Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Steve

I am voting "NO" on this latest river tax plan for the following reasons:

1.  I think Tulsa has much higher priority needs than river development for shopping/recreation.  We have $650,000,000 and growing daily in street and bridge repair needs.  We need about 100 additional police officers to combat growing crime.  We need about 50 additional code enforcement inspectors to clean up and monitor trashy properties and make our city attractive and safe.  We don't need more river dams and commercial shopping/dining centers by the river.  If it is such a good economic thing, let the developers do it with their own private money or donations, and then let them reap the profits.

2.  I hate sales taxes.  Sales taxes are extremely regressive and hurt the lowest income classes the most.  I vowed over 20 years ago, that until Oklahoma exempts basic groceries and clothing items, necessities of life, from sales taxes, that I would vote "NO" on ANY sales tax issue that comes up for a vote.  I have remained true to that.

The "rebate" provisions in this river tax and other past taxes are ridiculous.  They just add another layer of paperwork, and many won't apply because of the hassle or lack of understanding.

I would prefer that all local city/county sales taxes in Oklahoma be abolished and replaced with a fair, graduated city income tax.  But I know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon, as long as our government officials are rich millionaires.  Governments, federal & state, have spent the past 25 years cutting income taxes for the rich and shifting tax burden to the poor.

Just to add to my previous post....

A recurring theme we keep hearing from river tax supporters is that there is nothing for young people to do in Tulsa, or the perception that there is nothing to do so employers will not move here and "young professionals" will not stay here.  Nothing to do?  I would agree with this viewpoint only if we eliminate each and every one of the following existing Tulsa entertainment and cultural options:

1.  Tulsa's great museums.  The Philbrook, the Gilcrease, the Tulsa Historical Society, the new Tulsa Air & Space Museum, the Jazz Hall of Fame, and others.  These institutions have vast collections and rotate their exhibits, as well as host touring exhibits of national importance.  You could visit these museums 3-4 times a year for many years and never "see it all."
2.  Tulsa commercial art galleries that showcase the wealth of local artistic talent, in all varieties of artistic media.
3.  Tulsa movie theaters, especially the Circle Cinema, which provides Tulsans the opportunity to view thought-provoking films of social importance.
4.  Tulsa live local theater companies such as Theater Tulsa, Heller, Nightingale, and others which give us live, local theater to suit most every taste.
5.  The Tulsa Opera, 'nuff said.
6.  The Tulsa Ballet, 'nuff said.
7.  Tulsa pro/semi pro sports such as the Talons and Drillers.
8.  Local clubs which showcase local/regional musicians.  I do wish there were more piano bar/jazz clubs in Tulsa, but that will probably come with time.  And local dance clubs too, with recorded music if that is your thing.
9.  Locally owned, unique restaurants with great food, many of which also provide live music entertainment.
10.  Organized adult sports leagues.
11.  Organized youth sports leagues.
12.  Local civic organizations such as Rotary, Jaycees, Lions, Shriners, etc.  These groups proved educational, social, and charitable opportunities for their members.
13.  The marvelous Tulsa City/County Library System, with its millions of print, video, and audio documents, available to any Tulsa County resident.  Check out a book (remember those?) and read it once in a while.
14.  The under-construction BOK Arena, which will bring even more entertainment options to us Tulsans.
15.  Area gaming establishments with their gaming, dining, and entertainment options.
16.  Church sponsored activities for youths and adults.

I am sure there are more I will think of after I post this.  My point being that today's youth and Tulsa "young professionals" must have the attention span of a half millisecond if they cannot currently find enough venues to occupy their free time.  Quality of life for me is not about some new river development, it is about mowing my lawn without fear of being pistol-whipped and robbed, it is about feeling safe in my own home, and it is about living in attractive, clean neighborhoods.

Our public funds should go to fixing existing infrastructure, hiring more police officers and paying them a salary befitting an occupation that requires them to put their life on the line daily, beefing up our city inspections and code enforcement department with about 50 more inspectors, keeping our existing roads and public rights of way clear of trash and well maintained, and maintaining and repairing our existing parks, recreation centers and public pools.  These facilities were paid for with the tax dollars of my and older generations and have been allowed to degenerate to trash dumps and vandal magnets.  What a waste.

Our regressive sales tax in Tulsa has already reached its limit.  Vote NO on October 9th!

You could also add River Parks System to your original list of 16.

Already a popular attraction with joggers, bikers, roller-bladers, picnickers, strollers, fishermen, Illegal Aliens, the homeless, street people, etc.

[]

[Conan71]

Yeah Steve, you painted a picture of a really boring, pathetic city. []

Funny, I never seem to have a problem finding things to do around town.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

You could also add River Parks System to your list of 15.
Already a popular attraction with joggers, bikers, roller-bladers, picnickers, strollers, fishermen, etc.

Exactly.  I thought of that while I was editing my list, but forgot to include it when I hit the post button.

Add to my list #17. The existing river parks system with its trails and amphitheater for outdoor entertainment.  Not to mention the trail additions and enhancements that are already underway and not linked to the current river tax issue.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Yeah Steve, you painted a picture of a really boring, pathetic city. []

Funny, I never seem to have a problem finding things to do around town.

Me neither.  If people would just "pull their head out" and explore all the posibilities, they would find Tulsa is not so boring after all.  I think Tulsa can stand proud against any other city in the United States when it comes to entertainment options, adjusting for our smaller population.  Sure, we don't have a major pro sports francise, but I couldn't care less about that.

From a different angle, I don't want to see any more manmade structures or alterations to the Arkansas river.  Let's just let it be a natural river as nature intended, as much as we can after the Keystone Dam construction.  The pollution and odor problems are mostly from human activities, and can be addressed through proper enviornmental regulation.

And enough with the cutesy kids commercials on TV trying to guilt people into voting Yes on this.  And the recent announcement that $5 million of private funds would go to local parks & pools?  Don't bet on it.  If the private donors think it a worthy cause, why don't they give the money to local pools with no strings attached?

And add to my list these:

#18, the newly organized Tulsa Symphony Orchestra.  I have not attended one of their concerts myself, but have heard no negative comments and understand they are a worthy, proud artistic successor to the Tulsa Philharmonic.

#19, the PAC and their annual series of touring Broadway production shows.  Not everyone's cup of tea, but a wonderful entertainment option for Tulsa citizens.

[TheArtist]

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )

Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be.  With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.

It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.

If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.

While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset.  There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )

Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be.  With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.

It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.

If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.

While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset.  There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )

Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be.  With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.

It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.

If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.

While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset.  There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.

What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.

[TheArtist]

I like that idea too. And was supportive of it  the last time it was proposed and in the news. It wouldn't imo have as large a positive impact though. Not to mention, as we have discussed before, it would be harder to do than even the river plan. The last time such a proposal reared its head, even as just a trail, let alone anything with shops or buildings along it, the people in that neighborhood acted like they would fight against it to the death.

So you didnt really answer those two questions as I stated them.

Its not just a matter of thinking of an idea, its a matter of thinking of an idea that is likely to get done.

[Renaissance]

If I were tossing around $200 million in the City of Tulsa I'd start with the implementation of the 6th St Master Plan.  That way you get your tributary development, you take care of a blighted area, and you encourage mixed-use development in an area that is ripe for walkable urban use.  

My two cents . . .

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.

Just as there are still a whole lot of unsupported statements on what this river development will or won't be.

Granted, there's been far more studies done on the river than on tributaries at this time, but we aren't voting on tributary development at the moment.

Until we have a more cohesive and clear plan which is not under the gun due to a large donation needing to be spent from a charitable trust by a certain date, the tax money pool for the river development becomes nothing more than a slush fund from which the river authority could spend on any number of things they have or have not proposed up to this point, or may find they can't do any of the things promised due to environmental impact.

I know one of the parts you really like is the "living river" concept.  How are you going to feel about being taxed on this if for some reason they determine it's nowhere close to feasible due to environmental issues, the actual cost is way over budget, or the same thing happens with this that happened with Zink Dam being too dangerous for the general public to use Zink Lake for boating?

I think it would be nice to know a lot of these things before authorizing money for it.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.

Just as there are still a whole lot of unsupported statements on what this river development will or won't be.

Granted, there's been far more studies done on the river than on tributaries at this time, but we aren't voting on tributary development at the moment.

Until we have a more cohesive and clear plan which is not under the gun due to a large donation needing to be spent from a charitable trust by a certain date, the tax money pool for the river development becomes nothing more than a slush fund from which the river authority could spend on any number of things they have or have not proposed up to this point, or may find they can't do any of the things promised due to environmental impact.

I know one of the parts you really like is the "living river" concept.  How are you going to feel about being taxed on this if for some reason they determine it's nowhere close to feasible due to environmental issues, the actual cost is way over budget, or the same thing happens with this that happened with Zink Dam being too dangerous for the general public to use Zink Lake for boating?

I think it would be nice to know a lot of these things before authorizing money for it.

The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it. Is it detailed so that I might know where it will meander, where the banks will be hardened and how much each element will cost? No. If we wait till everything is perfectly clear and detailed to such a degree, it will take years and still not satisfy those who simply don't want river development, don't want higher taxes or don't want the government involved. These are the extremes we work with. Those who plan large scale and don't feel it necessary or important to flesh out too many details vs. those who think small and want everything detailed to eliminate any chance of graft or sloppiness.

I sit in the middle and would like see the benefits of each approach, knowing neither will work by themselves. I have seen more details emerge and questions being answered from the yes camp. It seems to have had little impact on those opposed. Truth is, even if this plan used different financing, nothing short of 100% private funding will satisfy opponents who will then resort to arguments about the environment, taste, poor vs rich, ad nauseum.

And I disagree with you about the timing and the "rush". Time is important. Timing is everything. The window is closing on river development momentum and the same arguments keep resurfacing that were used in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The more time we wait, the more intractable the opposition, the more creative the arguments.

But whatever. Tulsa will survive this debacle and move on one way or the other.

Oh yeah. If they didn't proceed for one reason or another on the Living River portion, I would be pissed and do everything in my power to hold them to it or explain reasonably why they couldn't. Just like a business deal gone bad, there would be a price to pay. There are lots of plans, both governmental and private, that don't end up well (that isn't the Arena I had expected!) but like the song says..."you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


The living river is not creating new and untested engineering. The plan is straight forward as to the mechanics of it.

I remember when you explained the concept of wingdams to me, and it seemed very simple. That's why I don't understand the price tag. If that's all this is -- installing wingdams (with no moving parts -- just obstructions) to concentrate the channel in the center -- why does the "living river" cost nearly as much as four new low-water dams (with moving parts)?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

(notice I didnt say "could the city do something else that would have more impact" the, "we can imagine or do better" game can be played forever, no plan will exist that wont "need obvious improvements". )

Some people dont want anything at all done with the river or want the current dams torn out and things returned to as close to natural as possible. Some want more development, bridges,more of the INCOG Master Plan etc. than what this plan offers. This tax is way too much,,, wouldnt mind paying even more than this tax would be.  With both of these types of views, and other dichotomies, in play. There will be no plan that will not be resoundly disliked by some group.

It may not be as inspiring as a bigger project like the Channels or something. But it doesnt carry the high price tag either. There are winners and losers on the development side, park side, and the nature side of the debate. Seems to be a decent mix of public tax and private donation.

If there is a compromise or middle way it seems to me that this plan is fairly close.

While reading the debates on here it is painfully obvious that no matter which direction we go, if you lean more towards one persons point of view, it will only lead to another person on another side being all the more upset.  There has not been one idea that someone has put forward that has not been shot down.

Over all, good points and bad points, will this plan, have a negative impact or a postitive impact?

With the same amount of funds, would the city do something else, that would pass, that would have more impact?

Easy. Tributary development. Crow Creek could probably be done(maybe Elm Creek, too) for a fraction of the cost of this river tax, that would surpass Bricktown or possibly even the San Antonio riverwalk. Those developments would be on a human scale that is more conducive to entertainment, restaurant and retail development like Bricktown or the (San Antonio) Riverwalk. More bang for less bucks.

What makes you think it would cost less? May be a better idea, and is one I like very much, but I am not aware of any planning, cost estimates or feasibility studies. You're talking about many private land owners around the Creek that would fight it. Just don't understand how you can make such an unsupported statement.

How funny, you just can't see how I could make such an unsupported statement, yet you buy into all the unsupported statements made by the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser tax camp. Big credibility gap their don't you think?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy



And I disagree with you about the timing and the "rush". Time is important. Timing is everything. The window is closing on river development momentum and the same arguments keep resurfacing that were used in the 40's, 50's and 60's. The more time we wait, the more intractable the opposition, the more creative the arguments.

But whatever. Tulsa will survive this debacle and move on one way or the other.

Oh yeah. If they didn't proceed for one reason or another on the Living River portion, I would be pissed and do everything in my power to hold them to it or explain reasonably why they couldn't. Just like a business deal gone bad, there would be a price to pay. There are lots of plans, both governmental and private, that don't end up well (that isn't the Arena I had expected!) but like the song says..."you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need."

What's going on here is we are being sold the sizzle without a very good look at what kind of steak we are getting.

Here's the problem with their approach as I see it:  V-2025 was controversial and has been under the microscope ever since before it's passage, cost over-runs on the arena and the LWD issue have made it even more of a sore spot for people.  Things happened which weren't forseen at the time the proposal was put together.  The perception is a lack of accountability.  Real or imagined, it's still IS the percepetion of many people in Tulsa County.  Personally, other than the LWD issue, I'm reasonibly satisfied with the on-going results of V-2025 funded projects.

You and I have both worked in the realm of PR and advertising and know image and perception is everything when it comes to selling.  This is no different.  The image is already tarnished to a degree due to history.  They have hurt themselves and could have brought on much more support in a year or two.  I'm impatient too, I certainly want to see development on the river and I like the cursory details.  I'm just not willing to step in a pile of dog crap to see it happen.

That is the reason people are demanding more details and some sort of guarantee or better defined wording on the ballot and it's legal resolution.  

And good luck with "doing everything in your power" if they don't build the living river or it's un-usable for the public.  I think you will find out how much the average citizen can be marginalized by government.

[FOTD]

I am a big fan of George Kaiser who happens to be an angel of Tulsa.....someday, when he pasts Bill Gates on the 400 list, Tulsan's will be sorry they did not follow this kind person's lead.....

Here is some campaign letter from yesterday.....go vote yes.


"I thought you might like to hear a progress report on the river development vote (the nice thing about e-mail is that if you really don't want to hear, you can delete now; I'll wait): I think a lot of the confusion is being cleared up-
o   This is not The Channels; it is the older, basic plan that has been studied for many years with hundreds of public meetings.
o   There was never the intention that the small amount of money in Vision 2025 for dams ($5.6 million) would pay for them, only that it would pay for studies and perhaps help seed a federal grant that never came because of the greater need for Katrina recovery efforts; the remaining Vision 2025 money (and more than $12 million from other voter-approved sources) is being applied to this plan.
o   There will be strong oversight of how the money is spent by both a citizen committee and the foundations, individuals and businesses who are putting up $117 million to improve the plan.
o   There is a tax rebate for those over 65 (I promise not to take mine) and those with family income below about $50,000.
o   This will be largely a pay as you go arrangement, saving lots of interest, because several of the projects will take a couple of years to gain approval and the tax can accumulate and earn interest.
o   The main thing the public project does is put water in the river at all times, with eleven miles of lakes and improved access, including street and sidewalk improvements leading to the river and pedestrian bridges across it. The private supplement builds parks, playgrounds, wilderness and fitness areas along the banks.
o   And the real thing the river plan does is demonstrate to prospective employers and to our kids who are leaving town to find good jobs that Tulsans are serious about improving their city and making it more livable.
 
Almost no one seems opposed to the plan itself but the vote will be close because many people will vote no for reasons unrelated to the proposal, such as...
o   opposition to all taxes, even one of less than half a penny (or about ten cents per day for most people) for just seven years;
o   belief that other needs are more urgent, like road repair; There is clearly a high priority need for this purpose but it will be separately funded under a plan that is just now being developed. We need to do both.
o   concern in one city that every dollar they pay doesn't come back to them in projects within their city limits and that those dollars could otherwise be taxed locally. But more than 50% of their residents work in the city of Tulsa and use its facilities which were largely paid for without cost to them;
o   concern in one area of the city about a wholly unrelated issue that they want to protest about by rejecting this plan, which they acknowledge is sound.
 
If you have questions that I have not clarified here (or if you don't like my answers), please take a look at the FAQ section of the website, OurRiverYes.com at http://www.ourriveryes.com/overview/q&a/ and any other material online that takes an opposing view.
I hope, after you have done all of your own research, looking at the advice of the pro and con people, that you will conclude, as I have, that this is critically important for Tulsa and will vote YES. This may be our last shot for a long, long time to pull ourselves out of the economic drift we are in. And maybe, also, you could help explain the plan, as you see it, to your friends and neighbors.
 
Thanks for listening.
George"