one of the largest contributor to the River Parks Authority to pay for such maintenance of the river banks and dams.

Believe this is the same Tulsa that cannot find enough money to fix their roof or calk the window in the city hall.    

[RecycleMichael]

Originally posted by shadows

Low water dams as being designed are to be lowered in the time of flood releases from Keystone.  Their design is not to deter the necessary flow down the river.   Flood of greater magnitude of 86 are predicted and are expected with the climatic changes that we are encountering in the present year.   The only thing the low water dams will do is increase the depth of the flooding as in no way will the water be contained in the present channel nor stop the continued erosion.

The mechanics of lowering the low water dams will require continues maintenance as the sand has an abrasive effect on all working parts. /quote]
It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.

The design of the low water dams will take into account high flow levels during occassional high releases from Keystone. There is absolutely no chance of any design to increase the depth of flooding. The opposite will be true.

If there is one thing that I have the most confidence in with the study and design of the INCOG Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is that flooding issues were completely studied. The best hydrologists in the country were involved from everywhere from the city to the Corps of Engineers.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows

In the present news the maximum permitted flow down the river has caused a half million dollars damage to the banks at Jenks.  I believe the cfs is only a third of the 86 flow.   The county says they don't have any money to stabilize the banks to protect the present planned development there.  This is only a very small part of the proposed river improvements when compared to 42 miles of river banks.

When Tulsa is to provide 70% of the cost of the river project and cannot find money to fix the roof or caulk the window on their city hall, how are they going to maintain the river developments banks in the future?  

Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.

I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.

I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.

Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.

So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.

Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.

I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.

I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows


Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.

I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.

I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.

Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.

So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.

Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.

I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.

I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?

I don't think it is from the shopping center construction. This is debris left over from a half century or more of sand mining, oil drilling, public dumping etc. I haven't been there this summer but unless the high flow disgorged the stuff, its still there. Good luck on finding those entities and making them clean it up. But in the end it is Gordon who built the center and just like any homeowner should make sure it is safe, clean and attractive.

I am not clear on who owns the banks. You can own to the normal water level I think. RPA may own it or just hold an easement for their path. I bet the provider of the mortgage knows though and from remarks on here that is probably the city of Jenks. But don't expect the city, the county, the state or the developer to step up and do the right thing. There may be precedent here.

Riverwalk and Kings Crossing are following established cost shifting developer practices that have increasingly favored them for decades. This is my understanding of the process. Rather than pay the real cost of developing, which would include their impact on surrounding roads and utilities, they provide only minimal infrastructure. All the while they are asking for tifs, preferential loans, subsidized loans and grants. The authorities, anxious to have new revenues, defer the cost of widening, drainage improvements etc. until a revenue stream starts to come from the development. Sometimes they never seem to find enough revenue and the taxpayer is screwed. Sometimes the commercial development is a bust and the taxpayer is screwed. The taxpayer bears the cost of infrastructure one way or the other, but by deferring it to the city the developer asserts that he can keep his costs low, profits higher and ostensibly provide cheaper purchase price to the homeowner or cheaper rent to the commercial tenant. But its an illusion. Like rebates on car loans.

For an example, drive down one of the wonderful roads bounded by 169 to Yale and 81st to 111th street south. Gorgeous walled off developments that increased the tax base but also the infrastructure needs. What happened to their infrastructure improvements? The system failed to provide. These homes are served by congested two-lane blacktops with no curbs and dangerous open ditches on each side. They flood easily and are impossible during snow and ice. They are free of potholes for the most part but some are nigh on 20yrs old and still have open ditches and congested intersections.

River development is travelling the same road. Shame on the insurance companies, the corps of engineers, the fire department (who has to do rescue work at the river), the developer, and the city/county/state who all put visitors at risk by not insisting on the hardening of soft bluffs below these developments. They hold the homeowner who installs an in-ground swimming pool to higher standards and requirements than these shopping center developers even though both the swimming pool and the river are attractive nuisances.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows


Who's obligation will it be to maintain the river banks?

The obligation will be the county River Parks Authority I guess. And yes, that was about a third of the earlier flood releases. I predicted two years ago that the decision not to harden the walls with ANYTHING around Riverwalk would be a terrible mistake. Besides just being plain ugly. They didn't even haul off metal debris. Stupid.

They were hoping to get a low water dam built in the area. Part of his original plans were to have a boat dock where the theater is to ferry people to the aquarium and to development on the other side of the river. The Kaiser plan has bank stabilization and hardening in it for certain areas. Some areas within Tulsas section will still be parks and nature preserves and will not have them. Plus some areas are not the wide sandy river bottom where the river would meander into, like by Turkey Mountain.

I worry about Kings Landing. If you ever go look behind it, especially when the water is low, its quite a high sheer drop and just sand there. They stabilize the other side and the river may start to then cut into the opposite side. A good storm and that whole shopping center... plop, right into the river.

I know you did some work for them and he's a swell guy, but that doesn't excuse
what Gordon and the city of Jenks allowed to happen.

Sure they expected a low water dam. They told the tenants it was eminent even though the location had just been determined, no engineering studies had been done,they weren't even sure of the design! Apparently there was no funding for it either as the 2.6 million most people thought was going to build it was just for engineering.

So why was there no wall constructed, rip-rap or anything done to protect the edge of the shopping center from erosion or collapse? Because it would cost them money. They gambled that the water wouldn't damage it before the taxpayers were on the hook for paying for it. You would think that was a bad gamble but undoubtedly it will end up paid for by the county instead of the city or the developer. If you're going to bed with these people you ought to know what they are like. They actually put people at risk. If it had collapsed with pedestrians on it we would be on CNN every hour for a week.

Artist, they didn't even clean up the banks. I was never given an audience with Gordon even though I was prepared to provide water taxi service two years ago. He sent me an e-mail if I remember that said it was too early and he would consider it at a later date. The idea that he was talking a boat dock and ferries is the same way I talk about doing a stand up routine....maybe some day.

I suppose Kings Crossing is doing the same thing.

I always wondered why they never finished doing anything right down to the river. I thought it might be that it was not on his property that it was part of river parks and would be river parks or the cities responsibility to do the shoreline modifications. However if the developer left junk down there and were supposed to clean it up, someone should have got on to them and made them do that. Whose responsibility would it be to make them clean it up?

I don't think it is from the shopping center construction. This is debris left over from a half century or more of sand mining, oil drilling, public dumping etc. I haven't been there this summer but unless the high flow disgorged the stuff, its still there. Good luck on finding those entities and making them clean it up. But in the end it is Gordon who built the center and just like any homeowner should make sure it is safe, clean and attractive.

I am not clear on who owns the banks. You can own to the normal water level I think. RPA may own it or just hold an easement for their path. I bet the provider of the mortgage knows though and from remarks on here that is probably the city of Jenks. But don't expect the city, the county, the state or the developer to step up and do the right thing. There may be precedent here.

Riverwalk and Kings Crossing are following established cost shifting developer practices that have increasingly favored them for decades. This is my understanding of the process. Rather than pay the real cost of developing which would include their impact on surrounding roads and utilities, they provide only minimal infrastructure. All the while they are asking for tifs, preferential loans, subsidized loans and grants. The authorities anxious to have new revenues defer the cost of widening, drainage improvements etc. until a revenue stream starts to come from the development. Sometimes they never seem to find enough revenue and the taxpayer is screwed. Sometimes the commercial development is a bust and the taxpayer is screwed. The taxpayer eventually bears the cost of infrastructure one way or the other, but by deferring it to the city the developer asserts that he can keep his costs low, profits higher and ostensibly provide cheaper purchase price to the homeowner or cheaper rent to the commercial tenant. Buts its an illusion. Like rebates on car loans.

For and example, drive down one of the wonderful roads bounded by 169 to Yale and 81st to 111th street south. Gorgeous walled off developments that increased the tax base but also the infrastructure needs. What happened to their infrastructure improvements? The system failed to provide. These homes are served by congested two-lane blacktops with no curbs and dangerous open ditches on each side. They flood easily and are impossible during snow and ice. They are free of potholes for the most part but some are nigh on 20yrs old and still have open ditches and congested intersections.

River development is travelling the same road. Shame on the insurance companies, the corps of engineers, the fire department (who has to do rescue work at the river), the developer who puts visitors at risk, the city/county/state for not insisting on the hardening of soft bluffs below these developments. They hold the homeowner who installs an in-ground swimming pool to higher standards and requirements than these shopping center developers. Both the swimming pool and the river are attractive nuisances.

Excellent analysis, Waterboy.

When the city ended in the mid-60's the Special Property Assessments for the funding road widening, from that point forward the large property owners (the Warren Financial Interests?), and the developer/builders started their uninterrupted 40-year FREE RIDE on infrastructure improvement.

What Tulsa has been allowed to happen to its citizens for the past 40 years borders on criminal.

WE pay for suburban road-widening, 25 years AFTER total saturation development has occurred and we've had to live with suburban GRIDLOCK for decades, until finally using the Itty-Bitty Third-Penny sales tax, which since 1980 has picked out pocket of over $1,000,000,000.

However, with the percentage of the third-penny devoted to road construction and intersection widening allowed to also fall, until now it represents on 28% of the Third-Penny spending.  The remainder being siphoned off to buy police cars, firetrucks, police helicopters, and for other "capital" expenditures.

Tulsa also has gotten hosed by our state legislature, with the benign neglect of our very own LOCAL state senators and representatives, who have allowed our fair share of highway road money to be spent in rural areas, allowing 4-lane highways to be built between Cordell and No-Where, or between Sulpher and No-Where.  

Ad Nauseum et Ad Infinitum.


A double-barrelled hose job.

And, as usual, Tulsa taxpayer are paying the freight.  

I call it:  The Tulsa PREMIUM.

[Wrinkle]

It's going to be interesting to see what new lows are stooped in the attempt to pass this thing.

[shadows]

Recycle quoted:

"It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.

The design of the low water dams will take into account high flow levels during occassional high releases from Keystone. There is absolutely no chance of any design to increase the depth of flooding. The opposite will be true.

If there is one thing that I have the most confidence in with the study and design of the INCOG Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is that flooding issues were completely studied. The best hydrologists in the country were involved from everywhere from the city to the Corps of Engineers." (quote:/)

Having been around the river for well over three quarters of a century and watch the erosion and deterring of the river banks as it has meandered back and forth, and going through the INCOG plan my comment would be "Not for real".   The by pass with the white water installation blows ones mental capacity.  Only a person sitting at a desk could come up with such a design.  They should take a small boat and explore the banks when there was no generating water being released at Keystone.   When the flood gates are closed then a inspection of the banks should be made.  The present release is a miniature flood to past floods and anticipated floods of the future.  

   
It is assuring to know that the city hydrologists and Corps are working together.  Their design (Corps)in storm water controls were not followed by the city.  The science of hydrology and the science of predicting the weather are of one breed with the dikes at New Orleans, flooding a complete segment of the city, designed sitting at a desk.  The low water dams will create a death trap such as was blown up below the Keystone dam.

The water has been approved as one where it is clean enough to swim in.   A short time ago two children died from an illness caught by playing in a splash pad in the same water we drink.

True, I am against making the river a ribbon of concreted channels.
Nature through the centuries has created the river and we do not have the right to change it.  If we do it will fight back like it has with the Mississippi river.    

[shadows]

Recycle quoted:
It is ok for you to be against the river improvement tax, but please try and discuss things you know about. You have been shown on this forum in many threads to completely make up information about stormwater facts and this is no different.
====================================

If you would be so kind as to point out where I created false facts about storm water runoff I will be able to sustain such facts.  Under some circumstances I will not be able to name the one who furnished the information as many are holding jobs now or have retired thus that information will be of the anonymous nature of the person making the statement.  I have hundreds of pictures and sheets of information gathered from the meeting that I have had with the corps, storm water management, FEMA and the advisory board as well as tapes of persons who have been affected by the flooding.

Or is it your purpose to just flame?