River vote...county sets rules

[waterboy]

My grudge? Him don't know me very well...That's silly. Eventually you always try to use my rocky past relationship with them to negate common sense. You seem to carry the memory longer than I do. RPA has almost nothing to do with this river development. It is merely part of an enabling mechanism. They will be eclipsed in power by the new County River Parks Authority. In fact Swake, no one governmental entity involved with this development can stop someone from floating a boat on this river. Especially the Indians. They may say otherwise but thats puffery. They may levy a tax on the boat or the revenue it produces. Or they may make an addendum to the compact.

What I do rebel against is the same naivete of which I was once guilty. I'm going to be blunt. Artist, stick to art/architecture and other soft disciplins of which you are quite knowledgeable. This is hardball business and your trust that casinos that foisted upon us the giant obnoxious neon TV screen at 81st & Riverside will somehow start exhibiting good taste in architecture over tackiness is absurd. No one could force them to take down the abomination either.

If it suits them, they will float a casino and there is nothing to keep them from that whether they own land, prepare for floods or dry spells. The cost of a good outfitted shallow draft casino boat that works in protected waters ranges from $150,000 to $650,000 (Island Princess 65' x 26' authentic side wheeler 140 passengers $339,000) as per Boats & Harbors. Not necessary to have river flow as they usually dredge out a deep bay to port them in and could care less whether they move around. They already have trained employees to operate it. All they need is a captain (with a drivers license) and some engineers.

The added benefit is that neither the Coast Guard, the Shore Patrol or the police would have any authority over their operation as it would be subject to their authorities. Doubt that? Take a boat, a cell phone, a passenger and a gun out on the river. Shoot the passenger then call the police for help. They will not respond. Eventually the OHP will launch a boat (the nearest one is in Cleveland on Keystone Lake) and if you're still around, attempt to arrest you.

I'm not saying the Indians will float a boat or that it financially would make sense. But saying they can't or won't like you assert is too big a leap of faith for me.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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......!

Any news on the changed ballot? The one that eliminates the "blank check" feature? Mr. Crowe seemed to be oblivious to the issues and questions we proffered. I've been ignored by smarter more important people. That's how you know when you've scored.

[Rico]

^     ^     ^

The Good News being...........

Stands an ice cubes chance in hell of passing....

The Bad News..............

One more chance at doing something on the River spoiled by the bureaucrats.......

[}:)]

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

It's cuz I know da troof!

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by 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......!

Just how many pages do you want a ballot to be... if you want EVERYTING in the world on it call your state deligation.  

READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it. This is the EXACT methodology as the City of Tulsa, the surrounding and every other municipality that I know of in the state uses for ballots. You seem to be attacking me for what the State governs.  No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  In the County, since counties in Oklahoma cannot pass local ordnances this is accomplished by resolution.

[Rico]

^
Sir, unless you are the author of this, rush to judgment, I in no way am attacking you.........

I do have one question for you..

Why does this make no mention of the "Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan"....?

If this were to have been worded differently.....

There had been more citizen involvement.....

and not just slung at the County residents as an
idea that will solve all the development problems on the river.....

Things may very well be different.

Bear this in mind. This, as I have said.... "Has an ice cubes chance in hell of passing"

Possibly.... Mister Kaiser will understand that his support of the river is appreciated.
The approach of the County is not.  

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025


READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it....

No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

What funds?  Are you demanding that "funds" means exclusively "Vision 2025 funds" or are you just assuming?

You know dam[sic] well what was included in Vision 2025 and what was not.  Now, for lack of things to b**** about, you're creating a problem just like with the fictional charter problem.  You know people won't read, so you read it for them and they eat it up.  That's how this works right?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025


READ the underlying resolution that called for the election.  This is the instrument that governs what the County is actually proposing; the ballot title is but a part of it....

No matter what you vote on, there is always a background instrument that contains the ballot language which is REALLY what you are voting on.  

Exactly right, Kirby, which is why the language of the ballot resolution for Vision 2025 Proposition #4 that says "[c]onstruct two low water dams" and "all projects shall be completed as funds are made available" constitutes a binding promise by the County Commissioners to Tulsa County taxpayers.

Mr Bates,

Did you or did you not know before the 2025 vote that the vision 2025 funds were intended to be matching funds?

[rwarn17588]

And there's a story today by David Arnett.

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309&Itemid=2

He says:

"No one – ever – before, during or after the 2003 Tulsa County Vision 2025 infrastructure package was approved asserted that the projects included for the Arkansas River were anything more than a beginning of restoration and development efforts.  It was expected, at the time, that Federal money would be available and project specifics, including exact costs, awaited investigation by engineering and environmental specialists."

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

And there's a story today by David Arnett.

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1309&Itemid=2

He says:

"No one – ever – before, during or after the 2003 Tulsa County Vision 2025 infrastructure package was approved asserted that the projects included for the Arkansas River were anything more than a beginning of restoration and development efforts.  It was expected, at the time, that Federal money would be available and project specifics, including exact costs, awaited investigation by engineering and environmental specialists."

Well, David does have a horse in this race, so to speak.

Seems like the LWD funding, or lack thereof has suddenly become quite clear.  Saying that "No one...asserted..." still doesn't settle my stomach on the issue.  When you say "no one said..." that's tantamount to an omission to me.

Nowhere on the ballot, nor on proposition IV did it make mention of the matching funds we were expecting from the government.  In fact, I'm not finding anywhere on the www.vision2025.info web site any mention whatsoever of contingent federal matching funds.

I wonder if anyone connected to V-2025 would be so obliged to please link to a press conference, news article, archive piece, papyrus scroll, etc. which has anyone at the time saying that the Arkansas River development was contingent on matching federal funds?

I didn't see any other projects contingent on matching federal funds either.  I'll be more than happy to shut up on the subject if someone cares to show me where this was ever brought to the attention of Tulsa County residents- prior to now.

[waterboy]

People seem to be using very specific words now to deny what so many people believed the v2025 ballot said. You don't want to do a survey of the population who voted on v2025 to see what they actually thought they were voting for. It would embarrass us all.

 Perhaps to keep this from happening again we could have Arnett & co. write the ballot or the supporting documents for this project?

[MichaelC]

I'm not saying that many people believed or didn't believe.   But I guarantee you Bates knew, and this crap he's stirring up right now is exactly that: crap.

I'm sure someone will come across the old info on on Vision 2025.   Not 100% sure where Admin got this 5 years ago, but here's an old thread listing the projects.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

Obviously, the info was available in some form.  Whether or not people chose to check it out, that's another issue.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I'm not saying that many people believed or didn't believe.   But I guarantee you Bates knew, and this crap he's stirring up right now is exactly that: crap.

I'm sure someone will come across the old info on on Vision 2025.   Not 100% sure where Admin got this 5 years ago, but here's an old thread listing the projects.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=179

Obviously, the info was available in some form.  Whether or not people chose to check it out, that's another issue.

I found a pre vote newspaper article, I don't have the link right now, but Bates is quoted in the same paragraph where it talked about the money being for matching funds.

So he obviously knew, and he knew long before the 2025 vote. He logged into this forum 17 minutes ago according to "members last seen" and didn't reply to my question.

So you tell me, is Bates acting in a fully honest and truthfull manner?

[rwarn17588]

So are you saying that Michael Bates is lying?