Questions regarding the River Development

[ttown_jeff]

Another thing. About Branson
 
Branson is not comparable in any way to Tulsa.  It is a tourist attraction and Nothing Else.  We don't have 100 shows a night and 50,000 old people spending all the money they have before they die and another 20,000 rednecks using their credit cards.  []  The jobs they have there are low rent.

The Branson Landing numbers bare no relevance to Tulsa.  Tulsa may be more, but that it SPECULATION.

And I'll have to stick up for Kent Moreland. He's a bright guy.

But at least you're dissing him in public.

[TheArtist]

So if the roads were better would people vote for this?

I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.

I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.

The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.

Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.

I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.

Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.

I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.    

[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 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.

Name one.

And, anyway, we have an excellent road and highway system, see our commute time. It's just in poor repair. Functionally it's the best there is.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it.

When you take a friend from out of town around Tulsa, do you always make sure to plot a clever route through town so all they see is nice stuff and none of the stuff that looks like Bosnia?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it.

When you take a friend from out of town around Tulsa, do you always make sure to plot a clever route through town so all they see is nice stuff and none of the stuff that looks like Bosnia?

I never take them any place I don't normally go. Yet I have been to OKC and shown around there and Dallas and KC and have seen some places and roads that look like C R A P. And of the places I dont go myself, its not because of the roads, its because of whats along side the roads.  I do remember this one street in Tucson now that you jog my memory. That had hooorrible roads. It was lined with all kinds of neat art galleries and such and you parked in crappy little gravely, weed infested places. I only remember thinking about how neat the place was. Very "bohemian". The buildings were covered in quirky decorations and colors etc. It was really neat. Nobody cared that the roads were crap. They were all having a good time and living. Us artists can be a strange bunch with odd priorities though. Frankly I would drive over gravel if I were going some place worth going to.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

Really I'm not on here to fight.  

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.

Are you sure you're not here to fight?[]

I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.  

And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So if the roads were better would people vote for this?

I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.

I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.

The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.

Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.

I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.

Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.

I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.    

I could do 600mm for roads/infrastructure in conjunction with 280mm for the river.

On the roads. The roads aren't something people would notice.  Its an infrastructure thing.  Its' like the base coat on a canvas (I think). If you don't have that, you aint got nuttin.

Bringing friends here is different than bringing potential businesses here.  Potential Businesses need to know ON PAPER before they even get here that the city can handle their needs. They're not coming here if you don't meet that threshold requirement. A River walk does not assure them of that.

If I'm an artist, I'm not gonna waste my time in Chandler, Oklahoma showing my work if I know there is no one there that can handle a 1000 bucks for a painting. A starving artists' infrastructure is a market that can keep him/her fed. You go to the place that can handle your business.

But at the same time I ask you, the first thing you notice when you drive into Kansas or Texas?  

The beautiful roads.

Do you notice all of the industry in North Texas.  In Sherman and Dennison?   They don't have a river, but they got business, you can see it everywhere.  They have a highly educated workforce. They are doing it without a pretty river. What are they doing to get so many businesses?

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

Really I'm not on here to fight.  

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.

Are you sure you're not here to fight?[]

I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.  

And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.

If companies want to be corrupt and dishonest, I'm not going to live in that world.  I have to operate on the assumption that everyone is honest, and business people go to school to be business people, not crooks.

I believe people when they say they make business decisions based on sound business principles.

Call me a fool if you want.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So if the roads were better would people vote for this?

I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.

I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.

The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.

Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.

I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.

Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.

I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.    

Honestly, Artist, I absolutely agree. Its a good plan with something for everyone. Perfect? No. Too long in coming? Yes. But it will attract business and tourism and improve quality of life.

The anti-forces are choking the life out of this city. I cannot fathom going through this process again and would consider moving should it fail. Tulsa will be doomed to ever deepening mediocrity. If there is one other person besides YT on these forums that says he would vote for a huge road tax issue he is lying.

This isn't infrastructure vs river development. Know this: There will be no movement to fund infrastructure if this project fails. Instead the anti's will whine "we already have the money if we didn't waste so much, spend our taxes on frivolous things" etc. ad nauseum.

Its easy to be against something. That pool of energy is huge and inviting. Its tough to realize that we have to spend money to get growth but that's the truth.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

Really I'm not on here to fight.  

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.

Are you sure you're not here to fight?[]

I didn't argue that it was right, fair or even a good idea. But to think business location decisions are based on the interests of profit and shareholders is not accurate. The decisions are defended in that way but once again, roads are not as important as airports, entertainment, real estate, makeup of labor pool and education. Infrastructure (other than airport facilities)? No.  

And BTW, the reason the founding fathers spent so much time on infrastructure was because...there wasn't any! Of course they spent a lot of time building bridges and fighting off complaints that they were unneeded frills that were too expensive. The original bridge over the river was a good example of that.

If companies want to be corrupt and dishonest, I'm not going to live in that world.  I have to operate on the assumption that everyone is honest, and business people go to school to be business people, not crooks.

I believe people when they say they make business decisions based on sound business principles.

Call me a fool if you want.

I won't call you a fool. You're actively trying to find truth. But you're headed down the wrong path. You can fight for truth and justice or you can fight for truth and justice with a sense of pragmatism. In other words assume that businessmen are honest and go to business school to use sound business priciples and practices (I did), but read the fine print and check the ingredients just to be safe.

When I cross the state line to Kansas, the first thing I notice is the smooth road...for about 20 seconds. Then I notice the hard to read black road signs, then the interminable flat, boring never ending landscape that ends somewhere near the Minnesota border. Other than Kansas City I don't see much growth. I don't remember telling folks how smooth the road was, just how boring the drive was. Hey, business is the same way.

The north Texas towns you mention show no signs of having grown because of excellent infrastructure. More likely communities that had nothing to offer but cheap labor, cheap real estate and some large cities nearby.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So if the roads were better would people vote for this?

I frankly think we should do both. 600million for the roads and 280million for the river.

I dont think its an either or situation. Especially if people are right that better roads will make our city more attractive to businesses and high tech workers.

The quicker we get the Tulsa Landing, or whatever it may be, going the better our economy will be.

Having those parks and lakes and the Living River, will if anything give Tulsa an image boost. It could be a big part in making our city attractive to people. Not the only thing we should rely on, but definitely a BIG positive thing. Imagine a company driving a potential employee it is trying to convince to move to Tulsa, by those beautiful parks (and I do think those gathering spots, piers and fountains are going to look really nice along with the landscaped trails) , lakes, showing them a lively river district, etc. That will very much help. It really is infrastructure in its own right imo.

I have had many friends visit Tulsa. They never once mentioned the roads. But every single one mentions the river and asks why we haven't done anything with it. And of course the obligatory. Where is everyone? When we go downtown. At least this river vote will in one fell swoop fix one problem.

Doing the river will finally get this topic, that has been stalled and nagging us forever, finally moving. We have to do it sometime. The economy is doing well now. We have a big potential developer. We have an incredible amount of donations in the offing. Just do it and get it over with lol. I will just puke if we have to go through all of this again. I would rather leave than have to listen to all this crap again.

I really think that if this doesnt pass. People are not going to want to touch this issue again. Not for a looong time anyway. And some of you who do not want to change the river or want river development may love that outcome. Plus if the roads are the next issue, how long will it take to get that taken care of before the river can be considered again? The roads will be the next big issue regardless. This river vote is actually not that big. If its considered "too big", then you have to figure that every other project we consider is going to be much smaler. I just hate mediocrity. Yet I dont think any of my friends would be impressed by showing them great roads. OH! you will love Tulsa. I can't wait to show you our roads........ I dont know, perhaps I am wrong.    

Honestly, Artist, I absolutely agree. Its a good plan with something for everyone. Perfect? No. Too long in coming? Yes. But it will attract business and tourism and improve quality of life.

The anti-forces are choking the life out of this city. I cannot fathom going through this process again and would consider moving should it fail. Tulsa will be doomed to ever deepening mediocrity. If there is one other person besides YT on these forums that says he would vote for a huge road tax issue he is lying.

This isn't infrastructure vs river development. Know this: There will be no movement to fund infrastructure if this project fails. Instead the anti's will whine "we already have the money if we didn't waste so much, spend our taxes on frivolous things" etc. ad nauseum.

Its easy to be against something. That pool of energy is huge and inviting. Its tough to realize that we have to spend money to get growth but that's the truth.

Well, we all love Tulsa, that we can agree on.  We just have differing viewpoints. That doesn't make anyone bad or good. I certainly don't think SWAKE is a moron for disagreeing with me so vehemently.  It would be really boring if everyone was a YES man.  

Let's be real: The sky is not going to fall if this thing passes, nor will pennies from heaven rain down on Tulsa because we build out the river.  Most of this is crap is political. Who can put what on their resume.

There is no need to move.  I strive against mediocrity on a daily basis.  

Let's work on something that most people can agree with. We can start and re-start a hundred times on something.  It happens all the time.  If the people think it is beneficial, it will pass.

If the people don't think it will help it wont pass.  I'm not going to lose sleep over this thing.  I encourage everyone to argue their point.

[Rico]

OK.... H2O.. Name the States that the taxpayers paid for a stroll towards the sewer curing fields....

Dams that keep water in the river...(the same river just with playgrounds and a kayak park...)

It isn't the tax money it is we will have No Guarantee of what it is being spent on...

it isn't the tax money who are these people that told the City what that much money should be spent on...?

it isn't the tax money this proposal involves many communities and many citizens... is it so naive to want public hearings..? not four years ago now..

Lot has changed in four years... even the most current desirable dam that money can buy. []








It is really,.... really.... not about the tax money. It is about Rodeo Drive and my retirement.

[}:)]

[waterboy]

The first plans for damming the river surfaced back in the forties? That's nearly 60 years of ..."no, not that plan...no, thats too much....no, wrong people....no, no, no." After awhile you get the idea that the community stopped progressing after WWII. We retired early.

I have invested most of my life in Tulsa. Born here in the fifties, educated here and in Norman, raised my family, bought my homes, started and ended my businesses, and was looking forward to retiring here. I'm a homer. I want OU to win in a couple of weeks but I'll be proud if TU shows up.

During the last decade I decided that my lifelong love of rivers and lakes could be used on the Arkansas River. A river that visitors always seemed surprised was left undone. I know this river about as well as anyone here. Having passed 50yrs old, no employers have expressed interest in my wisdom, preferring the inexpensive outlay for youth. So yes, I have a horse in this race. I want to run a canoe/kayak tour and river taxi business complete with a floating restaurant/bar. Have some fun on the river as well as provide a service. But there have been no promises made for jobs or river taxis to me. Simply a chance to compete should the project pass. Hell, I may be too old to do that by the time a plan is approved and built.

Rico, I don't know what other states' returns have been on large public investments. We seem to have reaped some benefit from v2025 even though it doesn't do what I wanted. My wife points to her home of Minneapolis and how they utilize the Mississipi. Phoenix has made progress. Ft.Worth has an interesting plan. Hell, even OKC's laughable public project is enviable. One of those cities may be my new home. The last kid goes to college in less than 4 yrs.

I know this. There are Randi Miller's, Mayor Taylor's, Bate's and Friendly Bear's in every city. All cities deal with this process. But we can't get past the infighting. Tulsa hasn't changed for the better during my lifetime. Change here is something you give to bums. Failing to pass a 1/2cent tax that is bolstered by private contributions and is the result of a half century of planning is just one more slow step to retirement.

Didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The first plans for damming the river surfaced back in the forties? That's nearly 60 years of ..."no, not that plan...no, thats too much....no, wrong people....no, no, no." After awhile you get the idea that the community stopped progressing after WWII. We retired early.

I have invested most of my life in Tulsa. Born here in the fifties, educated here and in Norman, raised my family, bought my homes, started and ended my businesses, and was looking forward to retiring here. I'm a homer. I want OU to win in a couple of weeks but I'll be proud if TU shows up.

During the last decade I decided that my lifelong love of rivers and lakes could be used on the Arkansas River. A river that visitors always seemed surprised was left undone. I know this river about as well as anyone here. Having passed 50yrs old, no employers have expressed interest in my wisdom, preferring the inexpensive outlay for youth. So yes, I have a horse in this race. I want to run a canoe/kayak tour and river taxi business complete with a floating restaurant/bar. Have some fun on the river as well as provide a service. But there have been no promises made for jobs or river taxis to me. Simply a chance to compete should the project pass. Hell, I may be too old to do that by the time a plan is approved and built.

Rico, I don't know what other states' returns have been on large public investments. We seem to have reaped some benefit from v2025 even though it doesn't do what I wanted. My wife points to her home of Minneapolis and how they utilize the Mississipi. Phoenix has made progress. Ft.Worth has an interesting plan. Hell, even OKC's laughable public project is enviable. One of those cities may be my new home. The last kid goes to college in less than 4 yrs.

I know this. There are Randi Miller's, Mayor Taylor's, Bate's and Friendly Bear's in every city. All cities deal with this process. But we can't get past the infighting. Tulsa hasn't changed for the better during my lifetime. Change here is something you give to bums. Failing to pass a 1/2cent tax that is bolstered by private contributions and is the result of a half century of planning is just one more slow step to retirement.

Didn't mean to write this much. Sorry.

For what its worth, I don't know you, but if this thing passes, I'd go to bat for you and your business. You've been quite active and your insight is valuable.

For your sake, I hope Miller or Taylor don't have friends in the business you want to pursue.

[Rico]

^

Your reply is very much appreciated waterboy.

Had this been done as an "Obligation Bond" or something with some guarantee.... I might feel differently.

I can not get past the fact that all of this was known about by the involved parties long before the public was made aware..

Why so hush... hush.

Had someone put together a panel, comprised of someone such as yourself, RM, and others that have proven to be trustworthy, my vote would be a no brainer..

Politicians (in Tulsa) need to understand they have a severe credibility problem...

Having this dumped on us just does not feel right.

I could care less about the tax increase.

as I have said before.. Plans are like concrete... Very easy to pour and extremely hard to change when they are in place.(i.e. Main Street Downtown)

Cheer up H2O... Kaiser will have to spend the money on something... maybe he will see he was done a disservice by Ms. Miller and Company.