River vote...county sets rules

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

Yes, the city wants to sell the land, and that would be why there is no agreement with the Branson Landing people. The city wants a better deal for the city than Branson Landing is offering at this time.

I for one would like something better than Branson Landing and something with less public money.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

Yes, the city wants to sell the land, and that would be why there is no agreement with the Branson Landing people. The city wants a better deal for the city than Branson Landing is offering at this time.

I for one would like something better than Branson Landing and something with less public money.

This is the problem with this whole river tax and the campaign for its passage.  The tax is being promoted on the basis that it will give us river development, when it will in fact do no such thing.  The Jenks riverfront is developing quite nicely, and, according to the developers, will continue to do so without the river tax.

As to the Tulsa Landing development, they are seemingly purposefully allowing people to believe that the land acquisition is the Tulsa Landing property and that it will therefore lead inexorably to the development of Tulsa Landing.  But if you read the "fine print" the property to be purchased is totally undetermined, AND if we read more fine print along with the comments of the Tulsa Landing developers, we learn that even if they do purchase the Tulsa Landing property with this money, more public money will be required before we ever see the Tulsa Landing development.

This, more than anything, is why I will be voting no on October 9.  For a proposal being marketed as river development, it does strikingly little to actually develop any riverfront.  It will leave us with some prettier river banks and some water in the river south of 31st street (possibly causing environmental harm) and wondering why there is no development along the Tulsa portion of the river.

[Renaissance]

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

After speaking with people who should know the right answers, I don't believe there's been enough conclusions on the micro-planning to date to be able to present something which sounds more like a bill of materials rather than a bill of goods.

I understand the point of not wanting to be painted into a corner on a vote then having to change significant details, but I don't believe that's what the problem is.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Could it be that there is no detailed fine print because such micro-planning on the ballot might inhibit future flexibility of said development?

Or would that be too convenient an explanation for those inclined to vote "no"?

Nice.  Thanks for your contribution to civil discussion.  Why is it that one cannot have presentation of differing viewpoints on this board without it immediately turning into personal attacks, attacks on motives and other bilge?

Now, to address your "point."  If you'll read my post again, I'm not really talking about micro-planning level of detail.  

I'm talking about the fundamental dishonesty of the whole enterprise.  It's really quite simple.

They are marketing the entire plan as one of river development.  The ONLY thing in the plan that is even remotely directly related to river development is the property acquisition money.  However, that money is to be used to assemble property and then sell it to a developer.  The developer we have in mind has told us that he needs to have the property given to him.  Voila!  No river development in Tulsa from this tax.  Furthermore, as anyone can see, river development is proceeding quite nicely in Jenks without this tax.

I am in favor of development along the river.  This proposal does not accomplish anything in that regard.

[Renaissance]

Sorry, OC, if I wasn't civil enough for you.  I wasn't trying to cast motives, I was just suggesting that I find the lack of hand-tying details  to be an obvious advantage.

Purchasing the land, clearing the land, and presenting it as a single package goes a fair way towards the goal of commercial development on the river.

We know the developers are out there, with their "mixed use," "lifestyle center" plans.  We've seen them building in Dallas and KC, and lately annoucning plans for Edmond and Jenks.  We've also seen that their motives are not altruistic--they go where the land is suitable, convenient and cheap.  Such parcels don't exist on the Tulsa part of the river, currently.  This plan will enable the city to remedy that, without tying its hands with details.  

Conan's point is valid, though--presumably there needs to be someone on the leadership side already in communication with prospective developer(s).  After the East End fiasco, I've learned not to put too much faith in the ability of the city leaders to orchestrate development flawlessly.  Still, in this case, I see less cause for worry, given statements by plan supporters and Tulsa Landing folks regarding the site.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Sorry, OC, if I wasn't civil enough for you.  I wasn't trying to cast motives, I was just suggesting that I find the lack of hand-tying details  to be an obvious advantage.

Purchasing the land, clearing the land, and presenting it as a single package goes a fair way towards the goal of commercial development on the river.

We know the developers are out there, with their "mixed use," "lifestyle center" plans.  We've seen them building in Dallas and KC, and lately annoucning plans for Edmond and Jenks.  We've also seen that their motives are not altruistic--they go where the land is suitable, convenient and cheap.  Such parcels don't exist on the Tulsa part of the river, currently.  This plan will enable the city to remedy that, without tying its hands with details.  

Conan's point is valid, though--presumably there needs to be someone on the leadership side already in communication with prospective developer(s).  After the East End fiasco, I've learned not to put too much faith in the ability of the city leaders to orchestrate development flawlessly.  Still, in this case, I see less cause for worry, given statements by plan supporters and Tulsa Landing folks regarding the site.

But it's the cheap part that is not making sense.  (and it's exactly the developer's statements that should cause you worry... they have said they will need public funding for site acquisition and infrastructure development, neither of which this plan provides)  

We are being told that the money spent to acquire the land will returned to the pot, so to speak, when the land is sold to a developer.  So there is no "cheap" land being provided to developers in this plan.  Just someone else doing the dirty work of assembling the parcel, with the developer then repaying the city/county for the trouble.  The demand of developers for cheap land is exactly the problem for which this plan has no answer.  

That's why I'm saying after this plan is put in place, we'll all be standing around wondering "where are the Tulsa river developments?"  (unless of course our city hall steamrolls ahead with further tax-funded incentives for development)

[Rico]

  Here is yet another classic example of things not being as they seem in this plan............

"Private monies will be used by the donors to open City Park Swimming pools and fix up existing City Park Recreation Centers...."

 They say "this portion of the plan was not revealed as it had nothing to do with River Development.."

Very true..... But it may fool some into thinking that they will continue doing this even after the Tax passes........

(on a side note:) Heller Park... Home to Heller Theater.. Is a Park/Theater without a home.... The building in it's current condition will be condemned...
The hope of the Parks Department is that someway..?  somehow...? they will find the money to build a new facility at Johnson Park (61st Street and Riverside)

I just wonder where they think that little bit of Good Fortune is going to come from...


This portion of the philanthropic gifts would appear to be something of a "Conflict of Interest".... For the CEO of the City.. that is...

Just might make a Campaign promise of "water in every public pool" a reality...

Kathy really did not say how she was going to do a lot of things in her agenda... did she?

The Article

Private pledge to river includes money for parks, pools in low-income areas


$5 million in private funds will be used for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.


By World Staff
9/26/2007  2:16 PM
Last Modified: 9/26/2007  3:12 PM


Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday the $117 million in private funds pledged for the Arkansas River development plan includes $5 million for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.

"That will allow us to do some things the city of Tulsa could not have done," Taylor said during the opening of the north Tulsa Our River Yes campaign office.

Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, said providing $5 million for parks and pools has always been the intent of the private donors but hasn't been discussed much because it isn't directly related to the river.

"The intention is to work with the parks department and mayor's office to find the best way to utilize those funds," Levit said.

[TheArtist]

River development is not JUST private development in that area around 21st. There are areas in Sand Springs for private development as well. But regardless, the largest part of this plan is for public river development, dams, parks, shoreline improvements and clean up, living river area, etc. Which are not currently happening in Jenks.

[Tulsa4Life]

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Tulsa4Life

Tulsa has never been a city to give tax breaks to developers.  I don't think that should be considered a negative on our county checklist, but we do need to find the right developers.  Two examples that come to mind are The Oklahoma Aquarium & the Bass Pro Shop.  

The Bass Pro Shop was a good move not to go with.  They are popping up everywhere and that isn't the kind of development that Tulsa needs.  We need to be focusing on mixed development and local ownership (on the smaller side).  I believe this proposal will recognize that with the cities ownership of the land.  I don't rely upon every detail to be ironed out, but I do expect knowledgeable and accomplished people to be putting the development ideas in place.  Himelfarb is in the process of hiring a consultant to ensure that it will be the right development.  

The Oklahoma Aquarium went to Jenks because of the TIF's and other tax breaks they were willing to hand out.  The Jenks River Walk was spurred from the the City of Tulsa's refusal to negotiate on the tax breaks. This decision hurt Tulsa's development and spurred the "tax free" development of Jenks.  We need to make sure that we are going to have development that we won't have to give TIF's to.  

By the way... Jenks is not getting a "tax free" river development.  They are paying for it in other ways!  

I agree that not all of the answers are out there, but I believe that we have the right people in place to ensure a nonpareil river development.

With all that help, why is the bond indebtedness being paid off on the Aquarium with this river tax? If the Aquarium needs help, Jenks should be shouldering that burden instead of conning the rest of the County pick up the tab and build them a low water dam. The multitudes of unanswered questions in this tax package shouldn't matter because it's your opinion we have the right people in place? Good luck with that.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

  Here is yet another classic example of things not being as they seem in this plan............

"Private monies will be used by the donors to open City Park Swimming pools and fix up existing City Park Recreation Centers...."

 They say "this portion of the plan was not revealed as it had nothing to do with River Development.."

Very true..... But it may fool some into thinking that they will continue doing this even after the Tax passes........

(on a side note:) Heller Park... Home to Heller Theater.. Is a Park/Theater without a home.... The building in it's current condition will be condemned...
The hope of the Parks Department is that someway..?  somehow...? they will find the money to build a new facility at Johnson Park (61st Street and Riverside)

I just wonder where they think that little bit of Good Fortune is going to come from...


This portion of the philanthropic gifts would appear to be something of a "Conflict of Interest".... For the CEO of the City.. that is...

Just might make a Campaign promise of "water in every public pool" a reality...

Kathy really did not say how she was going to do a lot of things in her agenda... did she?

The Article

Private pledge to river includes money for parks, pools in low-income areas


$5 million in private funds will be used for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.


By World Staff
9/26/2007  2:16 PM
Last Modified: 9/26/2007  3:12 PM


Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday the $117 million in private funds pledged for the Arkansas River development plan includes $5 million for parks and swimming pools in low-income areas.

"That will allow us to do some things the city of Tulsa could not have done," Taylor said during the opening of the north Tulsa Our River Yes campaign office.

Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, said providing $5 million for parks and pools has always been the intent of the private donors but hasn't been discussed much because it isn't directly related to the river.

"The intention is to work with the parks department and mayor's office to find the best way to utilize those funds," Levit said.

Just because Kathy Taylor got elected by buying votes in North Tulsa, she thinks she can buy votes on the Northside for the river tax. Vastly different dynamics exist today. The broken promises of candidate Kathy Taylor permeate North Tulsa in a thick fog, like a stagnant smog cloud on an ozone alert day, but North Tulsa should trust her to keep her word on this? Kathy Taylor's credibility gap is bigger than her bank account. Make life bitter.

[Wrinkle]

Man, they're getting desperate now, aren't they?

Oh, by the way, it also fills the pools...sure.

This River Tax has already become "the first step in a road improvement program".

By next week, it's going to reduce your utility bills and mow your lawn.

[Wilbur]

So, if I understand this latest development correctly:

If the tax passes, we were to get an additional $117M added to the river package in private donations.  Now, we will get $112M added, plus $5M for parks and pools in North Tulsa.  

Am I allowed to ask what parks and pools in North Tulsa have to do with river development?

And isn't that just blatantly buying votes?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Man, they're getting desperate now, aren't they?

Oh, by the way, it also fills the pools...sure.

This River Tax has already become "the first step in a road improvement program".

By next week, it's going to reduce your utility bills and mow your lawn.

Gold coins and naked ladies will rain down from the sky, too...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54409