River vote...county sets rules

[Conan71]

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

he is too busy eating crow from the "we haven't broken any promises" speech.

[Conan71]

I invited him over to the river threads after he lit into me over my comments about American Airlines' waste water treatment plant being built with V-2025 funds- which I don't see as something that would have created quality jobs other than keeping the payroll current at Crossland Heavy or Flintco.

All I can think of is Sgt. Hulka:



"I didn't think you had it in you. You gut-less.....punk."

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The crust of the biscuit:

In addition, such public trust shall approve any deletion or addition of projects from those listed above and any major change in scope of any such project following a public hearing by such trust.

[]

Same wording they had about the low water dams in 2025. When did they have the "public hearing by such trust" in that instance?

The vision Authority has only met twice and yes they I do believe they had a public hearing on it.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Have I glossed over something or has the V2025 leader who posts here been neglecting to chime in with better information than we have been sharing with each other.

You'd think since he trolls this forum he'd at least have something to say on the tax and what was or wasn't originally promised.  Arnett's been pretty silent as well.

he is too busy eating crow from the "we haven't broken any promises" speech.

Sorry been a bit busy, took a little vacation (just when the River threads got going) and then thanks to a software upgrade I had a site password problems until late yesterday, and then earlier today, well it was getting close to Arnett's feeding time (and we all know he gets cranky he can get) and the well you know how it is, you put it off and then the store was all out of fresh ground democrat so I had to run all over town just to find some...  

Oh and there is an "e" on the end of Crowe, thank you very much.  Sorry, I'll stick to projects and leave humor to the appropriate professionals.

So what questions can I address for the fine members of this forum on the River proposal, or questions related to the River in general.

I'll do my best?

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I invited him over to the river threads after he lit into me over my comments about American Airlines' waste water treatment plant being built with V-2025 funds- which I don't see as something that would have created quality jobs other than keeping the payroll current at Crossland Heavy or Flintco.

All I can think of is Sgt. Hulka:



"I didn't think you had it in you. You gut-less.....punk."

Please accept my apology and check your PM's

[Rico]

Sure...... I'll make it short..

What good is it..?

Sell us....!

[YoungTulsan]

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

[Conan71]

Not trying to be on the attack.  Some of us just want simple answers.

A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?

What's pissing a lot of people off right now is we are getting double-talk out of the county that LWD's were not promised, that this was just study money, etc. etc.   That's not at all what the proposition had to say about it.

I realize hindsight is 20/25 [] and that the dreamliner never materialized.  I believe I read originally that Spirit (nee Boeing) was going to recieve $250mm as an incentive to bring that project to town.  I saw economic development as a very respectible goal which, in this case, would have benefitted every community in Tulsa Co. and even a few surrounding counties.  But what happens in 15 years when that project dries up and we have another liquidation of employees like McDonnell-Douglas in the late '80's early '90's?

In light of that, do you think it might be wise in the future, instead of earmarking so much "corporate welfare" to one or two large employers to using it for ED districts which could incubate more small business and provide the type of amenities that some Tulsan's say are needed to make Tulsa a destination city?

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)

What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access?  I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75.  What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites.  If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.   I understand the SW Chamber has endorsed a pedestrian bridge at this site.

Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.  People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it.  Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

The City could do river development, but I offer a few observations of my own:  

They haven't, since the early 1980's.

The City still has not taken any action to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development to the River on what had be already been identified and adopted by the City Council as a river development site in both the River Vision plan (phase 1 study) and in the Corridor Master Plan (Phase 2 study).  Yes, there is some zeal for River development at the City but not universally and the County by proven experience is a bigger picture entity.  Additionally, the County appears to be a good way to avoid conflict with other development interests active in the City.  

Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor?  Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor?  Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail.  In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there.  

Lastly, I understand the promoters of the package evaluated many options, approaches, and determined the County and the authority to be created to be the best method and it requires the least time for the tax to run to accomplish the plan.  

[Rico]

"What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)"

^
Suppose you could post a copy of the "amended resolution"........?

Originally posted by Conan71.
"A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?"


^
The answer to this would go quite a ways to define the approximate "time limit" for the proposed tax.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Can't we do better than a blank check with virtually no restrictions?

Wouldn't a 41st street auto bridge make more sense than sealing the place off with a QuikTrip recreational center (which could be moved slightly out of the way of directly blocking West Tulsa's only hope of seamlessly linking into Midtown Tulsa) ?

Are pedestrian bridges a good investment of public money?

Couldn't the city handle Tulsa river development without getting the County in control of more and more of our money?

What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)

What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access?  I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75.  What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites.  If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.   I understand the SW Chamber has endorsed a pedestrian bridge at this site.

Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.  People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it.  Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

I have driven all of these streets in the West Tulsa wasteland between 75 and the River as well.  In fact, extensively, not just one visit to size up the area.  The bridge across 41st street would make the now-industrial/warehouse type areas feasible to develop into something else.  Everything south of 41st street could eventually be rehabilitated into greatness.  The refinery poses a problem to the north of 41st.  The west bank south of the refinery to I-44 could be prime real estate if it were rehabbed and given access to midtown with a bridge.  A pedestrian bridge with nothing else being added to that portion of West Tulsa does indeed go to nowhere.  There already is a pedestrian bridge at 31st.  You walk to the west side, then do a U-turn and walk right back?  Splendid.

41st street crossing US-75 is not a very prohibitive interchange.  It doesn't kill the flow off like you suggest, infact it is a very peaceful spot.  You do have a big problem to the west where 244/SW Blvd/etc all blockade 41st's trek towards Red Fork.  That would need to be dealt with if the 41st River bridge went in.  Imagine how all of the communities would benefit if there was a smooth travel down 41st from Prattville to TCC to Red Fork to Brookside to OU/Promenade to points east.

That chunk of West Tulsa is salvageable.  If you rule out the 41st auto bridge, it probably will never be salvaged.

What you do:

Move warehouse/industrial land to where the houses backing the refinery currently sit.  People do not deserve to live next to a refinery, and thus probably have trouble moving out because no one will buy.  The refinery isn't moving any time soon.  Buy out the homes there.  Make that area a buffer.  The more warehouses and truck yards the better.  That buffer between the refinery and a thriving 41st street corridor with restraunts, retail, etc, will make the land SOUTH of 41st viable for other things than warehouses like it currently has.  New residential/apartment/mixed use stuff.  They could have plenty to do if the west bank of the river is developed with parks, a riverwalk, a branson landing type development, or whatever.  There is room over there, especially if you buffered the refinery, for a sports stadium, baseball, soccer, you name it.  You could even have an amusement park there, if it werent for all the warehouses and lack of street access.  Still can't picture that being a viable place for new living development?  To the south of this, you have Cherry Creek.  Cherry Creek flows through this area and could be developed like the great ideas flowing in the Creek/Tributary development thread.  It would also serve as another buffer for what I am calling the redevelopment area - on the south and west sides of it against I-44 and US-75.

So this redevelopment area, set back from the refinery, with a buffer of a thriving 41st street corridor, perhaps development on Elwood, a developed riverfront with parks/events/etc, and a Cherry Creek development on the south and west edges, I would dare say could be turned into some of the most desireable land in Tulsa, if a few things were set into motion.

I know none of this would happen overnight, and that vision could probably take a couple of decades to materialize, but a decision TODAY to obstruct the 41st street auto bridge would virtually kill any possibility of this area ever turning around.

I made a map of what I am talking about.  Sorry for the cluttered image, I threw it together quickly.  Probably shouldnt have used the satellite image.

The green redevelopment area would be prime.  Dark blue is Cherry Creek.  Yellow are the 41st and Elwood corridors that could have shops and restraunts to service the Redevelopment area/Cherry Creek areas.  The Red area is where the poor folks living in the shadow of the refinery would get buyouts, and the land then re-used as industrial/warehouse/trucking type interests.

[YoungTulsan]

As for pedestrian bridges, I wouldnt complain if the 41st auto bridge also had pedestrian, or perhaps could upgrade to pedestrian once the west side of the river took off.  A better idea in my eyes, would be for pedestrian bridges over RIVERSIDE, so people walking from Brookside to Riverparks wouldnt have to dodge cars hurtling down the autobahn at 50-60mph.  Riverside itself is getting close to needing to be redone/repaved.  Why not do it up 71st street style with landscaping, extra lanes, and dedicated left turn  lanes (every 2 blocks instead of letting every st. and pl. drive right into Riverside).  Adding more lanes and giving it a smooth ride isnt going to help the walkability, I understand, so put in a pedestrian overpass every 1/2 mile or so, as well as a decent sidewalk on the east side of the road.  (trails on the west side of the road cover that side)

You could probably cover all of riverside with pedestrian bridges for the cost of one going across that giant river.

[rwarn17588]

YoungTulsan, this is an intriguing idea that I'm not going to dismiss.

Take a look at this Google Maps image:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tulsa,+OK&ie=UTF8&ll=36.104422,-96.021452&spn=0.001868,0.003648&t=h&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1

As you've noted, the tricky part would be to make the 41st Street contiguous in the Southwest Boulevard area.

But if you draw a straight line east before 41st Street curves into the railroad tracks, it would just about intersect with 41st Street / Southwest Boulevard on the other side of the tracks.

This would not affect the historical Red Fork buildings. A new road would have to be built over I-244, but since it's already been done, this wouldn't be difficult. You'd have to rejigger the stoplights on the intersection, but that shouldn't be a big problem, either.

The little jog on 41st that goes north to Southwest Boulevard could be converted into right-turn only lane for those wanting to drive north on Southwest.

There is a utility bridge going over I-244, but I don't think this would be a problem, either.

The railroad tracks are used only by the Sapulpa Railroad. I see that slow-moving train only a few times a year, so it wouldn't be much of a traffic hazard, either.

Interesting side note: According to old maps I consulted, 41st Street on the west side was never contiguous until that railroad overpass was built. Before, you'd get on 40th Place, drive over the tracks, which then would turn into 40th Street.

Also, that little S-curve on Southwest Boulevard in that area has always been there.

[waterboy]

That is a great plan YT. I have explored that area along the river bank from the soccer fields to Cherry Creek. It is as you describe, prime. Moving warehouse/industrial closer to the refinery and I-75 entrances makes sense too. Those homes are not marketable except to other refinery workers.

The problem I see is ironically one of vision. It took people with intimate experience with the area and a reverence for it to concieve the potential you point out. Unfortunately, this input and reverence was not seen during the V2025 process. It still isn't. As Crowe says (like its gospel): "Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan .... People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it." (whatever that means)

I suppose if the most requested features were giant Pez dispensers in the image of SpongeBob spewing fish we would be planning $30million worth of plastic hinged fountains. They encouraged uninformed public input from folks who had more time than insight and chose the ones they knew they could do or had already planned. So we're stuck with McDonalds views of development and incongrous defenses (the pedestrian bridges that the public demanded messed up the cost projections of the low water dams?!) No one is demanding pedestrian bridges in tulsa. Nobody. They don't use the one in Jenks (with no traffic), the one in tulsa is populated with immigrant fishermen who may not even be here by the time we update the dam. Maintenance efforts keep have kept it closed for extended periods the last few years. There is little or no security along the half mile across the river so add policing to the plan or plan for no decent folks using them. Hey, maybe along with maintenance, the angelic foundation contributors could fund security along these attractive nuisances! Afterall with all the heavy usage by tourists who love to spend their time and money traversing stagnant ponds on contrived pedestrian walkways, we'll need someone to protect the employees who scoop up the money. Its like these plans were devised by people who visited but do not use the river parks area.

I could rant forever. Mr. Crowe, I suggest you read the threads where we have discussed these issues, then respond one by one.

edit:those recent topics include-
River Vote
Elm Creek...other tributary
How will you vote on River Tax
River Tax hike vote set
River Plan-Public Infrastructure