Questions regarding the River Development

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

However The Plan does fund "development" -  the "growth" part is debateable, and unmeasurable.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.

And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.

And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.

Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County?  Roads definitely impact property values.  They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here.  We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.  

A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.

And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.

Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County?  Roads definitely impact property values.  They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here.  We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.  

A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.

A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.

And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.

Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.

To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.

And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.

[Wrinkle]

I saw a news report on KJRH last evening which closed with the statement, "if passed, work may be able to begin in a matter of a couple of weeks".

While on the face, this is a true statement, the work which can begin that quickly is related to the banks and the donated monies, not the river work itself, which would remain at least a year, perhaps two away due to Corps authorizations, etc.

That lead me to wonder if the County actually intended to bond these projects at all, opting instead to fund all projects out of cash flow.

It appears the tax would be collected for that one or two year period prior to anything requiring that funding being able to be done.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.

And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.

Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County?  Roads definitely impact property values.  They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here.  We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.  

A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.

A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.

And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.

Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.

To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.

And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.

We should be spending our money on something businesses and working people can use. Those things happen to be roads. Businesses use roads.  Working people use roads.

Wealth is built by working.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by naifioni

What good is river development if you cant drive your car due to the 9th worst roads in United states? VOTE NO on any new taxes especially this one

I've known roads to be annoying but rarely impassible. Our roads suffer because we continue to think large corporations know what's best for us and what is best for them is building on cheap land. Cheap land means further away so the citizens of the Tulsa Metro keep going further out  and complaining about why the 2 and 4 lane roads aren't expanded and then when they are, complain about why the older roads aren't maintained. It's time for someone to throw up a sign that says "WRONG WAY" and turn back around and concentrate on Tulsa Proper and areas close to midtown and downtown. While this tax doesn't specifically pay for roads (we had a tax for them and everyone voted no) it does fund growth and development of the core of the city which will help get those road improvements prioritized and paid for.

Under this theory, won't this development make the surrounding land MORE expensive? Creating a larger difference in cheaper land in the burbs, and more expensive land in the city?

Besides, if you fix the roads, the land is more valuable.

Cost is not the overall issue, it's value. If Tulsa can improve amenities then the value will go up, but it will be driven by demand which is in turn driven by value.

And fixing fixing streets does not drive property values. Improving streets can, but the areas near the river have improved streets already.

Are you saying that a McMansion is worth the same regardless of whether its in Maple Ridge, or on a dirt road in Waggoner County?  Roads definitely impact property values.  They also affect the ability and desireablility of busineses to locate here.  We have to think about ingress and egress, not some place to light up our fancy cigars and beer.  

A "Buy it Now" button on Ebay is a risky click, because the cost may be greater than the value.

A dirt road is not improved and therefore not relevant. This is exactly my point.

And, if you think that the poor condition of Lewis Ave impacts the property values of Forest Hills as relative to the newly rehabbed Peoria Ave and Maple Ridge, you are confused.

Again, I'm all for rehabbing Riverside north of I-44, but that has very little impact on your "ingress and egress". The condition of the street does not slow the traffic on it. It's simply not in that bad of shape, the real issue is that the design is outdated for the size of today's vehicles.

To say that there is some lack of infrastructure around Riverparks in Tulsa, where all major streets are four lanes or more, is just plain wrong. You can argue the maintenance condition of some of the streets, but in most cases that too is a non-issue. The majority of area streets are in good shape, except for the older part of Riverside itself.

And, the condition of Riverside is the neighborhoods fault for the most part. I used to live between Peoria and Riverside and I lived through at least two attempts the rebuild Riverside that the area residents killed due to the work's impact on the park.

We should be spending our money on something businesses and working people can use. Those things happen to be roads. Businesses use roads.  Working people use roads.

Wealth is built by working.

Businesses and the working man can't use our roads? Why not, is it illegal? Seriously, a large part of our poor ranking on roads is our miserable highways. And those are not funded or maintained by the city.

A number of city streets need help, no doubt, but better maintained, even better improved streets have nothing to do with growth. (Neither do sales taxes by the way). I just drove through South and North Dakota and all the roads were all absolutely perfect, the concrete was like glass and there was no traffic. Neither state has added any population in a half century. I also spent some time in the Dallas area, and while their roads were in good shape, they are simply and completely non-functional and worthless. And Dallas is one of the fastest growing metros in the nation.

Please, come up with a relevant argument, something better than "Working people use roads".

Tell me, if Taylor proposed a new property tax for roads, are in favor or against?

[ttown_jeff]

Really I'm not on here to fight.  

I would be in favor of an extra tax for roads and infrastructure.  I would even be in favor of a tax that helped us attract businesses, that didn't focus on entertainment or liesure activities.

Great cities have built the infrastructure.  We are at a disadvantage at attracting businesses because we don't have the infrastructure.

That is one of the reasons for the controversial toll bridge.  The residents don't want it, but face it a bridge over there is critical.  And it's not just the big roads, it's the small roads.  

I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.

When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low.  It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.

But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria.  No trucks, No commerce.

That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.

I would venture to guess that business executives trying to determine where they want to put their company prioritize their wants and needs based upon what is in the best interest of the Shareholder.  Putting a company in a place that has a cool river is not going to impact their bottom line.

Executives that are interested in improving their market share are going to worry about the cost of doing business.  Infrastructure impacts the cost of doing business. If we wait until a business expresses a desire to move here to start doing the real development work, it will never happen.

I wouldn't invest in a company that did anything less, would you?

If you were making a business decision for a Fortune 500 company, what would be your considerations? Would they be romantic ones or based on business principles and shareholder value?

We can't afford to be romantic. We have to be realistic.  People are only going to come to Oklahoma because it is a good business decision. Its all about the PROFIT and shareholder equity.

No self respecting East Coast or West Coast or Middle Coast business person would venture here because we have a bridge over a smelly river. c'mon.

[swake]

It's not that simple at all.

If cost were the only factor, we would be the fastest growing city in the nation. The advantage we have in our cost of doing business is hurt by the difficulty of attracting workers, especially people in high demand positions. This plan directly addresses that by making a huge improvement to the Tulsa metro's attractiveness, amenities and quality of life. Because it's these factors where Tulsa is left lacking when compared to fast growing cities, not roads.

And you can complain about roads all you want, but do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do. That's real infrastructure. It may need better maintenance, but it's actually functionality is second to none.  Most of the fastest growing cities have infrastructure that is badly overwhelmed. Atlanta, Dallas, LA, The Bay Area, Austin, Las Vegas, these cities all have something in common, and it's the fact that their roads infrastructure are completely insufficient and overwhelmed.

Try again.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff


I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.

When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low.  It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.

But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria.  No trucks, No commerce.

That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.

And, no, you don't have an example.

Rail bridges aren't city infrastructure. The city doesn't fund them and has no say, the bridge is owned by the rail line.

[iplaw]

Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?  

How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?  

How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?

I voted against the library tax and was against the channels.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff


I have a brief example of our infrastructure needs.

When I was a kid, we used to walk down to Peoria and Archer, and watch the trucks get stuck under the railroad bridge, because the bridge was too low.  It was great fun for us kids to watch the sparks of metal against concrete.

But Drat! As soon as the truck drivers discovered this, they stopped coming down Peoria.  No trucks, No commerce.

That's at Peoria and Archer not I-44.

And, no, you don't have an example.

Rail bridges aren't city infrastructure. The city doesn't fund them and has no say, the bridge is owned by the rail line.

Maybe you're right.  Nothing we can do here about railroad bridges.  I suppose the route down North Peoria is locked out in perpetuity because of that one bridge.

I'd imagine with all the power the railroad company has their phone number is unlisted.  

You may proceed with the building the low water dams.

As far as the other big cities being overwhelmed with traffic, maybe I was wrong.  Maybe it has nothing to do with the fact that they have businesses and industries that we don't have.

Build your river.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Just as a gauge...how many people who are voting YES on the River Tax voted NO on 2025?  

How many people voting YES on the River Tax have EVER voted against a tax?

I voted against the library tax and was against the channels.

You got somethin' against books?

[ttown_jeff]

I just got finished reading a very good book by Joe Andoe called Jubilee City.  I recommend it if you were born and raised in Tulsa.   Joe Andoe is a world famous artist who left Tulsa to seek his fortunes and finally found them. He is an OU Graduate with a MFA.  He also happened to go to the same crappy North Side elementary school I went to - Lowell.  It's been gone for quite awhile now.

One of the things Mr. Andoe talked about was about when he got to New York City and would talk to all the snobby artists that couldn't make a living because their studio was too small, or the light didn't shine through the window right, or that they hadn't met the right people.  It was always something they didn't have, that was keeping them from being famous or appreciated.  

Then Joe Andoe said:  All I knew how to do was work.  I had to paint. I had to make sure that the next painting was better than the last painting.  If I focused on all the things I didn't have, I would never get anything done.

I try to take his lesson to heart in my own life.  If I focus all my money and energies on something I don't have instead of working with what I do have, I will never accomplish anything.

Development fever can never be sated.