Questions regarding the River Development

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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.

Thanks for your remarks. They may have friends in low places but more likely the river taxi company in OKC will be contacting them should it pass.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

Jeff, your whole roads issue is a Red Herring.

North Texas certainly ISN'T doing well because of roads. They have some of the worst roads in the nation. They are terrible, they simply don't function. They may be smooth, but for many hours a day they simply don't work, at all. The roads here work just fine.

And again, find me a single business that didn't locate here because of roads.

[ttown_jeff]

You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

There isn't a thing you posted here that I disagree with. In fact have said as much myself in earlier posts. I think one can make an argument against this plan, but they can against any plan. The secrecy thing comes from having a low level of respect for the voters (some of that is earned). However, thus has it ever been so. We keep electing professionals who are somewhat dissociated from their constituents then wonder why they don't keep us involved! Our fault, not theirs.

I prefer to frame this vote as one for a process of development with broad guidelines. Yes, the type of dam is not even specified but you either have faith in engineers or you don't.
Its like a corporation putting out bids for a fleet of cars. They may specify price, mpg, size and purpose but don't care about color, manufacturer or style. They trust their employees to decide on details.

A hard time to put trust in people who have ignored us for the most part, but timing, insight and vision are important. These officials will come and go, the river like you say is more permanent.

We need to get started.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim

That's exactly what a Red Herring is. You are attempting to change the argument from the merits of the plan and to confuse the issue. Your argument that we need to spend more money on roads instead of the river because that's why we can't get business to move here is a red herring. Roads are irrelevant to the river and your premise about the negative the impact of our roads on business is completely and blatantly false.

You can't name one single business that didn't locate in Tulsa because of roads Jeff. Not even one.

The maintenance condition of our roads has exactly zero impact on the local economy. The operational revenue issues that the city of Tulsa faces does, as does our ability to attract new highly skilled residents. This plan does help address both of these issues.

If you want examples, I have them. While I don't care to name companies that I have worked for and with, I do know of positions and departments that have moved in large part due to recruiting to Atlanta, Denver, LA, and Houston, just to name a few. Recruiting and the lack of direct air service are our two big downfalls when it comes to getting companies to locate jobs here from my experience.

I would say that your mention of North Texas is very relevant. That is an area that has abundant recreational and entertainment possibilities that makes it an attractive place for young college educated people to move to, despite the deplorable functional condition of the roadway system.

We are lacking in entertainment and recreational venues and it can be very challenging to recruit people to move here, this plan addresses that. I don't think surface streets have any impact on that at all, in fact, outside of expressways, I don't think the vast majority of our streets are bad at all.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

You wouldn't know a red herring if it landed in your boat with a sign on it.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim

Swake is right.  The notaxnik road issue is a red herring.  

The real argument you should be making should concern whether this plan is worth your $0.002 on every dollar spent.  It should concern whether river development is viable and whether the plan makes sense.  Shaking the roads stick is a great example of bounded rationality.  []

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I'm confused.  Wasn't Krazy Kathy recently talking about the need to build a fiber optic loop downtown to make downtown more competitive with the 21st century world.  If that's already been done, what was she talking about?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

As of 2002, we were second to last in time of commute, in front of Wichita.  

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm

Didn't bother looking for a more recent one.  Maybe something's changed in five years.  Doubt it.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

US Census

Here are 2002's numbers, we are actually second after Wichita for that year.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm

As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.

Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

US Census

Here are 2002's numbers, we are actually second after Wichita for that year.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm

As of 2003, we are no. 66 out of 68.  FWIW, those are "city" rankings, not "metro" rankings.  Furthermore, almost every single city that ranks above Tulsa (meaning a longer average commute) is either a larger city or a component of a much larger metro area.  Tulsa's having one of the very shortest commute times in that ranking is simply a function of Tulsa's size (and the lack thereof).   News flash: smaller cities have shorter commute times.  ;-)

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.

Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.

Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:

Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.

Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.

Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:

Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown

Ah, I had not read this but I have heard about it.

This is to install a conduit for fiber to be run in so that streets don't have to ripped apart for fiber to be run. Look at some of the (remaining) downtown streets and you will see lots of strips of non-matching asphalt running across streets. Many, if not most, of those strips were created to run fiber. A pre-placed and public conduit for fiber would keep all those not yet new streets downtown from suffering that fate once they are done. Let's say you have fiber on one side of the street and a building across the street wants to get lit. This will keep you from having to cut a trench in the street to get there.

[ttown_jeff]

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.

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

Just so this doesn't get lost.  I didn't bring the roads up.  I made a statement which was in context with the response that I replied to.  The acutal statement is irrefutable. Roads add value to property.  Otherwise, there would be no use for the terms "unimproved" and "improved."  It follows then, that a well maintained road adds value to property more than a poorly maintained road.

So if there is a red herring, I didn't introduce it, and it was aggravated by you Swake, when you started drawing minute   distinctions in a somewhat minor point to a very broad subject "roads" that I made about someone else's theory.

Great cities from the beginning of time are built on their transportation and  infrastructure.  There are thousands of years of precedent on that.  There is little comparative precendent for betting the farm on liesure pork projects, unless you are talking about Vegas, and Branson. We are neither.

[ttown_jeff]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by swake


do you know what metro area has the LOWEST commute time in the United States? We do.

What is your source for this "lowest commute time" claim?  Just curious.

As for fiber, I don't recall her saying that.

Tulsa is simply awash in fiber with companies like AT&T, Brooks/UUNET/Verizon, Cox, Wiltel/Level 3 and more. It should be a big selling point for the area and is not a small part of the recent Google and EDS annoucements.

Here's a link to a July 8, 2007 article in The Whirled:

Mayor Has Hired a Consultant to Oversee Fiber Optic Installation Downtown

Ah, I had not read this but I have heard about it.

This is to install a conduit for fiber to be run in so that streets don't have to ripped apart for fiber to be run. Look at some of the (remaining) downtown streets and you will see lots of strips of non-matching asphalt running across streets. Many, if not most, of those strips were created to run fiber. A pre-placed and public conduit for fiber would keep all those not yet new streets downtown from suffering that fate once they are done. Let's say you have fiber on one side of the street and a building across the street wants to get lit. This will keep you from having to cut a trench in the street to get there.

We wouldn't want to rip the streets up.[]