River vote...county sets rules

[TheArtist]

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.

DFW, Houston, Atlanta, may not be the "cool" cities like  Austin or Denver, as we see it, but they sure as heck have a lot more cool factor and areas than Tulsa does. Plus Austin and Denver are doing better than Tulsa in a lot of ways, average wages, health, poverty levels, etc. etc.  Houston and Atlanta may be "less cool", and thats very debatable, but they are still waaay more "cool" than Tulsa with a lot more to do, more amenities, more great urban lifestyle areas to live in,...  Most of my friends who have moved from Tulsa have moved to the Dallas FortWorth area. I know people on here complain about their traffic and sprawl, just like we complain about the bad roads here. But again, at least in Dallas there are some great,fun,hip, areas to live in, where there are lots of other young professional types to hang out with. You can find an energy and lifestyle in all of those places you just cant find, to any real extent, here. We are getting there and its precisely because people here have a vision and want to see our city get better and not just coast along as usual. I am proud of Tulsa for that, and am excited and hopeful that we can regain that energy and zeal. This river plan is just one more piece, one important section, in larger picture. On the one hand we look to other cities for inspiration and ideas. But this river plan isnt going to be like Fort Worths, or San Antonio or Austin, or any where else. Its going to take an underutilized assett and make it into something unique and very much a point of interest and identity for Tulsa. If this thing passes, and all the things go as planned, our mental map and picture of what this city is, is going to change a lot. Its almost like we cant see it, because we dont have it and arent used to thinking of the river like we will.  I think its going to add more to, and change the identity of, this city more than I bet most  people can realize.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Originally posted by Oil Capital



 I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

Well said. I wonder how many others detect a sense of misogyny in many of the remarks being made about trust, leadership and competence.

The only place I see the plan diverging from the master plan is the elimination of the 41st street traffic bridge and it can be added later. But it is a plan and changes to plans are always necessary.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Originally posted by Oil Capital



 I hope others see through the "no tax" posturing and realize that those opposing river development are really just opposing Taylor and Miller.

Well said. I wonder how many others detect a sense of misogyny in many of the remarks being made about trust, leadership and competence.

The only place I see the plan diverging from the master plan is the elimination of the 41st street traffic bridge and it can be added later. But it is a plan and changes to plans are always necessary.

Misogyny?  Give us a freaking break.  FWIW, I think all three of Tulsa's last three mayors have been disasters.  Furthermore, the very worst person on the public scene in Tulsa IMO is Mr. Himmelfarb.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

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.

No, my opposition is NOT just a "no tax" posturing, and it is not just opposing Taylor and Miller.  To say that is to conveniently ignore most of my post.

Look, I think there are a number of "nice-to-have" items in the plan.  IMO, the river parks need a lot of improvement, but I think you are kidding yourselves to think that this plan, even when combined with the new arena, etc is going to have any substantial impact on the number of advanced degreed individuals who want to stay in or move to Tulsa.  

IMO, the money could be much better spent elsewhere.  

We keep taking these scattershot approaches, developing a tiny bit of coolness here in the Brady District, another tiny bit in the Blue Dome District, another tiny bit in the East End (whoops never mind, that's now going to be the antithesis of cool, Wal-Mart), another tiny bit in Brookside, another tiny bit in Cherry Street, another tiny bit in Jenks. We're trying to develop another "cool" area in the Pearl District.  

And now we want to add another tiny bit on the river banks, including housing, etc etc.  There are only so many people in a city like Tulsa that are interested in that "cool" urban lifestyle. None of these new areas are likely to be able to reach a good solid critical mass necessary to succeed if we don't focus our efforts.

We already have a downtown that is mightily struggling to add some residential base and retail base, and to be a gathering place for Tulsans; and now we are being encouraged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create more non-downtown gathering places and encourage more non-downtown urban retail and urban housing.  Really, a lot of the same issues that I had with the Channels (which was, incidentally, promoted primarily by a man AFIK;  So much for Waterboy's ridiculous accusation of mysogyny)

Can we please focus and get one thing done and done well, before running off to attempt another?


Just a footnote:  If history is any guide, this is clearly to much to hope for... Nevertheless, it sure would be refreshing if people on this forum stopped the constant attacks on motives and personal attacks, and focused instead on the information, facts, and arguments presented.

[TheArtist]

I think the river is but one more piece to an over all picture. Downtowns slow revitalization, including the Brady and Blue Dome Districts. The growth of our new Colleges including TCC Metro and OSU Tulsa downtown and TU's continuing growth. The river itself will have several new attractive features. Hopefully some great development on the west bank. The "cool factor" of the living river with its kayaking and boating, and the piers, enhanced parks, the lakes. And the River District in Jenks with coupled with everything else there is a great addition to Tulsa.  

All of these things are really going to anchor Tulsa. All of these things are going to make a big difference. All of these things are new, growing, and changing the face of Tulsa and will have an effect on the entire area. More opportunities, more possibilities, more life, more things to do. All together, I think its an exciting time to be in Tulsa. The next few years have the potential to see great things happen. THAT energy and growth will indeed entice people to Tulsa and the Tulsa area. for goodness sakes, this isnt a time of doom and gloom.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

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.

No, my opposition is NOT just a "no tax" posturing, and it is not just opposing Taylor and Miller.  To say that is to conveniently ignore most of my post.

Look, I think there are a number of "nice-to-have" items in the plan.  IMO, the river parks need a lot of improvement, but I think you are kidding yourselves to think that this plan, even when combined with the new arena, etc is going to have any substantial impact on the number of advanced degreed individuals who want to stay in or move to Tulsa.  

IMO, the money could be much better spent elsewhere.  

We keep taking these scattershot approaches, developing a tiny bit of coolness here in the Brady District, another tiny bit in the Blue Dome District, another tiny bit in the East End (whoops never mind, that's now going to be the antithesis of cool, Wal-Mart), another tiny bit in Brookside, another tiny bit in Cherry Street, another tiny bit in Jenks. We're trying to develop another "cool" area in the Pearl District.  

And now we want to add another tiny bit on the river banks, including housing, etc etc.  There are only so many people in a city like Tulsa that are interested in that "cool" urban lifestyle. None of these new areas are likely to be able to reach a good solid critical mass necessary to succeed if we don't focus our efforts.

We already have a downtown that is mightily struggling to add some residential base and retail base, and to be a gathering place for Tulsans; and now we are being encouraged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create more non-downtown gathering places and encourage more non-downtown urban retail and urban housing.  Really, a lot of the same issues that I had with the Channels (which was, incidentally, promoted primarily by a man AFIK;  So much for Waterboy's ridiculous accusation of mysogyny)

Can we please focus and get one thing done and done well, before running off to attempt another?


Just a footnote:  If history is any guide, this is clearly to much to hope for... Nevertheless, it sure would be refreshing if people on this forum stopped the constant attacks on motives and personal attacks, and focused instead on the information, facts, and arguments presented.

Its not ridiculous. Have you not seen the names they call Taylor and Miller? And don't get me started about "Hillary". They are indeed sexist, demeaning and personal. There is still an undercurrent in Oklahoma of macho attitudes that don't respect women in positions of power. If you haven't participated, well good for you and my apologies but that's the crowd your remarks identify you with.

The Channels btw was heavily supported by Miller.

[Double A]

I don't have any respect for women that portray themselves as strong accountable leaders and then play the victim, pass the buck, and point fingers instead of, excuse the expression, manning up to their mistakes. I question the integrity of any self respecting feminist that would co-sign that B.S. and squeal misogyny, quite frankly.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I don't have any respect for women that portray themselves as strong accountable leaders and then play the victim, pass the buck, and point fingers instead of, excuse the expression, manning up to their mistakes. I question the integrity of any self respecting feminist that would co-sign that B.S. and scream misogyny, quite frankly.

You've never had a problem with being frank. Your problem is with spouting off without preparation and relying on name calling. You call her Krazy Kathy and Da Mare both with sexist connotations. Manning up?! Case closed.

You say stuff like she is "portraying" herself as having all those manly characteristics like "strong", "accountability' and "leader"  then accuse her of weakness. Stuff right out of the neo-con playbook written by Gingrich. Weakness? Like proposing the first move of city hall since the 60's. Strength? This is a leader who challenged the county leadership on fairgrounds annexation and won. Accountability? This woman faced the TPD and held off its GOB authority even in the face of personal lawsuits. Did she blame someone else for having chosen the wrong man for Police Chief? Not yet. She's taking the heat.

Do I think she made all the right decisions, no. But you can't say the crap you guys are passing off with a straight face unless, you just don't like strong women. Man, if you're a democratic leader then the party has been corrupted.

[Double A]

No, with Kathy Taylor as a "Democratic" Mayor the party has been corrupted.  Please explain how is Krazy is misogynistic? BTW, what were the sexist connotations when I was calling Lafortune Da Mare. She sure seems to be pointing fingers at Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson, blaming them for the fallout from her mistake. BTW, you forgot Kathy "KKKrony" Taylor and Randi "Brain Candy" Miller, add those to your list.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

No, with Kathy Taylor as a "Democratic" Mayor the party has been corrupted.  Please explain how is Krazy is misogynistic? BTW, what were the sexist connotations when I was calling Lafortune Da Mare. She sure seems to be pointing fingers at Roscoe Turner and Jack Henderson, blaming them for the fallout from her mistake. BTW, you forgot Kathy "KKKrony" Taylor and Randi "Brain Candy" Miller, add those to your list.

Keep digging that hole. You don't have to have a formal education AA to be informed and enlightened. Just open yourself to the thought that you may be wrong. It will free you from dogma.

Da Mare. A mare is a female horse. Horses are the dumbest animals on earth. They are work animals that are prided for their beauty but not their brains.

Krazy Kathy. Yeah, those dumb blondes that drive like crazy people, say the craziest things and well...do crazy stuff on Girls Gone Wild. Crazy: mentally deranged, impractical, foolish, infatuated, intensely enthusiastic.

KKKrony- Are you implying she's a racist? Have you no shame? Based on what two black counselors say? Turner and Henderson went public immediately because they are politicians that have a very well defined, poorly treated constituency that they go to church with on Sunday and meet with everyday, every hour. They aren't the best that community could put forward. If they were so smart, why didn't they meet with the mayor during this long period of deliberation over a new police chief and make their desires known? Let her know what absolutely would not be tolerated? You know, like work as a team? And then they punish her by coming out against the river project? No, they're too busy doing what you're doing. Inflating their own importance and electability at the expense of the public. How do you like the idea of paying these dull swords $40K a year like Henderson proposes?

Randy "brain candy" Miller- How do you not see the sexist, misogyny in those words? Here's how, you are so wrapped up in establishing your own self importance as the banner carrier for the noble impoverished laborer that you haven't analyzed your own motives and behaviors. I have met and talked with Ms. Miller and I assure you though we disagree on many things, she is no air head. Ambitious, party regular, gregarious, yes. Like any politician she has made some bad decisions but has managed her role better than you could have.

You are a pseudo Democrat. At least some of the others around here make clear their misanthropic views without apology. Some are ardent Republicans who can defend their positions. Some make clear they dislike both parties. I have no argument with their choices though I may argue their solutions. But you chose a weak party (in this city anyway) where you could build yourself up at the expense of others who actually are trying to run the city.

Just stop it.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

 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?

Where's your marketing research support for your claim that young professionals do not find Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, or Atlanta cool?  The fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the country is Las Vegas, I guess Vegas isn't cool either...

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

 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?

Where's your marketing research support for your claim that young professionals do not find Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, or Atlanta cool?  The fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the country is Las Vegas, I guess Vegas isn't cool either...

That sounds like some report with a liberal slant. The best/coolest cities are the ones in the SunBelt... Las Vegas and Phoenix are the nations fastest growing cities. Cities in Texas cities are booming, Atlanta is booming as are many cities in FL.... Most People like to live in warm mild and sunny climates while cold & cloudy cities like Portland or Boston are not attracting that many people. JMO, thanx.

[TheArtist]

Sometimes it seems as though we oversimplify these things a bit. Yes we want young professionals to help our growth. But there are other factors involved. I dont think anyone here wants to be like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Growth and sprawl purely for growth and sprawls sake isnt want I want thats for sure. Sure we want growth and opportunity, but we also want a city that has better lifestyle, higher wages,better health, lower crime. Fastest growing cities dont necessarily equate to "best growing".

What kind of jobs do we want to grow in the city? Low wage low tech, high wage high tech?How can we help good companies get good educated people to move or stay here?

What kind of people, and taxpayers, do we want to attract and keep in the city. Poor and uneducated or wealthy, educated, young people? Its hard to do suburban growth inside Tulsa anymore. Do we want urban poor, or urban wealthy? A cities population can still grow with either group.

Again, what type of growth do we want?

Sometimes we use the catch all phrase "cool cities". I think what those specific cities and other cities have to offer above any obvious cool factor is that there are a lot of other young professionals in the area to socialize with. Young people, especially young single people like being around other young people for obvious reasons lol. And they tend to like an urban lifestyle. Do we have an attractive urban lifestyle to offer?

I mean, if we are going to actively persue any growth strategy at all for our city, what changes we want to make. Shouldnt it have some sort of direction? Shouldnt we have some sort of vision for the kind of city we want? The kind of people, jobs, lifestyle, etc. Or are we just going to let whatever happens, happen? Just "grow"... and thats it?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate_slide_2.html

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Sometimes it seems as though we oversimplify these things a bit. Yes we want young professionals to help our growth. But there are other factors involved. I dont think anyone here wants to be like Phoenix or Las Vegas. Growth and sprawl purely for growth and sprawls sake isnt want I want thats for sure. Sure we want growth and opportunity, but we also want a city that has better lifestyle, higher wages,better health, lower crime. Fastest growing cities dont necessarily equate to "best growing".

What kind of jobs do we want to grow in the city? Low wage low tech, high wage high tech?How can we help good companies get good educated people to move or stay here?

What kind of people, and taxpayers, do we want to attract and keep in the city. Poor and uneducated or wealthy, educated, young people? Its hard to do suburban growth inside Tulsa anymore. Do we want urban poor, or urban wealthy? A cities population can still grow with either group.

Again, what type of growth do we want?

Sometimes we use the catch all phrase "cool cities". I think what those specific cities and other cities have to offer above any obvious cool factor is that there are a lot of other young professionals in the area to socialize with. Young people, especially young single people like being around other young people for obvious reasons lol. And they tend to like an urban lifestyle. Do we have an attractive urban lifestyle to offer?

I mean, if we are going to actively persue any growth strategy at all for our city, what changes we want to make. Shouldnt it have some sort of direction? Shouldnt we have some sort of vision for the kind of city we want? The kind of people, jobs, lifestyle, etc. Or are we just going to let whatever happens, happen? Just "grow"... and thats it?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/2007/06/21/cities-jobs-young-forbeslife-cx_mw_0621realestate_slide_2.html

If social engineering for a particular class of people, especially young professionals, were that simple, everyone one would have done it already.

Like any resource, human or otherwise, there generally is a finite amount to that resource. Young professionals are limted in number - with some cities having a higher percentage and some lower. The reason for the disparities is simple: most young professionals go to or remain in cities where the jobs are (otherwise, they would just be young, lol).

But unlike what most of the leadership in Tulsa preaches, the fact is that most good jobs in an area are created there, not attracted there. Look at any city with a high percentage of young professionals and you will find a city with a majority of white collar companies that are home grown.

Tulsa is a blue collar city. It's largest non-government employer is mostly blue collar (American). Tulsa manufactures tons of equipment for the oil/gas industries, aviation industries, schoolbuses, etc.  

As a blue collar town, virtually the only way it is going to grow jobs for young professionals is for those jobs to be created here. The River Tax will do almost nothing for attracting those kinds of jobs. The competition is just too great. Instead, spending even $25M on things like business incubators, etc. would have a greater lasting impact on the city than the River Tax.

Interesting you would cull out government employment. Perhaps because it allows you to make your case. Last census figures I saw showed the two largest employers in the area are government and education. Hardly sounds blue collar to me. And I also remember reading that we have a higher than average education level in this city probably due to those two employers' needs. Lots of stat people around here. Can anyone confirm?

I also would like to know the source for some of your assertions. Like "most of the good jobs in an area are created there, not imported." Cities Service moved thousands of high paying jobs here in the late 60's which had a multiplier effect on our economics. When they left it had the same negative multiplier effect. And they were only one of many such employers to have moved wealth to the city then taken it away.

I don't think your base assumptions can be confirmed but they sound good.

[Rico]

^

H2O... What is your opinion on this recent development.?


River dams study challenged


By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
9/10/2007

A federal biologist says the Corps of Engineers' report used a faulty assumption.

The Arkansas River might not bring enough water to Tulsa to support additional low-water dams without harming the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say.

The complete Article