River vote...county sets rules

[Vision 2025]

[/quote]
Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  
[/quote]

As happens to every other river around.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  [/quote]

As happens to every other river around.
[/quote]
This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

With maybe minor leaching issues or a rare out-of-permit discharge by Sun or Sinclair, the Arkansas river water is of the same health quality as what is impounded in Keystone Lake.

It's about the same as the reservoirs where our drinking water supply comes from:  Oologah and Spavinaw.

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

Let's see, the Arkansas River starts near Leadville, Colorado.  Picks up animal feces, fertilizers, hydrocarbons from about 800 miles of storm water run-off, treated waste stream effluent from several municipalities including Wichita, treated waste streams from a number of agri-producers and other industries all upstream of Keystone and picks up additional human waste and hydrocarbons in Keystone from boats and boaters.

No one thinks twice about jumping in the water at Keystone.  Okay, maybe a few of you do.

[waterboy]

It picks up all that stuff during those 100's of miles but it also deposits them along the way and mixes them with the other sources of water (rain, snow).

Great responses that match my experience on and in the river. I wouldn't worry to much about the animal feces. Nature deposits them everywhere. Especially in my front yard.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

As happens to every other river around.
[/quote]
This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I wouldn't worry to much about the animal feces. Nature deposits them everywhere. Especially in my front yard.

Really?  My neighbor's dog isn't named "Nature".  Her name is Algae- dead serious.  Odd since we are talking about water here.  [}:)]

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

As happens to every other river around.

This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.


[/quote]

The CSA (used to be called SMSA) is 950,000, but what's another quarter million people between friends....

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Because of run-off from storm water drains, creeks, ditches and tributaries, the Arkansas River carries animal feces, hydrocarbon pollutants from our streets, etc..  Our River gets the worst.  Every time it rains.  

As happens to every other river around.

This is the reason why my recycling drop-off centers now collect motor oil and anti-freeze seven days a week at all locations.

Animal feces are another big contributor to storm water runoff degradation, but I will probably not collect them. People think I am already full of feces as it is.
[/quote]

The hydrocarbons I was referring to are washed from the city streets, highways, driveways, and parking lots when it rains.  

It comes from cars.  Because we have 700,000 people in our SMSA, that's a lot of hydrocarbons, motor oil, antifreeze, etc. dripping from cars.


[/quote]

Probably picks up at least that much between Canon City, Co. and Cleveland, Ok.  It tends to disperse along the way.  It's nothing compared to the 1000 barrels of oil released at the refinery in Coffeyville last month, yet that had all dispersed within 30 to 40 miles of it's release and barely made it to the headwaters of Oologah.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

A TIFF could be, but would rob the city of the upside to the budget for a decade. Other than that I agree with, and there needs to some guarantee of a RFP on the land, and some city control.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by swake

Quote, from the Branson Landing developer about a "Tulsa Landing" project:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential. "I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

I find it every interesting that all the vote no people have completely ignored this quote, that basically Branson Landing needs public money, and this vote is likely the ONLY mechanism for it.

In saying "without it," did Huffman mean "without some funding mechanism" or "without this particular sales tax plan"?

I don't see why a TIF couldn't be used. And I don't see any guarantees in this ballot resolution (see first entry in this topic) that any of the money will be used to prep the 21st Street west bank area for private development.

A TIFF could be, but would rob the city of the upside to the budget for a decade. Other than that I agree with, and there needs to some guarantee of a RFP on the land, and some city control.

I'll remember that next time you or someone else cheer leads for yet another wasted TIF downtown.

[CoffeeBean]

I'd like to know exactly where this "river development" is supposed to occur.  East side, west side or both?  And where on the particular side?  Next to the existing refineries and sewage treatment plants? (West) Smack dab in the middle of the existing river parks? (East) The same park currently getting a $12 million bike and jogging trail?  Are we going to tear out the new trails if this thing passes?  

Has any developer said they would build on or next to land occupied by a refinery or sewage plant?  If so, I haven't seen it.  

Tulsa has a need for river development, but it needs to be more concrete than this plan.  

Unless and until the refineries are gone, this is nothing but an exercise in fantasy.  

Its the refinery, stupid.  No business in their right mind wants to open shop in the midst of gag reflex triggering sulfur discharge.  IMO, it really is that simple.

[YoungTulsan]

This vote will fail because the average Tulsan sees the River just as the poster above me does.  West Tulsa being a wasteland of warehouses, refineries, sewage, and unconnected confusing roads, it could not POSSIBLY have potential for development.  Atleast to about 95% of the county.

That and of course the views of the river as being some sort of toxic cesspool of nuclear waste (who cares that we don't have any sort of nuclear plant here)

The refineriers are not going anywhere.  The area around the 21st street bridge has some sort of buffer from the refineries, but the area around 41st to 51st is more prime.  61st to 81st is also great, skipping the water treatement plant and Turkey mountain.  It would take a little more vision and INFRASTRUCTURE (heaven forbid) to develop that area, but there it sits, far away from the refineries, all the while people claim that refineries are the reason we can't develop the river.

I realize even if the vote passed, it wouldn't develop the river in the way that it truly should.  This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

I'd like to know exactly where this "river development" is supposed to occur.  East side, west side or both?  And where on the particular side?  Next to the existing refineries and sewage treatment plants? (West) Smack dab in the middle of the existing river parks? (East) The same park currently getting a $12 million bike and jogging trail?  Are we going to tear out the new trails if this thing passes?  

Has any developer said they would build on or next to land occupied by a refinery or sewage plant?  If so, I haven't seen it.  

Tulsa has a need for river development, but it needs to be more concrete than this plan.  

Unless and until the refineries are gone, this is nothing but an exercise in fantasy.  

Its the refinery, stupid.  No business in their right mind wants to open shop in the midst of gag reflex triggering sulfur discharge.  IMO, it really is that simple.

Its supposed to be between 21st and 11th on the West side of the river. Probably taking up most of the property there from the Concrete plant to the West Port apartments, especially if they do a sports arena there which imo is very unlikely at this juncture.