River vote...county sets rules

[rwarn17588]

BTW, here's a story from July 23, 2003, that quotes Michael Bates AND specifically says that Vision 2025 money for the Arkansas River is for matching funds only.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030723_Ne_a1_reven

It says:

"Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River."

Here's something from Tulsa Today on Aug. 10, 2003, about the Vision 2025 vote:

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=2

Again, it mentions "matching funds" twice for anticipated federal dollars.

It's apparent this was reported before the vote. If you don't pay attention, that's your fault.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

BTW, here's a story from July 23, 2003, that quotes Michael Bates AND specifically says that Vision 2025 money for the Arkansas River is for matching funds only.

I quoted that very article above and dealt with it in my column.

As a matter of fact, I called attention to the KOTV story (again, referenced above) in July of 2003, warning that matching funds might not be available.

Show me where the County Commissioners said that dams wouldn't be built if the Federal funds weren't available.

On the contrary, they assured voters that the money would be there and (in that same article you linked, rwarn) said they were committed to building every project. Here is what Bob Dick said in that article about potential overages:

quote:Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.

"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.

Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

There's another word, "estimates."  Nothing about the dams project was a foregone conclusion.  We need to stop acting like it was, and move on.

Mr Bates, on some of your articles and such you've got a few ideas out there that might be decent funding alternatives for the County or City to get these dams done.  Have you tried to get the word out on those?  Have you talked to the City Council on these things?  Have you gotten any feedback on them?

[Conan71]

I don't know what stretch you guys are making, and why the flogging continues, but it was Bob Dick and not Michael Bates who was quoted in the Tulsa World article as saying there were matching funds on the LWD's.

[waterboy]

Geez, I really hate that this has been so strung out and that I am about to help even more. Michael C, you may not have paid much attention to the LWD discussions but I did. I thought the damn vote was about the Arena first, the river second and other projects third. NOWHERE did I ever get the idea that if matching funds were not found, the dams would be dropped. It was only later explained that the money proposed for the dams was just engineering studies and Bates even shows that was waffling, the figures don't match.

The important part about all this discussion is credibility and truthfulness. One can't operate without the other. Nothing assures that this project will be built as shown. The fact that I have expressed reservations not only about the county being in charge with a blank check but about a general dismissive attitude about the basic river issues being ignored, comes from that lack of truthfulness...leading to a lack of credibility.

IMO the vote will pass. But we could have done so much better.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't know what stretch you guys are making, and why the flogging continues, but it was Bob Dick and not Michael Bates who was quoted in the Tulsa World article as saying there were matching funds on the LWD's.

Dude, I've already agreed to drop this crap and move on to something else.  But here again, is the explanation.

Bates has been acting this entire time as if the dams were a foregone conclusion.  Again, they were not.  He knows they weren't.  Here's more evidence.

Can we please move to some other aspect of this?  Something besides what Bates thinks?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Geez, I really hate that this has been so strung out and that I am about to help even more. Michael C, you may not have paid much attention to the LWD discussions but I did. I thought the damn vote was about the Arena first, the river second and other projects third. NOWHERE did I ever get the idea that if matching funds were not found, the dams would be dropped. It was only later explained that the money proposed for the dams was just engineering studies and Bates even shows that was waffling, the figures don't match.

I understand.  And maybe it wasn't clear, I'm not defending that.  I'm not faulting you guys for not knowing.  But again, we solved this problem on last page, Bates and I and anyone who read it knew that the funds were matching funds.  The info was there beforehand.

And the dams have not been dropped.  The project still has money.  It's still doing whatever it's doing.  Federal match has not shown up, yet.  That's all.

And, you have more confidence than I do that it'll pass.

Can we please move on to some other aspect of this?

[Conan71]

Moving forward- according to the three puff pieces in the World this morning, sounds like they have hired a consulting firm to start environmental studies for property which is assumed that would be acquired.

Kind of putting the cart before the horse.

Secondly, I'm trying to figure out how this retail corridor along the river is going to add 4500 jobs to the economy.  At least that's the latest claim from the broken calculator at our Chamber of Commerce.   Are these really the kind of "quality" jobs we seem to be demanding?

[Kenosha]

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

Change the wording on the Ballot.... Spell it out... Not Arkansas River Corridor Development..... "Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan" Also.... Detail the projects.... C'mon it ain't like we are voting on anything else that day..

No "Blind Faith" required.. Every bit in writing.

Simple enough really....!

Either all of the above or a 10 pound sack of those $100 Dollar Bills.[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

Well said, Conan.  Could not agree more.

Furthermore, I do wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases.   AND, we already have a proposal for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water.  Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs.  Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

I really don't know that there is anything which would change my mind.  It sounded good at first to me.  Then came the numerous questions and the relative "blank check" aspect of this, then the spotlight was shown on the ineptitude with which this was put on the V-2025 ballot.

I also don't like being told that a bunch of private river development which would happen either with or without water- just won't happen if they don't get their low water dams.  I'm not buying it.  If a commercial/retail project is viable along Riverside drive, it's viable with or without low water dams.  If that's the case, Fine.  We'll find someone else who likes the prairie river look who wants to make money off of it.

Now the chamber has gotten involved with their bloated claims of prosperity.  It's all the usual suspects.

As an added aside, I don't find the quaintness in commercial development along the river as I do with developing some of the tributaries.

What do you like about it Kenosha?

Well said, Conan.  Could not agree more.

Furthermore, I do wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases.   AND, we already have a proposal for the Tulsa Landing, in an area of the river that already has water.  Development seems to be taking off just fine in the areas downstream (i.e.,Jenks) that do not currently benefit from LWDs.  Given all that, I am struggling to figure out what this multi-hundred million dollar expenditure will really do for us.

                                             Did you watch the Council meeting? The children of privilege need playgrounds on the river to cruise their Mercedes. The ones we have aren't good enough. Isn't that a compelling reason enough to vote for it? C'mon, do it for the kids!

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

What would persuade you "no" votes to vote "yes"?

There is nothing about this deal which can be changed to make it acceptable, except full revocation.

The County needs to build the dams and step aside, as promised in V2025, leaving local river development to local governments.

No new tax, no new County Authority to rule the river.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

The more you guys keep saying that, the dumber you look.  Bates already cleared this up, sort of, though now it's really hard to count his "mistake" as a lapse of memory.

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected

"We all knew", says Bates.

Look, several people may have had that impression, that this thing was an automatic slam-dunk deal.  I'm not faulting them, but a quick read would have put that impression to rest.  I've never had that impression.  It's like the Gilcrease Expressway, we keep throwing local funds into it, but it's always waiting for state and federal matching funds.  The funds are almost guaranteed for the GE, but it takes time.  More than likely we can still get the funds for the dams, under the right condition.  We can wait for the Fed to cough up the cash, or we can get it done quicker and better.

You can dig up the details like Bates, make a big stink out of it, throw in a few lies, and freak out a bit at a few meetings; I don't care.  Of all the V2025 projects, the dams and the Indian Museum were the two I've always felt least likely to succeed as is.  If you had the impression that federal funding on the dams was a "done deal", you're at least slightly delusional or perhaps completely unaware of how the Fed works.

The rest of what Bates has said, I'm sorry, I just don't care that much.  If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.

You seem to be in your own state of denial on this. It clearly says "construct two low water dams" and improve Zink Lake dam, shows them on the map, lists them in the project listing,  promises ALL V2025 projects will be built, even if it takes overages to do so.

What else is there? It doesn't say "if" anywhere.

You can't divert any of this to Bates (or me). Bates lays out a pretty good case of intent on the part of the County, which, btw, the County spread out themselves, not Bates. They told us what they would do. Nothing is being made up here as you more than suggest. That's far more dishonest than what you attempt to claim of others. Anyone performing a 'quick read' would much sooner come to that conclusion than what you promote.

This issue cannot be dropped as some here seem to wish. It's central to the point of this new River Tax plan both fiscally and in trust.

Besides being a bad plan on its' own merit, it bait and switches a V2025 project for its' central theme. Remove the dams from the current proposal and there's nothing much left worth considering.

Which, I guess, is why some wish to drop it.