River vote...county sets rules

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

When the Creeks don't pony up the 5 million that has been pledged, the pool money will be used elsewhere.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by 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

Will virgins be made available?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Whoa.  Hold the phone a minute!  I thought there was a provision in V-2025 funding which was supposed to help the aquarium pay off it's bond indebtedness.  Don't tell me this is another bait & switch from V-2025, or did I misunderstand your statement?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Tulsa4Life


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.  

I was involved with the aquarium the first year it was open. They went to Jenks because Jenks gave them 65 acres. Tulsa was only offering somewhere around 4. Riverwalk was a similar situation. Tulsa has to spend money to amass the land before an aquarium or a riverwalk can be built. Keep in mind the Aquarium is a non-profit, and pays little in taxes anyway.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by 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?

When the Creeks don't pony up the 5 million that has been pledged, the pool money will be used elsewhere.

As stated by Mr. Levit at a recent debate with Mr. Bates, the total pledge amounts announced (currently $117 million) is guaranteed by the donor group.  Speciffically, should the $5 million Creek Nation pledge not be approved the remaining donors will make up those missing funds.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.

[Rico]

Originally posted by Vision 2025.
There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.


Well of course there are no funds in the "River Proposal" for the Aquarium....

It's not a swimming pool in North Tulsa...

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Vision 2025.
There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.


Well of course there are no funds in the "River Proposal" for the Aquarium....

It's not a swimming pool in North Tulsa...

Just so everyone's square on this, there was a $12 Million payout to the Aquarium to pay off the existing mortgage in Vision2025. Then, the Aquarium began another extensive building program, so presumably, there's a new mortgage now of some sort.

While the River Tax plan does not include any funding for the Aquarium, Mayor Kitty did announce recently her 'plan' to have the City of Tulsa build the South Tulsa Toll Bridge and "pay off the Aquarium's mortgage" (how'd that get in there???).

What that dam bridge (as opposed to just a dam) has to do with the Aquarium is beyond me. But, she didn't ask.

IAC, it seems to me that announcement went dark since as there's been no additional reporting. Hope it crawled back into a hole.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Vision 2025.
There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.


Well of course there are no funds in the "River Proposal" for the Aquarium....

It's not a swimming pool in North Tulsa...

I don't believe I was mistaken when I heard the Mayorness speak in the news report about these funds being for Pools and Parks throughout the County, many of which would be located in lower income neighborhoods.

I didn't see that as exclusively north Tulsa.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by Vision 2025.
There are NO funds in the River Proposal for the Aquarium.


Well of course there are no funds in the "River Proposal" for the Aquarium....

It's not a swimming pool in North Tulsa...

I don't believe I was mistaken when I heard the Mayorness speak in the news report about these funds being for Pools and Parks throughout the County, many of which would be located in lower income neighborhoods.

I didn't see that as exclusively north Tulsa.

I think you are more than likely correct.... I think the "North Tulsa" thing was assumed because of the location where the surprise was announced...

I see this as a way of the City slipping in some pet projects...

Like the rebuilding of a "Heller Theater" at Johnson Park... One could argue that 61st Street between Riverside and Utica was a "lower income" area.

Of course I could be wrong.... This just may be old fashioned votes for money.$
[}:)]

[Oil Capital]

Wow.  My house was flooded with no less than SIX expensive color promotional brochures TODAY promoting the river tax.  

Here are some hilarious quotes:

Headline:  "A investment for the entire commmunity."

Caption on a rendering:  "Sand Sprins Pedestrian Bridge"

With that kind of performance, in addition to the generally pathetic quality of the TV ads, one wonders if the campaign is actually being conducted by an anti-tax mole.  

I hope they don't plan on sharing these brochures with any of those businesses that are supposed to be flocking to town in response to this tax (or for that matter to the advance-degreed individuals they say will be interested in Tulsa as a result of this project).  It sort of makes it look like maybe we should be concentrating on education before worrying about low water dams and high-tech city halls.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Wow.  My house was flooded with no less than SIX expensive color promotional brochures TODAY promoting the river tax.  

Here are some hilarious quotes:

Headline:  "A investment for the entire commmunity."

Caption on a rendering:  "Sand Sprins Pedestrian Bridge"

With that kind of performance, in addition to the generally pathetic quality of the TV ads, one wonders if the campaign is actually being conducted by an anti-tax mole.  

I hope they don't plan on sharing these brochures with any of those businesses that are supposed to be flocking to town in response to this tax (or for that matter to the advance-degreed individuals they say will be interested in Tulsa as a result of this project).  It sort of makes it look like maybe we should be concentrating on education before worrying about low water dams and high-tech city halls.

You're right about the grammar errors and the spelling. But I had to laugh when I read your post remembering a popular political phrase. "When you're talking to farmers...talk like a farmer."[]

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Wow.  My house was flooded with no less than SIX expensive color promotional brochures TODAY promoting the river tax.  

Here are some hilarious quotes:

Headline:  "A investment for the entire commmunity."

Caption on a rendering:  "Sand Sprins Pedestrian Bridge"

With that kind of performance, in addition to the generally pathetic quality of the TV ads, one wonders if the campaign is actually being conducted by an anti-tax mole.  

I hope they don't plan on sharing these brochures with any of those businesses that are supposed to be flocking to town in response to this tax (or for that matter to the advance-degreed individuals they say will be interested in Tulsa as a result of this project).  It sort of makes it look like maybe we should be concentrating on education before worrying about low water dams and high-tech city halls.

You're right about the grammar errors and the spelling. But I had to laugh when I read your post remembering a popular political phrase. "When you're talking to farmers...talk like a farmer."[]

:-)   Good point.  But that rather emphasizes the point that perhaps we should be concentrating on education...

[Rico]

Originally posted by waterboy.

quote:

You're right about the grammar errors and the spelling. But I had to laugh when I read your post remembering a popular political phrase. "When you're talking to farmers...talk like a farmer."

So that is the reason for the "Tax Proponents"
method of speak....

"When talking to the Taxpayers.... Talk like you want the same things they do... And are going to give them so much of the things they never realized they actually wanted."

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Originally posted by waterboy.

quote:

You're right about the grammar errors and the spelling. But I had to laugh when I read your post remembering a popular political phrase. "When you're talking to farmers...talk like a farmer."

So that is the reason for the "Tax Proponents"
method of speak....

"When talking to the Taxpayers.... Talk like you want the same things they do... And are going to give them so much of the things they never realized they actually wanted."

A tried and true method of persuasive communication. Of course, once the audience realizes you speak with many different tongues, its hard to get that credibility back. Imo, LBJ was a master at it, Bush one could never master it.