Questions regarding the River Development

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.

[waterboy]

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 for all of v2025 but the Boeing bribe. I voted against Tulsa Time or whatever slick name it had.

What's your point?

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Politics, bribery, extortion, fraud, schmoozing all play a bigger part in CEO's decisions to do business with an area than infrastructure. Otherwise no business would locate in Houston, or LA. You should watch what CEO's do, not what they say.

Then would GE be up for a 281 million dollar bribe? Let's just give it to them, if they don't need a river project. I'd vote for that.

Let's just take the money to these guys in sacks.  That's not an argument at all.

[YoungTulsan]

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I think we have an excellent library system, and I'm not against a new central library. However, I was against the location of the proposed new central library. It was completely disconnected from the locations where we are seeing growth inside the IDL and disconnected from where the 2025 money is being spent. It also was mostly oriented to just be next to a highway. There also was no plan for the existing central library facility.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.

We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.

The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs.  They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.

The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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 for all of v2025 but the Boeing bribe. I voted against Tulsa Time or whatever slick name it had.

What's your point?

Just curious.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.

We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.

The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs.  They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.

The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.

Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements?  Everything is negotiable.

Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones.  Specicially. Try to stay on point.  Which problem will the river build-out fix?  Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.

We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.

The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs.  They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.

The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.

Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements and rights of way?  Everything is negotiable.

Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones.  Specifically. Try to stay on point.  Which problem will the river build-out fix?  Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.

[YoungTulsan]

Maybe Tulsa needs to hire some state lobbyists.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.

We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.

The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs.  They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.

The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.

Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements?  Everything is negotiable.

Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones.  Specicially. Try to stay on point.  Which problem will the river build-out fix?  Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.

I do to, you have a nice road, and little else.

Can you name a single business that didn't move to Tulsa because of the maintenance condition of streets.

Because, I have worked for and with a number of high-tech companies here, and there are entire departments of those companies that have left Tulsa because of the difficulty in recruiting engineers and the like to move here. I was on a tour of a large industrial facility recently and the HR person giving the tour said that they would love to have more of their IT people here but have a very hard time getting people to move to Tulsa.

But if that isn't tangible enough for you, than there's this: City of Tulsa tax revenue:

Tulsa Landing needs the tax to pass, this is a quote from Rick Huffman, the developer:

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

And, here is the impact his Branson Landing development had on tax revenues in Branson

Branson city officials have credited the Landing with producing record-setting tax revenues for the city. The 1.5 percent sales tax revenue increased 7.2 percent over fiscal 2005 from October through September, with tourism tax up 6.3 percent. In September, sales tax revenue jumped almost 36 percent over September 2005.

http://blogs.branson.com/news/2006/11/

[ttown_jeff]

When our Tulsa forefathers started building this city, they started with infrastructure.  

There is a very good Urban Tulsa Article a couple of weeks ago by Kent Moreland that speaks to this.  If you want businesses to thrive downtown, you have to have fiber optics in the buildings buildings. It's sitting underground for Christ's Sake! River schmiver.

Infrastructure! That is what we need to be focusing on.  Go read that article. Very instructive.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

So Peoria and Archer isn't infrastructure because the City of Tulsa doesnt pay for it?  Same thing with highways?

I realize this is a Tulsa forum, but we should demand results beyond City Hall if there are bridges cutting off traffic and roads falling apart.

The argument here is that we should not spend the money on the river, we should focus spending on the city's needs with regards to infrastructure, especially on roads. But, in these instances, this is not an either or scenario.

We should demand more, but not locally. Money not spend on the river is never going to be spent in these places, and should never be. If Tulsa were to pay to fix the highways for instance, the state would simply say "thanks" and spend even more of our funds elsewhere.

The condition of our highways has nothing to do with the city and its funding needs.  They are state and federally funded, mostly through gasoline taxes. Tulsa does not get a good enough return as it is on those taxes.

The rail bridge is the same, it's not the city's responsibility to do anything with it. The bridge is not city property at all, or even government property at any level. The city is not allowed to even touch it, even if the city wanted to.

Is your solution that we build the river projects and that there is absolutely nothing that can be done with things such as railroad easements?  Everything is negotiable.

Is it your idea that if we build-out the river all of our problems will be solved? If not, all of them, which ones.  Specicially. Try to stay on point.  Which problem will the river build-out fix?  Which one? Name one that is not speculative.
I know what happens when you fix a road.

I do to, you have a nice road, and little else.

Can you name a single business that didn't move to Tulsa because of the maintenance condition of streets.

Because, I have worked for and with a number of high-tech companies here, and there are entire departments of those companies that have left Tulsa because of the difficulty in recruiting engineers and the like to move here. I was on a tour of a large industrial facility recently and the HR person giving the tour said that they would love to have more of their IT people here but have a very hard time getting people to move to Tulsa.

But if that isn't tangible enough for you, than there's this: City of Tulsa tax revenue:

Tulsa Landing needs the tax to pass, this is a quote from Rick Huffman, the developer:

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

And, here is the impact his Branson Landing development had on tax revenues in Branson

Branson city officials have credited the Landing with producing record-setting tax revenues for the city. The 1.5 percent sales tax revenue increased 7.2 percent over fiscal 2005 from October through September, with tourism tax up 6.3 percent. In September, sales tax revenue jumped almost 36 percent over September 2005.

http://blogs.branson.com/news/2006/11/

Why wouldn't the engineers move here?  Is it because of the river?

Everything you cited is speculative.  Can you put a qualifier on the reason why they wouldn't move here?  Honestly It's probably something like "Why would I move to Tulsa, If I can move to Dallas?"

Point me to something that is not hearsay or speculative.

And if you are talking about ONE road, there is little difference one road would make.  If you want to fix a hundred roads, that's where you will see a difference.  $281 million dollars on roads is a good start.  I bet there are a lot of businesses that would like to hear we are putting money into our roads.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

When our Tulsa forefathers started building this city, they started with infrastructure.  

There is a very good Urban Tulsa Article a couple of weeks ago by Kent Moreland that speaks to this.  If you want businesses to thrive downtown, you have to have fiber optics in the buildings buildings. It's sitting underground for Christ's Sake! River schmiver.

Infrastructure! That is what we need to be focusing on.  Go read that article. Very instructive.

I know something about lighting buildings with fiber downtown and he's just plain wrong. the real decision on if a building gets lit is a cost/benefit equation for the telco.

And a big part of the reason for the poor condition of the streets downtown is due to all the fiber that has been run under the streets. I have heard that we actually have some aerial fiber down there that would require a simple drop.

And lest we forget, this is the same Kent Moreland that thought downtown didn't have enough parking.

[YoungTulsan]

There is a difference between fundamental infrastructure and quality of life improvements.

The roads are here, they have enough lanes, and they get the traffic where it needs to go.  Swake is right about that.  The roads in most places do not STOP people from going somewhere.  What most people seem to want is the pavement to be smooth.  That is a quality of life issue.  Most of the people who say "Fix our streets!!" are complaining because of some potholes or crumbling pavement on the street by their house.  The roads havent yet become an infrastructure impedement.

Adding a 41st street bridge would be infrastructure.  Smoothing out and widening the lanes on Lewis between 31st and 21st would be a quality of life issue.  People still drive the road, they just get shunted and tossed around a bit

Adding a bridge at 121st and Yale is infrastructure.  Repaving Riverside from I-44 to 31st street would be a quality of life issue.

The actual infrastructure issues are what nags me about seeing gone undone.  Bridges across the river connect communities and increase productivity of business in general, not to mention the fact that they would open up development frontiers.  The south bridge seems to be a foregone conclusion, but Tulsa will still need to widen Riverside (Delaware technically), 121st Street, and Yale down to there if a bridge goes in.

I would gladly FIRST vote for actual infrastructure, THEN vote for amenities.  But for the smoothness of our roads, we need some sort of costly catch-the-hell-up along with redoing some of the costly to maintain stuff we currently have.  We could easily use a billion dollars for smoothing the roads out.  But that is just a quality of life issue.