Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[RecycleMichael]

I know that we have people who are for and against the upcoming vote on river improvements.

Rather than have a discussion of point and counter point, I was hoping we could have a thread of stand alone statements by the many posters on this forum.

I am hoping that some of you would take the time to put into words why you feel the vote is right or wrong to you. What I hope is some well-thought out personal opinions and not just random gushing or whining that we have already heard.

Take your time. Try to make it at least a couple of paragraphs but not a book. Make your case in the most reasoned argument possible. Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons.

[booWorld]

I have not followed this proposal closely, but I leaning toward voting against it.

I have read something about a pedestrian bridge at 41st Street.  I think that is poor planning.  If we build a bridge there, it ought to be for vehicles and pedestrians.

I'm satisfied with the single dam we have now which creates Zink Lake.  I'd rather not see two more dams built across the entire river.  I think timed releases from Keystone (and/or a re-regulation dam downstream of Keystone), wing dams, or jetties make more sense economically and ecologically than two more dams blocking the flow of the river.

I think that these types of issues ought to be decided on a city by city basis, not county-wide.  Even better would be private financing with very little or no public funding at all.  I really hate sales taxes for these types of projects because they are by nature regressive and penalize the poorest taxpayers in order to provide infrastructure for the richest.

We have lots of land lying fallow in and around downtown Tulsa.  In many areas, the infrastructure is already in place.  We've already made the investment.  Before we start messing with the natural beauty of the river, I'd prefer to see us re-develop brownfields and downtown where foul odors are much less of an issue.  I'd like to see some trail improvements along the river, but otherwise I'm satisfied with it as it is.

[rwarn17588]

What boo said.

I should add that whoever is trying to sell this is doing a poor job. The whole thing feels rushed and has a feeling of incompleteness, like it hasn't been thought through.

I'm also inclined to get the streets fixed and get downtown up and running more before we delve into river development. Let's finish some more pressing stuff first.

[TheArtist]

I would love to see the dams because I think they need to be done eventually and the dam part of this proposal seems well thought out. They have to release water in the afternoon at keystone because that is when peak rate hours are and by morning the water level goes down. So having the Sand Springs dam hold some of that water for release during the day sounds like a good idea. Plus all of these dams will be safer than the Zink dam is now and the Zink lake will be higher, yet allow for better fish migration and silt control. The Jenks Riverwalk and other things will only be that much nicer with the dam there. It will help "finish off" the area.


(1.)    15 million for downtown connector? What is that really? The only thing I ever saw in relation to that was a cheesy looking waterfall feature going down a street. There is no reason for that. Those types of things need a lot of upkeep, the city has enough trouble with the fountains it has. The streets leading to downtown look decent as it is. Adding rinky dink things that dont fit the character of the streets isnt going to "connect" downtown to the river. There is no need for it. Just clean and maintain them nicely and that will do. As that area continues to become better they will naturally act as nice connectors. I dont actually see what they are trying to connect, where, how is it supposed to work in reality, what will it really do? Plus, until they show us what that 15 million is for, how can we vote on it or have some input into what "it" will be? Does anyone really know what they are talking about using this 15 million for?

(2.)   I think it could be a good idea to purchase the land on the west side of the river near downtown.  However, what are they going to require of any developer? What type of development are they looking for whith a developer, quality, etc.? It would sure help confidence wise if we the people at least heard some comments on the subject. Whats more important to me though is...

What are they going to spend the money on after they sell the property? Does that money essentially become a blank check after they sell the property? They are promoting the deal as money to purchase property, but its more than that. What are they going to use the money for after they sell the property?

(3.) Bang for the buck, voters not wanting this large a tax. Both are related imo. If for example we got rid of the downtown connector and perhaps a pedestrian bridge, or didnt do the "Living River" concept. We could do the Pearl District which is supposed to cost around 50 million. If we vote for this tax, your not likely to get the Pearl done anytime within the next 20 years or so as far as I can tell.

I think leaving out a pedestrian bridge and the downtown connector and adding the Pearl District plan would get us a whoooole lot more bang for the voters buck. Imagine showing the plan we have now minus those things but then add the "pretty little pictures" showing the canals and lakes of the Pearl District and discussing how that could make such a large difference for redevelopment. So much more economic impact and "saleability" than a measly pedestrian bridge and downtown connector or even the 90million dollar "living river" part of this plan.  

Basically I think this tax would have been more palitable if it had been about 200mill with the 117mill in private donations. Some of that private donation helping with say a new pedestrian bridge.

Or the 280 million minus a few smaller things for the moment but adding the Pearl District plan into it. I think people could see how something like that would have a much larger economic and "city well being" impact.  

(4.) One other thing I really dont like is that they are taking out a well used venue, and as far as I can see, not replacing it.  You can drive by 71st and riverside and see people playing vball there quite a bit. The 71st plan they have now, eliminates this and does not leave any room for it to be incorporated in the future. I was really hoping the plan would add to a well used spot,not completely take it away. They have a huge fundraiser there every year and the largest volleyball tournament in the state.  http://www.tauw.org/tauw/Sandblazer_Information.asp?SnID=213366  Now that too has been eliminated.  The new plan shows restaurants on a pier. I think, anyway, still dont have the details on that. Another example of... Sure wish I knew WHAT I was supposed to be voting for. lol.

But how neat would it have been to have the volley ball courts near an outdoor restaurant? It would have been fun and made both more enjoyable and more likely to be used. Why eliminate an obvious synergy like that? Its like they just didnt give a damn about the all people, group, teams, events, who have used that area for ages. I even had some friends who hired a coach to come down and help them so they could compete in the olympics. Why eliminate something thats already a "cool" factor for our city?

I have seen more people out playing volleyball at 71st, and more often, than I have ever seen at the Rivers Edge restaurant. Why eliminate one venue that is a success for one that may not be as successful? Especially when it could have been so easy to incorporate both and make them both more successful.  The way they have it designed now at 41st and 71st there is no place for vball. We will have to ask the city to make us another spot where once again we will have a couple of porta potties, no water fountain and nothing but dirt to park on. Thats absurd.

If we are going to pay 280million dollars to improve the river. All those people deserve to get better than dirt and porta potties out of the deal.


I am still leaning no. The one thing that may push me to they yes side is considering the 117million we will be given with this deal. No matter how imperfect or poorly we may think some of the other parts of this plan may be handled, that 117 million could balance out those faults.

[sgrizzle]

I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:

1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.

2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.

The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:

1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.

2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.

The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.

I'll vote NO on October 9 against the Kaiser River Tax.  

The duplicity of our annointed politicians  conning us into paying AGAIN for construction of the two low-water dams approved in Vision 2025 is beyond immoral.  Maybe Evil.

"River Development" is just a clever Snakey-Turncoat & Flake mantra coined for the local heavy construction cartel and their coterie of connected cronies.

They hope to ram-rod a new tax increase, and keep getting it renewed for the next 50 years. They plan to spend $1,000,000 to get $1,000,000,000,000's for decades to come.

What could be more foolish than moving sand around in a slow-moving prairie river?

Sorry if I'm sugar-coating my comments again.

VOTE NO October 9.

[:O]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I am generally anti-tax increase, but I am leaning towards voting for this tax, despite my dislike of the main county commissioner pushing for it and a few other things. The two biggest parts I have debated over are the following:

1. The new dams+channeling will take care of priority #1 which is to keep water in the river. If the corps of engineers think it's a good idea then I'm not going to overanalyze it. Trying to meter the flow upstream can only work to a point.

2. The 41st bridge. They have it listed as pedestrian currently but there is also a decent amount of contingency funds. I'm pretty sure that if a private developer pushed for development of the west bank, that could be changed after the fact. I'd rahter have a pedestrian fund that could get vehicle traffic later than nothing at all.

The main thing for me is that this have been 40yrs in the making and I'm not willing to wait another 40. And unlike vision2025, there is tons of private money both from donors and developers that will not only match but exceed the public funds. Vision2025 was passed with the hope of private donors and development at a later date.

I'll vote NO on October 9 against the Kaiser River Tax.  

The duplicity of our annointed politicians  conning us into paying AGAIN for construction of the two low-water dams approved in Vision 2025 is beyond immoral.  Maybe Evil.

"River Development" is just a clever Snakey-Turncoat & Flake mantra coined for the local heavy construction cartel and their coterie of connected cronies.

They hope to ram-rod a new tax increase, and keep getting it renewed for the next 50 years. They plan to spend $1,000,000 to get $1,000,000,000,000's for decades to come.

What could be more foolish than moving sand around in a slow-moving prairie river?

Sorry if I'm sugar-coating my comments again.

VOTE NO October 9.

[:O]

I don't remember us voting a first time, other than for basic engineering work.

[RecycleMichael]

quote...Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons...unquote.

I just want to try it for one thread...

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote...Please don't try to respond to the comments of others, instead just state your reasons...unquote.

I just want to try it for one thread...

Sorry, Recycle, to be a Thread-crapper, but Sgrizzle broke your Commandment first, and is drinking the Our River Tax Kool-Aid.

Tulsa County voters were promised three river related projects as part of Proposition 4 of Vision 2025, quoting the actual ballot:

--Construct two low water dams on Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan -- $5.6 million

--Zink Lake Shoreline Beautification -- $1.8 million

--Design and construct Zink Lake Upstream Catch Basin and silt removal -- $2.1 million

The word was CONSTRUCT.  Not study.  Not Engineer.  CONSTRUCT.

We've already paid for the two low-water dams.  ONCE was more than enough. TWICE is way too many.

[:O]

[Double A]

My manifesto will be dropping science like Galileo dropped the orange soon. Stay tuned.

[cks511]

I'll be voting no because:

1. randi miller disgusts me.
2. kathy taylor disgusts me.
3. I don't want the river messed with.
4. I don't want to ride my bike across a pedestrian brige at 41st street and look down at a poop basin!

[cannon_fodder]

I will probably be voting yes because:

1) Large Sums of Private Money
2) I enjoy the "developed" part of the river from 11th to 41st street very often.  Especially the River's Edge area that is very heavily utilized by a diverse crowd of people
3) Damming/Channeling of the river to make it available for Kayak and canoes as well as other uses (think water taxi to Oktoberfest)
4) Aesthetics of a river with water in it
5) Prospects of actual select development along the river with cafe's, shops, and restaurants at the river appeals to me.


For those that want to keep the river natural, I wonder if we are looking at the same river.  The river I see has its flow controlled by a massive dam just upstream, has its banks contained by rock dumped to stop erosion, and when it begins to run dry exposes 100 years of trash on its bottom.  As it flows, it certainly has its beauty, but as I understand it the development along the banks will be select and not San Antonio like in its encompassing of the river.
- - -

I still might vote NO on the river because:
1) More tax!  I generally think government handles money poorly.
2) Unanswered questions about funding for maintenance.
3) Uncertainty of the plans in general.
4) Distrust of the 'good ole' boy system' and fear it is in play.

[Conan71]

I'm voting no:

1) This proposal has not had thorough enough examination of various issues and planning.  It's been rushed way too fast.  I would rather see a concrete, final plan before voting for funding.  4/10's of a cent isn't going to make a big difference in my lifestyle.  I have an issue with giving the county a blank check when they really don't even know what all this entails.

2) There was provision for LWD's and Zink Lake improvements in V-2025.  They crammed that in without fully understanding what the costs were, and now are trying to explain away that that was never really going to happen anyhow, and they have something so much better.  Too much babble and double-talk.

3) Existing V-2025 funding and over-collections should be sufficient for Zink Lake improvements, and enough water appears to stay in the Zink Lake area to make it attractive for west bank development off W. 23rd St.

4) There is a stench issue with refineries and waste water treatment which will have to be dealt with.  I see this as becoming a 30-year bottomless tax package.

5) After reviewing and actually visiting other developments and seeing what has made river or canal development attractive in other cities, the cozy feel of a small channel seems to be what all of those have in common.  I'd prefer to see tributary development as that would allow for Bing Thom's concept of "waving to people on the other side".

6) To date, I've not heard this will be a general obligation bond which will require the collected funds to be used soley for the river.

7) I do not trust Randi Miller.

Plenty more reasons.  If anyone is interested, they can look up my comments on the various river threads we've had under development.

[waterboy]

I have spent too much time trying to craft just the right response. Especially since I have invested so much of my life and grey matter in the last decade to the subject. Then I realized, the city has done that too. We're all waiting for the perfect plan that will show our sophistication and creativity. Well, this plan is not it. In fact if you want a plan at all, don't vote for this one or any one.

But if you want to log in to a process, this is the opportunity. There will be many questions to answer, problems to solve and the end result may not look like the original plan. Guess what? That's a description of any successful business adventure. Ask around.

I have come to the conclusion that this current river plan may be one of the best presented in the process thus far. And as many of you know that is a turnaround for me. In fact I have come full circle from embracing it, to questioning it, opposing it and now welcoming it.  Recently, I had a chance to talk with Kirby Crowe of  PMG about the  proposal, specifically the "living river" component. I was pleasantly surprised. It is very exciting for kayak & canoe usage. My fears that the natural operation of the river would be hammered into oblivion in favor of eye candy for lazy, fair weather shoppers, have been somewhat assuaged. This stretch will be recreating the river's natural rhythms and ecosystems in a condensed area. It will harden the banks of the meandering, fast channel providing habitats for otters, herons, eagles and the rest of the wildlife that thrive on the river. I could see it as a participatory learning experience as well as a great opportunity for adventurous kayaking. Now the pedestrian bridge makes some sense. Especially if it could be enlarged if future development requires it. This segment is the gold inlay on the jewel and is probably going to have equal impact with the low water dams but is getting far less attention. Tulsans should embrace with exuberance this participatory habitat.

My biggest concern has been that these impounds would be connected in some way so that one could start a canoe trip at Sand Springs and end up in Jenks without having to pull your boat out and reload. The current plan shows the ability to do just that with narrow passages at the Zink lake. Planners listened and responded.

There is always something to dislike about such a grand vision and this one is no different. But like v2025 this plan has something for everyone to like. The vision is well defined, the planners have displayed good insight, and the timing is right if not a little slow in coming. Now my biggest concern is that the public is not getting a clear picture of the "cool" factor this plan will have and the impact to the community.

Instead they are being distracted by the financial details, competing inner city development plans and personal political feuds among local factions. Truly, this is a chance for Tulsans to look past petty squabbles over power, wealth and class. Yes, wealthy people are likely to gain from it, but so will the common man. Yes, power is centralized to the county but that means speed and flexibility the cities don't have. Jenks and Owasso flourish in part because of the simple chain of command they enjoy. Yes, downtown needs attention as well as the Pearl district, the Northside and the Westside, but they will not drive the city like the river will. And they will prosper whether or not the project is passed. We stand to reap the largest gain from river development.

Change is hard. Buck up. Its time to set and achieve some adventurous goals that energize our region and stop living on the reputation of our visionary, risk taking progenitors. I'll vote yea.

[TeeDub]

I will gladly vote no...  

Jenks successfully built a retail and restaurant corridor without a single dime of my money.   I love that Tulsa has decided that the entire county should help out with what will eventually become a debacle just like 2025.  (I mean really, how many times did that arena get voted down before they sweetened enough other pots to get it passed?)

Will you really get 4/10th of EVERY penny you spend worth of enjoyment from this?   Much like the arena, you won't be getting free tickets just because your tax dollars built it.   You will still have to pay inflated prices for mediocre service and events.  

My only real regret is that instead of Tulsa doing what it needs to do to improve (work out deals and tax incentives with businesses) they try to drag everyone into another tax.  

On the upside, a 9% retail tax will finally force me to do all my discretionary spending on the internet.