River vote...county sets rules

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

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

And then, here comes Wrinkle, apparently completely clueless as to what was posted before.  Bates knew it was matching funds, he's already admitted that.  On page 4.

No.  We can absolutely keep it up, some would like to talk about other things besides the craziness you're making up.  

Here's the V2025 descriptions, posted to the forum a couple months before the vote.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

We'll see if Bates wants more of this, you people keep bringing it up and I'll just have to keep swatting you down.  You didn't do your homework, so what?  Doesn't make you an idiot, but it's still your problem.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Keep it up, and watch more and more of Tulsa leave for the suburbs.

[Rico]

Pssst......Kenosha.... Still one maybe....
      For a mere
$453,592.40.......  or near as I can figure...

A very fair price for trying to keep an ice cube in hell from melting.
[}:)][][}:)]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

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

Nothing

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Question:

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

1. Citizen oversight. Real, everyday, go to work citizens who aren't big name friends o'politician/developer types. They don't have to be rednecks. Engineers, architects, sportsmen, boilermakers are fine as long as they aren't connected. Then make sure they have a pipeline to the media and can't run for public office during the 10yr period.

2. Public input via internet. Like what is set up in Fort Worth's Trinity project. If we're going to write a blank check to the county, the only way we can stop idiocy like the $30million pedestrian bridges or the lack of connectivity on the river, is to make sure they get feedback. Different ideas need to be seen, heard and digested in real time.  Remember, they can spend this money any way they please as long as its to develop the corridor and roughly fits the plan. We should be able to plug in new ideas (like they plug in different dam configurations) when they are offered. It should be a process we're buying, not a package.

3.I am real uncomfortable with three county commissioners running this whole show. Not sure that one can be changed but I can hold my nose for long periods if 1,2 and 4 are in place.

4. Some serious attention to issues of policing, rescue, maintenance, infrastructure, river debris cleanup and zoning. Not just condescending pap saying we got that stuff covered. We don't. Show me budgets that recognize the understanding that if the plan is successful in attracting the masses, that we are prepared for the impact.

We lost credibility by glossing over stuff in v-2025. The public doesn't trust because of that. I want river development. This is what it would take for me.

[MichaelC]

Well hell, if booworld is against it, count me in.  He's damn near always wrong. []

Actually, I'm currently residing somewhere in the vicinity of "the fence".

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

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

And then, here comes Wrinkle, apparently completely clueless as to what was posted before.  Bates knew it was matching funds, he's already admitted that.  On page 4.

No.  We can absolutely keep it up, some would like to talk about other things besides the craziness you're making up.  

Here's the V2025 descriptions, posted to the forum a couple months before the vote.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

We'll see if Bates wants more of this, you people keep bringing it up and I'll just have to keep swatting you down.  You didn't do your homework, so what?  Doesn't make you an idiot, but it's still your problem.

You're not keeping track very well.

I even said it was matching funds. It has nothing to do with the contention that the County pledged to complete ALL V2025 projects, even if it took collection overages.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Keep it up, and watch more and more of Tulsa leave for the suburbs.

It appears that's what our 'regional' government has in mind for Tulsa. All the more reason to stop the River plan proposed by the County. Tulsa needs to retain control of development of its' own portion of the river.

Remember, we already have 'water in the river'.

The last thing we need is the County deciding for us what gets built, who builds it and where it gets built (which may not be Tulsa at all).

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I even said it was matching funds. USIS was unable to verify within the allotted turn around period. Any information received will be forwarded.

Yeah, eventually you admitted it.  As did Bates.

Bates knew this before, during, and after the vote.  He's known this all along, I've known this all along.  You can string together whatever you want to, neither I nor Bates were under any delusion that this was anything more than matching.  If you were

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).

that's your problem.  I know your argument, it's the same BS technical argument Bates was using to push for charter change.  Banking on the fact that you don't know jack or squat about elections.  If you don't know, I'm not taking the time to explain it to you.  You're opposed to this to be opposed to it, I'm cool with that.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I even said it was matching funds. It has nothing to do with the contention that the County pledged to complete ALL V2025 projects, even if it took collection overages.

Yeah, eventually you admitted it.  As did Bates.

Bates knew this before, during, and after the vote.  He's known this all along, I've known this all along.  You can string together whatever you want to, neither I nor Bates were under any delusion that this was anything more than matching.  If you were

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).

that's your problem.  I know your argument, it's the same BS technical argument Bates was using to push for charter change.  Banking on the fact that you don't know jack or squat about elections.  If you don't know, I'm not taking the time to explain it to you.  You're opposed to this to be opposed to it, I'm cool with that.

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

You didn't say this on page 4?

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).

Bates didn't believe anything that you're claiming he believed.  He knew, as a matter of FACT, that it was matching funds only.  Contingent on federal matching funds.  

As for this so-called "promise" your touting, it's very much full of holes and I can show you where they are.  Bates walked away from this though, I'm not sure why you want to keep up that train of thought.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

I'd suggest being cool is not your forte'. Can't even get quotes right.

And, you seem to be the only one making stuff up. Besides putting words in others mouths. I've never said anything other than the $5.6 was matching.

Please save me the explainations.

You didn't say this on page 4?

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).

Bates didn't believe anything that you're claiming he believed.  He knew, as a matter of FACT, that it was matching funds only.  Contingent on federal matching funds.  

As for this so-called "promise" your touting, it's very much full of holes and I can show you where they are.  Bates walked away from this though, I'm not sure why you want to keep up that train of thought.

I'm pretty sure Bates can speak for himself.

So far, you've been all fluff and no meat. If you have a point, it be a good time to make it.

Contingent and dams are two words never used together in V2025.

And, as far as I've read to date, no one has suggested the $5.6m was anything but matching.

The difference here is only in the County's honor, doing what they said they would.

So far, they have failed miserably.

[Rico]

^

I think the bottom line is ..... Brainiacs... and that is not meant in a negative way..

May very well have known what the fine print of Prop. 4 V2025 said.

Does everyone feel that the Average Joe had a full understanding of the Prop. 4 fine print....?

In a way it brings to mind the "Voter Fraud" or suspected "Voter Fraud" that occurred in Florida....

Everyone should have known where to go to Vote and when....?

You have "Boss Hog" telling them that they have all the info wrong... "Go here not there..."

Point being....

I really am on no ones side here... but.. the Citizens of Tulsa County... IMHO thought they were getting one thing.

True maybe they should all have an IQ equivalent to SWAKE or MichaelC or Michael Bates.... Fact is they do not...

And saying they should have known what they were going to be paying the V2025 Tax for....
Just strikes me as a little right of dead center.

Everyone in Tulsa County.... for the most part.. pays Sales Tax..Is it all that wrong to want the Taxpayers to understand exactly what they are paying for..?

Buenas Noches Companeros........!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Contingent and dams are two words never used together in V2025.

And, as far as I've read to date, no one has suggested the $5.6m was anything but matching.

The difference here is only in the County's honor, doing what they said they would.

So far, they have failed miserably.

So, now, all of the sudden, everything you've ever read on this subject says "matching funds", BUT, they promised you exclusively they'd do it without matching funds.  That's the sum total of your argument?

Read the resolution again.  Absolutely nothing is guaranteed, it's all estimates and potential funding, it does not at all guarantee or promise you anything in regards to fully funding the construction of the dams.  Not fully funding, nor partially funding, nor funding on contingency.  Nothing.  This kind of thing is typical, maybe they needed to do something special for all the people who choose not to read up on these things.  But it was never more than match funding.  Currently, you, like Bates, are saying you've always been aware of this.  It's a 180, but I'd rather have you there than in complete denial.

[USRufnex]

Is it wrong to ask that persistent critics who still have an axe to grind in trying to re-defeat Vision2025 argue about the current proposal based on its own merits?... instead of re-hashing promises of Vision2025 that had to be adjusted since there were no federal matching funds and because of higher arena construction costs due to Katrina?

Vision2025 passed.  And it passed because it included the entire county.  The city wouldn't vote "yes" on either of Susan Savage's downtown-only proposals... all the while, downtown OKC is looking at downtown Tulsa through its rear-view mirror... I visited Tulsa and OKC on a regular basis in the 90s.

Vision2025 is far from perfect, but it's definitely a step in the right direction after years of  Still undecided on the "river tax" but leaning in favor after reading the naysayers' and conspiracy theorists' arguments against it.

Maybe some of you should move to a comparably sized city and watch the political shenanigans there before singling out Tulsa County officials because they failed to implement everything you thought you read in the fine print of Vision2025...

If you put in too many promises, the critics will point to the broken ones... if you are purposefully vague so the project can have more flexibility, the critics will accuse you of requiring "a blank check."  If you ignore the political chattering class, you'll be accused of not getting sufficient "local input."

My pet peeve... terminally negativist Tulsans with their can't-do-won't-do attitudes who consistently make the perfect the enemy of the good...