River vote...county sets rules

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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

My  first opinion is that this may make me late to work!

First observations:

This will do tremendous damage to the plan. Probably kill it. Regardless of its factual basis. He asserts, as a federal biologist (are there other federal biologists who may disagree?)that they made a faulty assumption, the Corps (who also employ biologists and manage with input from lots of directions including the USWF) says no but they will work with them to address their concerns. Doubt the public will get that part.

Does this guy represent the official viewpoint of the USWF? He makes some curious remarks. Here's a thought sir. When the water levels fall so that the Jenks lake may have high levels of treated sewage, OPEN THE GATES! DRAIN THE LAKE. No harm, no foul. Another alternative might be to treat the original problem...UPGRADE, MOVE OR REPAIR THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. Something that should have been planned for years ago.

Then lastly, think of the situation as a pedestrian who's just been hit by a car who left the scene. He's seriously injured and a good samaritan law forces you to help him. The general rule is that you should not put him in a worse condition than he is already in. Otherwise he might sue you. You suspect his neck is broken so you don't move him. Call 911, cover him with a blanket and protect him from further harm.

Well, the river kills fish during drought conditions. Those conditions occur whether low water dams are there or not. At least with the dams you have a chance to regulate, aerate, and manage the process. Without them you don't. The drought the man speaks of in 2006 was not exacerbated by the Zink dam. So we did not put the river in worse condition.

If I were to follow his reasoning, then we need to dismantle the dams, bulldoze the levees, close the storm sewers and let the river go natural again. All of these changes have caused the fish to die or suffer.

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

Who are these strong interests? And why aren't they pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vote No campaign?

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Waterboy, be nice.  He's basically Aox on Ritalin. []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

Michael, I think this is the "Pandora's Box" of the river proposal.  I'm very spooked about the articles which surfaced a couple of weeks ago in the World talking about mitigating the smell from the sewer treatment plants.  After commercial development, I believe the tennants and patrons are going to complain about the stench.  I see this as becoming a 30 year bottomless tax package and eventually, Tulsa will have a 10% sales tax rate.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

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.


No, it is just that any city has its core government/education/healthcare employment, regardless of it being a blue collar or white collar city. And since those are a constant across most cities, they can be removed from the argument. They generally don't have a over-riding effect on whether a city is blue or white collar.  


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.

Sure companies move. But it is usually for reasons other than being attracted to an area. JC Penney and American Airlines moved from New York to Dallas. But it was primarily for financial and logistics reasons, not because Dallas was much more attractive.

I am sure Cities Service wanted to be closer to the rest of the oil industry in Tulsa and have easier access to the airport - and not because Bartlesville was not attractive enough. And those were probably the same reasons why Citgo ended up leaving Tulsa.

Look at this list of the ten largest companies based in Minneapolis/St Paul. It's like a who's who and most of it is home grown.

1. Target
2. UnitedHealth Group
3. Best Buy
4. St Paul Travelers
5. 3M
6. Supervalu
7. US Bancorp
8. Northwest Airlines
9. General Mills
10. Medtronic

even the rest of the list has a lot of well known names: http://www.startribune.com/535/v-special/story/453146.html

Go to any other city with a higher percentage of young professionals and you will find the same thing - large numbers of jobs created locally. Not jobs attracted by some publicly financed feature.

These are Tulsa's largest companies:

Semgroup
Oneok
Williams
Quik Trip
Bok Financial
Dollar Thrifty
Samson


And then look at the people who are backing the plan and contributing the donations and it's one and the same.

http://www.ourriveryes.com/supporters/

George Kaiser Family Foundation
SemGroup, L.P.
H.A. and Mary K. Chapman Charitable Trust
Joe and Kathy Craft
Lobeck Taylor Foundation
Muscogee Creek Nation
Nadel & Gussman, L.L.C.
ONEOK, Inc.
QuikTrip Corporation
Samson Investment Company
John Steele Zink Foundation
Bank of Oklahoma
Nancy E. and Peter C. Meinig
Unit Petroleum
Williams Companies
The Stephen E. and Shelley S. Jackson Family Foundation
Hillcrest Healthcare System/Ardent Health Services
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

[sauerkraut]

Yeah, those MN. companies are doing great. The state of MN. is doing very well too, low unemployment, low crime, low cost of living. The twin cities are booming they have it all except warm weather. I had a chance to take a job offer for a major company in the Twin Cities, but I fliped it down back in 1998. The winters there are like the north pole, windy and blizzards hit in October. The summers are cool and short. They can get snow in June. Winter temps can hit -50 below zero. The record low was -60 below in northern MN. They are not much warmer than Alaska. I can't see how anyone can stand to live there. I was born & raised in metro-Detroit and I thought Detroit was cold. Detroit is like FL. compaired to the cold weather in MN. Anyone who lives in MN has to be able to take severe cold. In January exposed skin can freeze in a few seconds. IMO no amount of money is worth living in that deep freeze.

[swake]

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cks511

Well, the world just pulled this morning's article quoting state wildlife folks.  hmmmmm, surely it's just a glitch

http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/pagenotfound.htm?aspxerrorpath=/news/article.aspx

Nothing's linking from their web page when I was just there.

At least the World is publishing some of the articles which might detract from the votes.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

Not mean spirited, cities are not funded by property taxes except by GO bonds, so the increase in taxes to the plant would be marginal.

A TIFF diverts a portion of the increase in property taxes paid, due to increased value from the expansion in this case.

Property taxes most go to the county and schools, but the county and schools would not lose any money as a TIFF is only on the new property taxes from expansion, they would just not gain from it.

The increase to the plant would be marginal, and the city would gain some needed control over the plant as well. And the river plan could easily be funded by the property taxes on a billion dollar expansion. If fact, if the county did it it could likely pay for the entire river plan, but I don't know that counties can assess a TIFF.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by swake


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

If river devlopment is so vital, then why didn't they insure it happens by putting their money into the core development that matters (the low water dams and channelizing) instead of gathering areas, etc. That way developing the river begins to occur with or without the general public.

$155M needed for core development
-$117M pledged in private funds
-$  6M from Vision 2025
=$ 32M needed from other sources - possibly Vision 2025 overages or other donations

Only $32M away from guaranteeing the start of river development.

Because when you give money it's good to leverage that amount into more so that more good can be done. That's how the charitable matching fund drives work.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

But thats just off the top of my head. I think there are strong interests who want nothing done for reasons other than stated and are willing to use anyone for that purpose. They don't want to upgrade sewer facilities and face other growing pains that cities face. They don't want any change if it means evil big government will be involved or requires us to pay for it. As usual I've ended up on the underdog side.

Who are these strong interests? And why aren't they pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vote No campaign?

And are you hinting that if we pass this, we're going to be hit with an even bigger bill for "upgrad[ing] sewer facilities"?

I think your question is tongue in cheek. You know these interests. They go way back to Hewgley and the city commissioners. They are also people who don't want their nearby neighborhoods bothered with tourists and undesirables. They are people who left the city but still work here and purchase here and they don't want to pay for progress here. They don't want change of any type and they don't want any taxes raised.

You explained yourself why they don't mount a huge money intensive vote no campaign. First off they don't have to. Default vote in Tulsa is No. Then, convince me otherwise. All they have to do is yell that the river stinks, the roads are bad and insiders will profit as many times as they can on blogs, forums and in public meetings. Cheap and easy.

I'm not hinting anything. If this fails we will do nothing for roads and infrastructure which includes aging and out of date sewage treatment plants. If any of these people had a better plan, as you have suggested, to improve roads and infrastructure in Tulsa where is it? We lose twice if this fails.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

Originally posted by swake


What does that tell you? That our largest companies and employers are saying that we need this plan to get done. Geroge Kaiser (majority shareholder and CEO Bok), Chet Cadieux (owns Quik Trip), Keith Bailey (former CEO Williams), and Tom Kavisto (CEO Semgroup) are the people behind and running the "Yes" campaign.  

Plus this is philanthropy, not charity. Although I am not sure what philanthropy with multiple conditions is called.

Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by waterboy




Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

Then let's call it the Kaiser River and be done with it. [8D]

Frequently, the philanthropist is the one who makes the largest donation and without whom the project would fail or have a much harder time being completed (as in Mr. Reynolds large gift to the actual construction of the Reynolds Center). This River Tax situation is the opposite. The taxpayer is paying 70% for the essential core development + additional development. The private donors are paying 30% for non-essential enhancements. However, the private donors had a big say in determining the essential core development + additional development.

Question: Since the largest donation would be coming from the taxpayers; and the project would fail if the taxpayers don't approve it; does that make the taxpayers philanthropists?

Where's our multiple conditions?

Taxpayer: $282M
Donations: $117M+
Private development: $500M+ (Branson Landing, etc)
Total:     $899M

Total taxpayer share, around 31%

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote:Originally posted by waterboy




Its called typical. Even church additions have names for the benefactors and probably the color carpet the benefactor insisted on. Reynolds Center? Why not TU Arena?

Then let's call it the Kaiser River and be done with it. [8D]

Frequently, the philanthropist is the one who makes the largest donation and without whom the project would fail or have a much harder time being completed (as in Mr. Reynolds large gift to the actual construction of the Reynolds Center). This River Tax situation is the opposite. The taxpayer is paying 70% for the essential core development + additional development. The private donors are paying 30% for non-essential enhancements. However, the private donors had a big say in determining the essential core development + additional development.

Question: Since the largest donation would be coming from the taxpayers; and the project would fail if the taxpayers don't approve it; does that make the taxpayers philanthropists?

Where's our multiple conditions?

Funny you should mention a name change. OKC changed their river name to the Oklahoma River. If the taxpayers approve this maybe we should copy cat and call ours the Tulsa River.

Reynolds donated towards the construction? You would have had him pay for street widening, curbing, storm sewers, water service and street light improvements. Would he then put his name on those?

Where's our multiple conditions? Have you followed this process? INCOG has been defining those multiple conditions for many years using input from local organizations, associations, nearby cities, fishermen, kayakers, etc. Those conditions are in the form of a master plan that each of these proposals from the Channels to this one have to mesh into.

Taxpayers are not philanthropists in that we don't give willingly.[]