River vote...county sets rules

[cks511]

So, what happens if the vote is NO.  Does the Kaiser carrot go away?  All of it?  I'm feeling like such a hostage these days...first the Warren....i mean Channels, now Kaiser. Does it just boil down to the biggest baddest oil tycoon who get the tax abandoned by Boeing wins?

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

That's quite a statement.  Can you expand on the "half-assed crony-benefiting" part of this statement?  How is it "half-assed" and which "crony" is it benefiting (and how is it doing so)?  I'm not challenging the statement; I'm honestly curious.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

That's quite a statement.  Can you expand on the "half-assed crony-benefiting" part of this statement?  How is it "half-assed" and which "crony" is it benefiting (and how is it doing so)?  I'm not challenging the statement; I'm honestly curious.

It is "half-assed" in that there are much better ideas being come up with on what could be done with the river rather than tear down the Westport and build pedestrian bridges to nowhere.  We are told this is our only choice, or nothing else is coming.

It benefits cronyism because it is likely local construction interests, who are buddies with those nice fellows making the tax-writeoff, erm, I mean, donations, to the project - which stand to benefit.  These people that stand to benefit from the taxation of the public are VERY interested in influcing you and I to go vote YES for this authorization of more taxes.  It explains why most people are saying a new pedestrian bridge would be useless, but some "people" expressed interest in it at some planning meetings.  You don't think a local construction interest wanting to build a useless pedestrian bridge across a quarter mile river might have sent some people "interested" in a pedestrian bridge to a meeting?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

This vote is for half-assed crony-benefiting river development (with 50% less developer welfare than the Channels!)

My understanding is that these donations are from non-profit foundations. Non-taxable, non-profit foundations. So the argument that they are avoiding taxes is only true insomuch as they may have originally established for that purpose. Perhaps an accountant/cpa could note their requirements to disburse foundation earnings. Foundations generally have altruistic mission statements to achieve.

I object to people casting negatives like "cronyism" towards those who are involved with the program. Though some may benefit from PR or general business growth within the city, it is unfair and scurrilous to accuse them of insider activity. Simply put, little gets done without powerful, moneyed people or government money. They prime the pump. Show how someone is profitting directly and unfairly then you have a point.

My favorite part of the plan is the "living river". It will truly be a three mile active habitat open to the public. By recreating the natural life of a plaines river complete with meandering streams, sand bars, islands, vegetation, rapids, wildlife and the opportunity to walk or float through it, we will be giving the public a unique experience. This is really a big deal and somewhat overlooked by everyone.  The dams are inevitable. This part makes up for habitats that will be changed and makes good use of land as the surrounding land between 27th and 61st is not amenable to the same type development that Jenks land is.

With that in mind, the pedestrian crossings with gathering areas, start to make sense. Not everyone has the urge to be a part of the habitat but will still want to see the process and others involved. Since West Tulsa has shown little interest in a vehicle bridge (and the additional car traffic won't be missed) then the crossings can be useful for pedestrians/runners/cycling etc. Not my first choice for plan monies but one that upon reflection makes sense.

Look, with a plan this large not everything will be to each person's liking but like v2025, there is something for everyone to like.  There are still questions about the land acquisition, the v2025 overages, and the eventual operation of the corridor. But one cannot deny that the business growth effect on the entire county will be tremendous.

I hope for more explanation of the plan to the public in the coming weeks.

[perspicuity85]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you voted for the original vision 2025, how can you possibly vote against the river plan?  If you were willing to raise sales taxes 4/10 cent to give to Boeing, how can you not be willing to raise tax by the same amount to spur development on the river, and provide for a unique Tulsa attribute?  The Generation Y's and Millennials aren't going to stay in Tulsa or move into Tulsa if the city doesn't have a unique culture scene.  The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you voted for the original vision 2025, how can you possibly vote against the river plan?  If you were willing to raise sales taxes 4/10 cent to give to Boeing, how can you not be willing to raise tax by the same amount to spur development on the river, and provide for a unique Tulsa attribute?  The Generation Y's and Millennials aren't going to stay in Tulsa or move into Tulsa if the city doesn't have a unique culture scene.  The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

It's really quite easy...just blacken the bar on the "NO" portion of the ballot.

IF someone voted FOR Vision2025, then perhaps they think they've already been promised two dams and silt modifications to Zink Lake dam. Why vote for them again?

IAC, comparing the Boeing 0.4-Cent deal and this one is apples vs Volkswagons.

And, there's other reasons to not support this River Tax plan, like the new County Authority which would retain absolute authority over the river. All Cities would require County approval to do any river development within their own cities.

The County has stated ONE OPTION they have is to pass purchased parcels to cities who could then develop a TIF, while that can be done anyway, without the County as a middleman. And, it also remains only 'one option', with it remaining their choice as to whether it is actually done this way, or instead by one of the various 'other' means.

And, how about the fact that a COUNTY SALES TAX is not actually tied to real projects. The County can decide to do whatever they want with this money as long as they find a way to classify it as 'River Development'.

Then there's the fact that the County's 'plan' does not adhere to INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, especially as it relates to the 41st Pedestrian bridge they propose, in direct conflict with INCOG's plan for a combined vehicle/pedestrian bridge.

Since the County announced this sickly plan, they've been trying to figure out ways to spend all the money it would generate. This is due to really poor advanced planning, promotion and implimentation. It should fail on this count by itself.

I'm voting "NO RIVER TAX". But, it's not that I don't wish for development to occur on our River, rather the deal being promoted is lacking in almost every way.

Your logic defies gravity.
What makes you think Tulsa doesn't already have a 'unique culture [sic] scene'?

Where else can people go to see politics like this played out upon its' citizens?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

You're clearly an intelligent, sensible person.  Do you really think the river plan will turn out to be a boondoggle?

Far as I can tell, it includes four aspects:
1) River engineering with dreding and dams (signed off on by the Army Corps)
2) Major public parks creation and beautification.
3) Infrastructure improvements including Riverside Drive and new bridges
3) Funds to assemble small parcels of land to spur large public develeopment, which would otherwise occur outside the city limits (Tulsa Landing developer lined up, patiently waiting)

So . . . which one is the one that is a senseless expenditure destined for failure?  If you simply don't trust the municipal government to implement plans, that's one thing.  But at what point are you willing to hand over tax money?  Ever?  Quibble if you will with the details, but where's the massive boondoggle?  This ain't the Channels, brother.  THIS makes sense.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

No, I think really "oil capital" is afraid that Tulsa might do something new to outshine his beloved Oklahoma City.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

You're clearly an intelligent, sensible person.  Do you really think the river plan will turn out to be a boondoggle?

Far as I can tell, it includes four aspects:
1) River engineering with dreding and dams (signed off on by the Army Corps)
2) Major public parks creation and beautification.
3) Infrastructure improvements including Riverside Drive and new bridges
3) Funds to assemble small parcels of land to spur large public develeopment, which would otherwise occur outside the city limits (Tulsa Landing developer lined up, patiently waiting)

So . . . which one is the one that is a senseless expenditure destined for failure?  If you simply don't trust the municipal government to implement plans, that's one thing.  But at what point are you willing to hand over tax money?  Ever?  Quibble if you will with the details, but where's the massive boondoggle?  This ain't the Channels, brother.  THIS makes sense.

Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

The national percentage of total unemployed workers that have college degrees and/or complex job skills is increasing.  Today's highly educated/skilled workers are more willing to hold out for a job in a favorable location than ever before.  Cities with an unique urban dynamic are the most competitive in attracting these highly educated/skilled workers, which in turn attracts business seeking highly educated/skilled employees.  The job hunting process is far different than in past decades.  Tulsa needs to support initiatives that add value to its urban dynamic and distinguish it as a progressive city.

This is the favorite line of tax-funded boondoggle promoters all over the country.  Oddly, one never sees any actual evidence of this phenomenon actually occurring.  

We are to believe that millions of people are holding out for jobs only in the "cool" cities, such as Portland, San Francisco, Boston, etc.  And yet, the biggest job growths are occurring in the "non-cool" cities of D-FW, Houston, Atlanta, etc.  Seems odd, doesn't it?

Tax Funded Boondoggle Supporter here. Just call me TFBS for short. Hell, I'll support privately funded boondoggle's too. I just love the whole boondoggle concept.[]

Doesn't surprise me. Oil companies force current employees to follow them to Houston & DFW if they want to keep their jobs and progress up the ladder. And if you went to college in podunk USA, those cities may in fact seem cool. The Atlanta jobs may have to do with auto assembly plants.

The logic of Per's argument holds. If you have enough money to buy a Volvo and the sophistication to know why you should, then why would you be shopping for perfectly reasonable Honda's?

Since we can't keep the more mature workers who left for Texas, we can at least still try to get the younger ones who have some flexibility in job choices.

No.  The logic breaks down in your own "argument".  According to the logic presented, employees are now "refusing" to be forced to relocate to the less cool cities in order to get or keep their jobs.  And DFW and Houston (and Atlanta too, for that matter) are adding far more jobs than the numbers who are supposedly "forced" to relocate from Tulsa, and not all of those jobs are filled by "mature" people who have to keep their current jobs.

No, I think really "oil capital" is afraid that Tulsa might do something new to outshine his beloved Oklahoma City.

And once again, Swake shows his penchant to go for some ridiculous personal angle rather than to address logical arguments and facts.  Did I mention Oklahoma City?  In fact, I rarely, if ever, bring OKC into a discussion.  Did you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, Swake, or is it time for your Koolaid break?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital



Well, your one throwaway line in the middle of your response actually says it all.  Yes, indeed, I do not trust ANY of our local officials to implement the plans.  That is the one BIG thing that may make this a boondoggle of epic proportions.  Kathy Taylor, for one, is proving herself quite adept at boondoggles (see, eg, the city hall fiasco in progress).  Put the words "Randi Miller" and "Bell's Amusement Park" together in a sentence and the word "boondoggle" leaps immediately to mind.

Furhtermore, as to the boondoggleness of the River Plan, oh my, where to start?  I don't want to repeat this whole thread, but for starters:  --It doesn't follow the INCOG master plan, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason not to.  --There is the remaining stench of the fact that they at least "seemed" to promise the low water dams in the 2025 funding and now are promising them again.
-- The pedestrian bridge across the sewage plant's drainage fields
-- The undefined property acquisition plans for undefined future projects by undefined parties
-- "Major" new parks?  Where are the major new parks in the plan?  I must have missed that.
-- The rather undefined "gathering" places.  Will these be like the gathering place we built a couple years ago at 71st and Riverside?
-- The even more-undefined downtown connection to the river.
-- The mad dash to the ballot box.  This thing appears to have been thrown together in extreme haste.  We've waited how many years now for something to be done on the river.  Why do we have to throw something together at a moment's notice and rush it on to the ballot?

So you don't trust Tulsa officials to spend your money.  That's a reasonable ground to vote against new taxation.  I'll suggest, though, that whatever your quarrel with the current political leadership, this vote should transcend that.  It's important that everyone treat this vote as being about the Arkansas River, not the personalities surrounding it.  I think you're absolutely exaggerating the risk of failure in this project.  The broad outline seems very sound and is in keeping with the INCOG Master Plan.  I have a feeling that if it were any more detailed, you would take the time to find fault with all those details.  

Can't tell you about sewer fields.  I can tell you that if you've ever actually used the trails on the West Bank, you wished there were more connections to the East Bank in order to loop around more easily and create connections.  It's one thing to look at a map and not be pleased by the lack of orderly, SimCity style planning.  It's another thing to jog the trail and realize that you're not drowning in stench.  Seriously, it's a nonissue.  

Also, you answered your own question regarding new parks with your quibble about gathering spaces.  We're talking about new public areas.  If you want to say it's still Riverparks and so there's nothing new, fine.  Stick with your semantics.  I'll stick with the fact that it would be a massive injection of capital into the centerpiece of Tulsa's park system.  You can put a question mark behind it but that still doesn't make me see how that's destined to fail.  

I'm not even trying to change your mind, OC.  I read your posts.  I see your biases.  I know where you stand.  This discussion is for the benefit of those who read this forum and get confused by all the political baiting and rhetoric that gets thrown around.  You're going to vote against the plan because you don't trust those who will implement it.  I find this position fallible because while elected officials come and go, the plan itself is sound and the river needs it.  I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

[sauerkraut]

I favor this tax thing. I think fixing up the river front & jogging trails will make Tulsa a more attractive place to attract more investments. I wish Tulsa would build a full trail on the west bank of the River and extend the east side trail farther south. The RiverSide jogging trail from 81st street north needs a rebuild it's crumbling and old & narrow. Tulsa has it's  work cut out, no doubt about that. Here in Columbus, Ohio our mayor wants to add another 60 miles to our current jog/bike trail system & they plan to use alot of federal money to do it. They want to run trails along all our rivers and things like that, They want to extend our current 20 mile long Olentangy Bike/jog trail a few more miles and build some new trails.[]