River vote...county sets rules

[iplaw]

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing []), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing []), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

[Conan71]

Kirby, thank you for the reply.  I'm digesting what you wrote.  I thought you said it was a long reply.  Obviously, you've never seen one of my long rants. []

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing []), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

Maybe I can start a floating smoke shop...

[iplaw]

quote:Now besides the tremendous construction sector inflation which has occurred in recent years (which would have possibly doubled the projected costs into the same time frame Zink style facilities) and that Zink style dams are not what the Corridor Master Plan (Post Vision 2025 vote) said we as a community wanted and these documents were unanimously approved by the river Study advisory groups, INCOG, The County, the City of Tulsa and the Planning Commission and had significant public input and could have had more at any of those adoptions.

You are correct in stating that trying to quantify ANY number for construction for a project like this today would be impossible with the current status of the construction contractor market.  It's difficult, if not impossible, to get construction contractors for projects this large to even attempt an estimate of what it would cost...even on a unit rate basis.  Asking a construction contractor to give you a ballpark figure for construction this far in advance would generate a price that even Lady Taylor's husband would blush at.

[Rico]

OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
TO VOTE: Complete the arrow(s)
pointing to your choice(s), like this
USE A #2 PENCIL (NO INK)
PROPOSITION
OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT
SPECIAL ELECTION
OCTOBER 9, 2007
TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
0 0
“SHALL THE COUNTY OF TULSA,
OKLAHOMA, BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEVY
AND COLLECT A FOUR-TENTHS
OF ONE PERCENT (4/10%) SALES
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TULSA
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AND/OR TO
BE APPLIED OR PLEDGED
TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON
ANY INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING
REFUNDING INDEBTEDNESS,
INCURRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
TULSA COUNTY FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
SUCH SALES TAX TO COMMENCE
ON JANUARY 1, 2008, AND
CONTINUING THEREAFTER TO
DECEMBER 31, 2014?�
FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES
AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO


This is the exact text used on the "Special Election Ballot"......

No room for misunderstanding here......

You will get exactly what you vote for.

Right Mister Crowe......!

[TulsaJayhawk]

Here's some of the resolution in Redneck ...

WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary an' advisable by th' Board of County Commisshuners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, t'improve th' juneral economic corndishuns an' quality of life of th' varmints of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by development of th' Arkansas Rivah co'rido' wifin th' County; an'

WHEREAS, thar is no funds in th' treasury fo' sech purpose an' power is granted said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes 2001, Seckshun 1370, as amended, t'levy an' colleck a sales tax t'provide funds fo' sech purpose providin' th' same be autho'ized by a majo'ity of th' registered voters tharof votin' at an eleckshun duly held fo' sech purpose; an'

WHEREAS, th' Board of County Commisshuners of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, adopped a comprehensive resolushun on Augest 2, 2007 (th' "Origeenal Resolushun"), callin' an eleckshun fo' th' fo'egwine purpose; an'

WHEREAS, it has been determined t'amend an' restate th' Origeenal Resolushun in its intirety as hyarinaf'er provided in o'der t'clarify sartin aspecks of th' projecks t'be funded fum sech sales tax an' th' composishun an' duties of th' public trest created in cornneckshun tharwif.

[TulsaJayhawk]

But I prefer the Moron version ....

WHEREAS, it is deemid necess 'n adbisaggle by de Board of County Commisshunehs of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, t' iprobe de genehal economic conbishuns 'n kality of life of de peoble of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, by debelopmin of de Arkansas Ribeh corridor widin de County; and

WHEREAS, dehe are no funds in the, duh uhh, treasury f' such purpose 'n powebuhr is grantid said County by Title 68, Oklahoma Statoots 2001, Seckion 1370, as amended, uh uh uh uh, t' leby 'n colleck a sales tax t' probide funds f' such purpose probidigg the, ERRRR, same be audorizid by a madgority of de registehid botehs deheof botigg at an eleckion du held f' such purpose; and

WHEREAS, de Board of County Commisshunehs of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, adoptid a c'prehensibe resolushun on August 2, 2007 (de "Original Resolushun"), calligg an eleckion f' the, uh uh uh, foregoigg purpose; and

WHEREAS, it has been detehminid to amend 'n restate de Original Resolushun in its entirety as heheinaffeh probidid in ordeh t' clarify cehtain aspecks of de probuhjecks t' be fundid from such sales tax 'n the, errr, c'posishun 'n duties of de public trust cratid in conneckion dehewid.

[TheArtist]

Thanks for the info Vision, the way you have put things has cleared up some things about the dams.

Those were estimates based on a very aggressive match, and..

1.  We did not get the match.  Though that alone would not absolve them of going ahead with building the dams under 2025 imo

2.  The estimates were probably too low anyway. How that happened and who is to blame could take up an eternity of argument on here if we chose to go there.

3.  Materials prices since the estimate have risen substantially on top of the above. Though there should have been a mechanism to take care of that.

4.  We have changed the nature of the dams from the original zink lake type that were originally envisioned to ones that are more expensive, saver, environmentally friendly, have less silt problems, etc.

5.  This new price also includes, if I am not mistaken, the cost of pedestrial walkways to be built along with them.

To me those give enough "differences in situation" and type of structure, to allow for additional and different funding.  It may be that it was not intended that the ballot say what it said. And thats terribly unfortunate because that is a mistake that has caused a lot of problems.

However... It could in this situation be perfectly fair and reasonable for them to say. OK, we will build the dams as originally intended under 2025, but also as the originally understood Zink Lake type. None higher and with the ability to have controlled release of water during the day, like at Sand Springs, none with added safety and silt reduction mechanisms, none with added features to help fish migration, none with the added pedestrian bridges, etc.

County and funding issues aside, I think from this perspective it is not too far fetched to build these different types of dams in this new situation, while still using those original funds intended for dams, yet along with an additional funding mechanism.

One argument that could be made, is for additional 2025 funds that would have perhaps gone for any increased cost for the original type of dams, be used to offset and decrease the new tax amount for the new dams. But here it seems we are picking nits and getting into other uncertainties.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Are you kidding me... the state's largest employer, which owns and operates more casinos than there are churches in the state (not that that is a bad thing []), and you don't think they have "plans" for using the river and aren't involved in the process behind the scenes...

If we finally have a river with a constant supply of water you can bet there will be riverboat gambling.

I don't think they'd go for the cost since they don't have to have them for gambling now.  Unless it changes the class of gaming they can have.  The "riverboat" has to be a navigable vessel, has to have a full-time captain, engineer, and I don't remember who all else is required by USCG reg.  Ton more overhead to maintain.

Surprise! They don't need any of those requirements to operate a casino on the river here. They need a captain with a drivers license, boat numbers and liability insurance (optional). Since the river will not be navigable due to no locks/dams or other connections, the Coast Guard will have no authority. None.  And I hadn't thought of it like that IP. They may very well be the only boats on the river by design. If I were as conspiratorial as you, I would wonder if that is why they didn't provide for connectability.

[TheArtist]

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

[Rico]

I don't know about the aesthetics of something like this...........

But you put some ladies in red... with those mesh stockings and heels and one could be tempted to have a look at the "Boat" ..

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

Him don't know me vewy well do he?  Well they have already invested in the land. Its bought and paid for. Plus, even with the new dams, as variable as our river is there will still be times when it and area lakes will be extremely low, the river practically empty, and times when it's definitely, "over flowing with potential" lol. The Casino they are building now has a parking garage under it with the expectation that when it floods this will allow for enough height to not let flood water get to the actual floor of the casino Which is over the height of riverside drive. The riverwalk is designed to use the parking lot behind it as a flow channel to allow flood waters to flow around it. Looking at the size of those casinos I can imagine the size of any profitable riverboat being quite large. I am sure they could actually make it so that it was properly moored, but I keep envisioning one of those huge things slamming into the Jenks Bridges during a flood or beached like a dead whale on a dry riverbed during a drought.

Not to mention, I still think they are too danged ugly for any person to even consider. Not to mention they would look completely out of place on our river. This isnt old south Dixie.  And it would clash with their sleek, modern new casino. My money would bet that they would invest in a hotel next, then an expansion or continuation of more attractions on the other side of the river with a ferry boat dock and or pedestrian walkway to take people to the other side.

As tacky as those casinos can be. I should have know that some on here could imagine something even tackier. A riverboat?  You have got to be kidding. Nasty

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

They arent going to put a riverboat in the river. Thats ridiculous on many fronts. Not to mention those things are even tackier and uglier than any casino. They have bought up the land opposite the river to to build a boardwalk type development that could connect to the Riverwalk. And they have the idea of building a pedestrian bridge from the casino area over to that development.

I long for your trusting nature. Lets see. Cost of land, plus construction cost of boardwalk, plus cost of pedestrian bridge, factor in regulatory complexity of city/county oversight  vs. cost of kitschy boat on water that doesn't cost anything to float on and has no regulation....You're so business savvy, what would your choice be?

Careful, your grudge against RPA is showing