Questions regarding the River Development

[Wrinkle]

And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.

No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.

Quote:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.

No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.

Quote:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

As you full well know, this land can be acquired by various means. It is not dependent upon the River Tax.

And, he was prepared to proceed with his project prior to the River Tax proposal but his ovations were not reciprocated by the City.

The City visa-vi County collusion put him on ice, which makes it impossible for him to proceed until it is decided.

What would you expect him to be saying at this point?

[CoffeeBean]

quote:Originally posted by swake


The developer of Branson Landing has said he wants to spend half a billion dollars on a development on that site.

The developer wants to spend half a billon dollars on the slum or the concrete plant?  If he wants to spend .5 billion on the concrete plant, who or what is stopping him?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

And, he's stated he'd do it regardless of the outcome of the River Tax, attempted to do so prior to it coming about but was shunned at every turn.

No, that is the River District developer in Jenks, the Branson Landing developer stated he needed the tax to pass, he needs the land funding it provides.

Quote:

Huffman said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070824_1_A3_hHisc56181

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

[TheArtist]

If you get a substantially large development over there it will wipe out the slum. Property values will rise. People will consider moving there who otherwise didnt even know the area existed. Other developers will seek to buy up the property around this development. etc.  Its not exactly Beverly Hills right next to the Riverwalk either.

However I have asked this in another thread. How come that property is so expensive if it is so undesirable compared to the cheap property in a desirable demographic area in Jenks? It just doesnt add up to me. Either one property was way to cheap or the other is way to expensive.

As for competing developments. Whatever is done should have a substantial amount of living space included. Its projected that the US population is to grow by more than 60 million over the next 20 years (and that smaller 1 and 2 person households will become the majority during that time). Its obviously going to be hard for Tulsa to grow suburban type development and needs to grow with more urban development and urban living.

Its estimated that it requires between 1,500 to 3000 housing units, within a 1/2 mile or 10 minute walk, to support a block of "main street" shops, cafes, restaurants, etc.

This type of development is more expensive than suburban development, hence why more urban development may actually begin to happen in the suburbs where land is cheaper and demographics stronger. I bet that once we get a "critical mass" of it in an area of Tulsa, it will then be able to grow on its own without us having to "incentivise" it. Especially in downtown. This river development, if done properly and including a large amount of living could spur more urban type living in that area.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.

There are lots of different ways to do a TIF. You can capture only property tax, only sales tax, or both. I think you can even set it up to capture only a portion of the tax. The time is limited. All of this gets negotiated between taxing authorities in the process of developing a TIF.

A city could do a TIF capturing property tax only and still reap the increased sales tax. I can't verify this at the moment -- someone from Urban Development Department would know -- but I believe most of Tulsa's TIF districts capture only property tax.

Given the way cities are financed, sacrificing property tax for a development that will generate sales tax is a good deal.

And if you're comparing a TIF to sales tax to pay for infrastructure to encourage development, you have to account for how long it will take until the incremental new development (less cannibalization) to generate an equivalent amount of sales tax to what was spent on the project.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.

There are lots of different ways to do a TIF. You can capture only property tax, only sales tax, or both. I think you can even set it up to capture only a portion of the tax. The time is limited. All of this gets negotiated between taxing authorities in the process of developing a TIF.

A city could do a TIF capturing property tax only and still reap the increased sales tax. I can't verify this at the moment -- someone from Urban Development Department would know -- but I believe most of Tulsa's TIF districts capture only property tax.

Given the way cities are financed, sacrificing property tax for a development that will generate sales tax is a good deal.

And if you're comparing a TIF to sales tax to pay for infrastructure to encourage development, you have to account for how long it will take until the incremental new development (less cannibalization) to generate an equivalent amount of sales tax to what was spent on the project.

I think the Home Depot TIFF downtown is sales tax driven.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Not really,

It is not just recycled tax money. There are about 950,000 people in the metro, and about 390,000 people in the city, it's about encouraging more of the 560,000 people that live outside the city (along with visitors to the metro) to spend more money in the city.

And you can call the new job numbers "fairy tales", but my company has three director level jobs in technical departments that have been open for months and likely all three pay well into the six digits. And my guess is if they aren't filled before too long, those jobs will go to another office. We need to make Tulsa a more desirable place to live

It's hard to realistically predict the recreational, dining, and shopping habits of people say, in Bartlesville or Muskogee.

I'm not much of a believer that people will drive 50 miles or so to take their kids to a park, or to jog, ride a bike, or rollerblade.  Sure, an evening spent having a nice dinner and window shopping might be in the offing for some of these people, but they can do the same thing closer to home.

I have serious doubts that three six-figure jobs in your office are going un-claimed due to a lack of low water dams and commercial development along the river.  Tulsa is a liveable place, other than our carpet-bombed streets and other areas of neglected existing infrastructure.  The last thing on my mind when selecting a city to take a job offer would be what they've done along a river.

For six+ figures, I'd almost agree to live in Joplin, Elgin, Ill., or Boise City, Oklahoma.

[TheArtist]

Why is it so many young people, or others, when they visit Tulsa find it boring? Not much to do. Not as many people like themselves to hang out with or date? Why arent there any people downtown? Why havent you done anything with the river? Why do things close so early? etc. etc.

This river plan is in no way a panacea but it is definitely full of potential benefits in many ways.

As for 6 figures and living in those other places. Thats your priorities. I was laid off here at UPS about 12 years ago and the company offered a 6 figure job in OKC. I said heck no, I would rather live in hell than live in that nasty, ugly, city. I couldnt do it, there is not enough money to make up for having to drive through such ugly day after day. I dont know how they do it. You would mentally become depressed and beaten down by it. Apparently more money is more important to you. The city is our shared home, our shared place, our public living room. I would rather do without, have one nice thing, than a room full of cheap, ugly, junk. Once you have something thats beautiful, of quality, it lasts forever, is of use for ages. Each builds and adds to the other. Cheap things, insignificant things of poor quality, are never worth anything, they become lost and broken. They were never assets. Philbrook, Gilcrease, Philtower, Boston Avenue Church, Rose Garden, Woodward Park, IPE/QT center, and many more, are all valuable assets. Things that help the city, help make it more beautiful or liveable, make life richer, and bring those values for generations. Things we point to with pride and that people admire. Average does not do that. Doing something like this with the river will definitely begin to make it more of an asset, versus a mostly ignored and underutilized afterthought. Again it wont fix everything, but it will be yet one more item of value, of above average quality, that will add to our shared quality of life. Each thing adds up. More same o same o isnt going to do anything. I think its all the more important to do things well, to scrimp and save to have something nice, when you dont have a lot of money.

When I was younger I watched friends who would go and fill up their whole place with cheap junk. At one time my living room suite consisted of 1 chair and a few other items. But that was a niiice quality chair. I could have used the money to buy a chair and a couch an a coffe table, but I went with one quality item. Friends thought I was blowing my money on something so expensive when I "needed" so many other things. A year later I bought a couch, a year or so later a table, one day I was able to afford a bed and not just a mattress lol. etc. During that time my friends cheap stuff broke, went out of style, wore out. They bought a whole other set of things. That too wore out, etc. We all went through hard times where we scrimped for food, and ran late on the bills. But I still have that first chair and many other things. What do they have? The fabric is still perfect. Its quality, its beautiful and it will always be that way. I have spent less time, money and trouble doing things my way than they did. I was patient, did without, It may have looked ridiculous having that stuff in some of the little places I have lived in. lol. But with my budged I think I did the right thing. I could probably sell it for just as much or more than I bought it for back then. I wish that people could see that doing something well with the river will be something like that. One more valuable item that will add up to create a complete and quality city in time.

[Tony]

And then we actually agree William pay as you can afford and get the best quality --

Do you not see parallels with this shoot, ready, aim proposal? I am NOT against development and spending tax dolllars where there is a good plan -- (not proposal) in place.

I want to see a mixed use green corridor in green country -- there needs be some balance [8]

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.

In my opinion, TIF districts are a good tool for investing in public infrastructure but I understand they cannot easily be utilized for land acquisition for redevelopment.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Previously Huffman said he didn't needed the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax just that a TIF district might be needed. I wonder if someone from the Mayor's office told him he needed to play ball by promoting this new tax if he wanted any help from the city to get his project moving?

I'm starting to like sales tax over TIF. If we keep TIF'ing everything, it won't matter how much we grow, we still won't make any money.

TIF districts are a good tool for investing in public infrastructure but they cannot be utilized for land acquisition.

So there is really is no readily available funding mechanism for the land for Tulsa Hills other than the river tax?

What a shock.

[corky25]

I am totally against the whole river thing!  Why raise the tax to build something on a river that smells like the sewer?  Instead of only the "rich" benefiting from this development, why can't they use the money businesses are offering to donate to fix our lousy bridges?  Everybody complains about the bridges and how they are falling apart, but the city doesn't have the money to repair them.  Instead of building the smelly river up, why don't we try fixing the bridges that are hazardous to drive on?  I have read the reports online about the Tulsa bridges and that most of them need to be repaired or replaced.  Why not take care of that instead?  I just really don't understand how we benefit from building something on the river that usually stinks and is usually down?  If we are going to do a tax increase, do it on something that will benefit everybody.