River vote...county sets rules

[MichaelC]

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

[waterboy]

Rico makes a good point. You guys are so far removed from average citizens whom you expect to devote as much study and committment as you have and if not, just shut up and vote for it. Well, the rest of us childlike morons will be paying for your little oversights like expecting steel and concrete prices to stay flat, incompetent senators to not bring home the bacon or shortsighted planning that builds ponds with no connections for water taxis..."because no one asked for them". I assert it is your responsibility to convince us hourly working peons who don't have access to internet during the day, do actual physical work that puts us asleep before the 10pm news, that this is a trustworthy proposal. It is not our job to defend something so vague and reminiscent of past falsehoods.

Yet when specific complaints, and specific solutions are offered, no one responds to them because its a take it or leave it proposal. I'm pretty sick of offering insights, complaints, solutions and concerns only to be ignored or sniped at. WE ARE DEVELOPING A RIVER WITH NO PROSPECTS OF BOAT USAGE ON IT! That alone causes questions. The seeds are planted gentlemen. If you don't answer my stuff, others won't even respond.

Three of these four changes can actually be done and applied to this proposition. Naive as they are, they address concerns that people relay to me on my 45 visits per day to professional offices staffed with working taxpayers:

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, nurses, 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, the county 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 us 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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

I'm game.  Let me try again:

I wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases. AND, we already have a proposal in the works 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.

[brunoflipper]

i'm really starting to wonder what we're getting as well...
there is no commercial development...
there ourriveryes.com site looks like and advert for a giant park...
BFD...
i don't want a giant park, that is what we have now...
i want a park with signficant green-space, but i also want mixed-use... and i want it navigable, at least partially...



"I want a hamburger, no a cheeseburger, I want french fries..."

"YOU'LL GET NOTHING AT ALL AND LIKE IT!!!!"

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Honestly, I'm still digging up info on this.  I'm still a bit undecided.  It would be great if we could actually discuss the River Tax.

I'm game.  Let me try again:

I wish they would specifically explain the proposed real estate purchases. AND, we already have a proposal in the works 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.

I agree.

I do think the reason for need for public money is the lack of land. The land for The River District sold for $3 million and is twice the size of the land at 21st which will take something like $50 million to buy.

Also, sadly the demographics are better in Jenks and that creates a funding gap for developers that would need to be paid for, probably through a TIFF.

What is that gap? Well, the average lease rates need to be lowered for storefronts to encourage the right mix of stores to sign leases despite lesser projected sales due to demographics. Those lower rents need to be offset somewhere and it's not in construction costs, because infill development construction costs are actually usually higher and we don't want crap built.

I know all of this, but it hasn't been said and little has been really said about the commercial aspect at 21st and it needs to be. They need to come out with what the process for a request for proposal will be and what kind of standards will be set on build quality and types of businesses.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

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.

Are you saying that none of the projects listed in the resolution were guaranteed to be built? There's no special language in the resolution that singles out the dams as non-guaranteed.

The language in the ballot resolution this year is almost identical to that used for 2025. Are the dams non-guaranteed this time, too?

As Wrinkle noted, if you take the current package, take out the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications that were promised as part of Vision 2025, you're not left with much.

If you also take out the projects that aren't included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (the pedestrian bridges, "downtown connector" and the "living river"), all that remains is this:

quote:Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

I don't see the words 21st Street or 23rd Street or west bank anywhere in that. There's no official commitment to spend any of that $57.4 million to facilitate development in the City of Tulsa.

(Of course, in MichaelC's world, words don't have concrete meaning anyway, so what does it matter?)

While I can see the need to have county-wide coordination on the series of dams, I think anything that has to do with private development on the riverbank should be left to the individual cities to plan, fund, and regulate.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

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.

Are you saying that none of the projects listed in the resolution were guaranteed to be built? There's no special language in the resolution that singles out the dams as non-guaranteed.

The language in the ballot resolution this year is almost identical to that used for 2025. Are the dams non-guaranteed this time, too?

As Wrinkle noted, if you take the current package, take out the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications that were promised as part of Vision 2025, you're not left with much.

If you also take out the projects that aren't included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (the pedestrian bridges, "downtown connector" and the "living river"), all that remains is this:

quote:Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

I don't see the words 21st Street or 23rd Street or west bank anywhere in that. There's no official commitment to spend any of that $57.4 million to facilitate development in the City of Tulsa.

(Of course, in MichaelC's world, words don't have concrete meaning anyway, so what does it matter?)

While I can see the need to have county-wide coordination on the series of dams, I think anything that has to do with private development on the riverbank should be left to the individual cities to plan, fund, and regulate.

This post is a great example of what is wrong here.

Many of the people who are so outraged today at the river plan are the same people that were outraged by vision 2025. The main tack of the arguments against 2025 at the time of the vote fell into two groups.

The first, and most vocal was the group that put up all the signs around town that said "Do The River First", do you really think these people were duped into thinking that the river was going to completed by 2025 alone? The signs prove otherwise.

The second group of the outraged was led by Mr Bates, and this doom and gloom crowd said over and over that business and employers would not move to a city with such a high sales tax rate. My argument at the time was that sales tax impact consumers and to some small extent retailers, not business and employers. At the time of the 2025 vote unemployment was up, population was falling in both the city and the metro and per capita income was plummeting. Was Mr Bates correct in his prognostication? Since then job and income growth have been among the best in the entire nation, population growth has been resumed in the city and has been relatively strong in the metro. So on this count, we can safely say this group was way, way off base.

The money for the low water dams in 2025 was just one item of three for the river. The river itself was just one of a about a dozen items that were being voted on together, which was again just one of four votes that voters had to choose on for 2025. It was a small line item that was easily entirely lost on the voter, as evidenced by the "Do The River First" signs.

I'm personally outraged that we can't debate the merits and flaws of the plan and cost, it's ended up all about accusations and innuendo. It's downright depressing that it's all degenerated to this.

[MichaelC]

Sorry, I have to Bates back in his hole.  It'll only take a second.

quote:While the cost estimates shown above are believed to be accurate, it must be recognized that the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, that all projects shall be
completed as funds are made available. If the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma, determines that all of the projects listed above will be completed with
existing and projected funds and that excess funds will be available for additional projects,
such excess funds shall be expended for capital improvements for community enrichment
(which does not include appropriation of any such funds to any other entity for such purpose),

It's intended, and believed to be doable within estimate.  As projected funds, are made available.  Those are concrete enough.  But in Batesy's world, everyone personally promised him that by God if funds ran out the Talons would be forced to play in half built stadium.  Nothing is guaranteed, except Bates picking and choosing.  

You knew beforehand that on the dams "the exact cost of each project may vary from the estimate shown."  What's your excuse?

[waterboy]

Swake: I don't agree with your foundation but the result is true. I voted for three of the four items. I think I passed on the Boeing part. There was much anger among my contacts that the Arena became the focus even though no one seemed to have supported it during the planning process. Admittedly, I ran in a pro-river group. I just didn't see the two groups you define.

Now its up to you and the other river project supporters to change the subject or ignore more discussion of minutae from v2025. It suits anti-forces to keep up that dialogue. I have seen lots of questions and comments, some directed to Crowe that simply were ignored or sniped. That adds fuel to the fire too.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

My position hasn't changed from V2025 election day. It appears that it's just today you finally get it. But, that's no guarantee.

You are correct on one thing: "Absolutely nothing is guaranteed", just as in the current River Tax proposal which duplicates the language of V2025.

Sales Tax is the revenue guarantee, not the projects. Projects only have the County's word that they will do what they said they would. In the case of V2025, they haven't. Why would we expect they might now?

The current plan is more about power than projects anyway. The County wants this new Authority over all the cities in the County. And, nothing would be more wrong for Tulsa.

The dams are the vehicle by which they are attempting to achieve that end, in spite of earlier promises.

Remove the dams from the current proposal and it's mostly cash to be spent at their discretion. But, then, the dams aren't guaranteed in the current proposal either.

If the County were serious, they'd write a Bond Issue after having issued an RFP for quotes on dams and tie revenue to the dam projects.

Even then, Sales Tax for the County is conceptually incorrect since it reduces the margin available to Cities for their own use (and, being the ONLY means Cities can use, while the County has bonding and ad valorem as their normal means).

There's just not much in the current proposal which fills any need.

Try this. Do a word search in the current proposal for "Master Plan". You'll soon discover it's not even in there. That's because the County's proposal includes provisions which do not conform the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, the thing we've spent years and millions developing, with much public imput. That's what people want. But, the County knows better, I guess, than experts in planning, rivers, water, etc.

Like I said, it's not about projects, it's about power. And, would also include control of the South Yale TOLL BRIDGE, which the City currently remains opposed.

There's nothing in the current River Tax proposal the County is offering, or I want.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

^


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....?

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

I'm still rubbing sheep hair out of my eyes.

Other part is, everyone at the time, (including Bob Dick and Mike Keir) and even now says the revenue projections were conservative.  Use overages from the existing voter-approved tax and they can do what they originally promised in the V-2025 plan.  This is what is being over-looked in all the "Bates knew this..." rhetoric.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

[Conan71]

After three puff pieces in the Tulsa World yesterday about how great the river plan is, this morning's World raises an important and stinky issue.  

The sewage treatment plant south of I-44 and the sludge drying beds at 71st. St.  

Estimated costs to do something like moving the plant further south to mitigating the stench seems to run in the $50mm to $500mm range.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070822_1_A1_hSmel63665

I was really quite surprised at the timing.  I wonder if Bobby Lorton knew about this story coming out.  If not, I'm guessing some things were thrown around and broken in his office this morning.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

I'm not saying I do remember what was and wasn't in the media back then, I didn't even when it's been linked to here.  Anything which can be easily found on the V-2025 info site doesn't make reference to it.

I'm too used to "legal contracts" I guess where everything is spelled out.  Perhaps I'm a total dip-**** for viewing a ballot as a legal document between the government and the voter.  Therin lies the reason I don't intend to vote for this package, unless there is very, very clear wording what is and isn't included and what the contingencies are.

IMO, the county has a responsibility to the voters to outline the fine print in their official documents and the media can glean the details and present it.  Interviews with elected officials and beaurocrats is not sufficient to satisfy the obligation of trust on a proposition.  

The county should not be relying on the media to make all details clear when it's not even in the printed documentation released by the issuing authority nor on the ballot.

FWIW- I've tried to re-start this on the project.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

After three puff pieces in the Tulsa World yesterday about how great the river plan is, this morning's World raises an important and stinky issue.  

The sewage treatment plant south of I-44 and the sludge drying beds at 71st. St.  

Estimated costs to do something like moving the plant further south to mitigating the stench seems to run in the $50mm to $500mm range.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070822_1_A1_hSmel63665

I was really quite surprised at the timing.  I wonder if Bobby Lorton knew about this story coming out.  If not, I'm guessing some things were thrown around and broken in his office this morning.

and it gets even better... according to the article, the "planned [61st street] pedestrian bridge [goes] right across our sewer overflow basin".  Great planning!  [B)]