Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[waterboy]

quote:

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?
[/quote]

If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.

There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

When the Kaiser plan was introduced, I made some of those same points. I wrote here that the public perceived that they had no voice in v-2025, The Channels, Annexation, River development planning, Bell's and for that matter, anything else. I presented it simply as a case of low Credibility and Trust that sprang from perceived arrogance by politicians and planners. I naively thought someone in local politics might read those words and take them to heart. No, they listen to their sycophants and their campaign ad agencies. That's why the kids in commercials.

That lack of trust and credibility still remains a stumbling block to passage. But it is important to remember that perception is not reality in the real world, only in the made up world of politics, pr and advertising. I mean, an abandoned oil drilling site is still nasty. Once you get close to one you realize that the ad campaign talking about how good old time oil drillers were and how responsible they are to clean up their mess some 50years later is all bunk. They want your perception to change.

This isn't a perfect plan and the details would overwhelm the average voter. So they rely on their credibility and their trust. Even though the efforts by the most credible experts in the area are being relied on, the average No person refuses to give them credibility.

Even though no one has given any details that the players involved may have their own interests at heart, there is no trust. I guess I could laugh it off and say ala the presidio, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE DETAILS!!" , but I can't.

We could wait two more years and the plan would probably change and require more details and allow opposition to become even more intractable. Maybe my standards have lowered. I just want us to start on something to give this city a shot in the arm. My wife is currently visiting Minneappolis and is stunned by the comparison. She calls Tulsa, "bumpkinville". Arrrgh!

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

This plan is how old?
Just exactly how many years studied?
And of couse HUNDREDS of meetings? How many?

We should all start drinking heavily....LOL

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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)?

I can think of a few reasons. I would offer this analogy. Building the wing dams are simple enough, kind of like buying a two year old basic Ford Taurus. But when you go to finance the Taurus you find that for a few dollars more per month you could buy a brand new Crown Victoria. And if you extend the payments a little longer you can get end up with the Vick at the same payment as the older Taurus. The Vick is easier to drive, holds it value better and fits your self perception. The typical Tulsa attitude seems to be, if you're going to go to this much trouble you might as well do it up right and do it all at once rather than incrementally. There is something to be said for that. The same reasons the Arena is Iconic instead of a bread box design.

Now, I can't judge whether the reasoning is sound. Presumably, the payback is greater. Certainly, the flash of the pedestrian bridges, gathering areas, hardened banks and environmental/ecological/wildlife features have raised the cost but they also increased the attractiveness and usefulness.

Lastly, the living river continues for several planned miles rather than just being a static lake. During that run it has to be manipulated and coerced to use its stored energy to good measure.  

[shadows]

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.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

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.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?  

Are the engineers who designed the space shuttle Challenger the same ones who are designing commercial airliners? How would I know, why would it matter? Interesting that you would choose one of the Corps perceived failures rather than one of their many successes. One could ask, "are these the same engineers that built the Keystone Dam?".

This is not redesigning the levees in Tulsa. This is not building dams to stop flooding. Its not new and untested principles and practices. And they are not being designed and built by the Corps of Engineers who warned the government many years in advance of potential failure btw. Any change to the river has to prove that it will not adversely affect flooding potential.

[shadows]

Waterboy:  

Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages.  They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.

The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England  with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets.  The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.

This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died.   He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.

Added:  Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400.   By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .

We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

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.
-------------------------------------
Are the same engineers that designed the never fail dikes at New Orleans the same ones who are designing those Dams and bank protection on the Arkansas River?  

NOPE

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Waterboy:  

Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages.  They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.

The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England  with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets.  The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.

This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died.   He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.

Added:  Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400.   By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .

We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.

"We"?? Just as I thought, you don't think for yourself.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

Two questions:

2. Would one of the River Tax proponents cite several example cities where development of a physical feature attracted a verifiable increase in 'young professionals'?

I can only give you anecdotes.  There aren't studies out there showing a direct causal link between improved recreational infrastructure and attraction of young professionals, so I can only give you examples I am aware of where certain cities have proved more attractive to young people based on physical features.  The two that immediately come to mind from my expereince are:

Austin--Town Lake
Chicago--Lake Michigan lake front

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Waterboy:  

Not wanting to disillusion you in your young career but when the Oklahoma 45 entered into Berlin by the Audubon, on each side sat airplanes with holes in the noses on the fuselages.  They queried among themselves as to why the didn't make motors while they were at it.

The truth was that a 18 year old German had terrorized England  with the flying buz-bombs and the V2 Rockets.  The planes along the Audubon were Jet airplanes that need the fuel from Russia (2nd largest world reserve)or the Mid-East we are after now.

This is a long way around but the same fellow was brought to America whether by choice of not, but was under guard until he died.   He designed the rockets that propelled us into space and was able to advance the commercial jet you speak of.

Added:  Although Gates is the most powerful man alive today he will possibly not be among the 400.   By his past gift in computers, with the pushing a button he could throw the entire world into turmoil .

We will answer your post on the meandering Arkansas later.

"We"?? Just as I thought, you don't think for yourself.

the voices

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

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?

If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.

There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.
[/quote]

I haven't located a study on Crow Creek(I haven't looked very hard), but a quick look at the Pearl Plan(which was studied and developed over the course of years, not months) for Elm Creek put estimated costs at $20 million in 2005. I'll just go ahead and add a generous inflationary increase to bump that up to 35 million. Based on those estimates, and the extra work involved to expose Elm Creek it only stands to reason that Crow Creek development would be less. By my estimates we could have two Bricktowns(Crow Creek, the Pearl) for roughly the same price included in this tax package just for land acquisition. Based on this, I think 282 million would more than cover the costs of the type of successful human scale widespread tributary development tax package you supported in this thread.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

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?

If you find something that I buy into that is unsupported by the facts then assail me on it like I have done to you. Deferring my remarks by saying I'm making the same mistake as you, means you just don't want to admit you made a rash statement.

There are no feasibility studies that show the cost of developing Crow Creek that I know of. If you have them, then compare the two plans.

I haven't located a study on Crow Creek(I haven't looked very hard), but a quick look at the Pearl Plan(which was studied and developed over the course of years, not months) for Elm Creek put estimated costs at $20 million in 2005. I'll just go ahead and add a generous inflationary increase to bump that up to 35 million. Based on those estimates, and the extra work involved to expose Elm Creek it only stands to reason that Crow Creek development would be less. By my estimates we could have two Bricktowns(Crow Creek, the Pearl) for roughly the same price included in this tax package just for land acquisition. Based on this, I think 282 million would more than cover the costs of the type of successful human scale widespread tributary development tax package you supported in this thread.
[/quote]

I would suggest you look at the average price of the homes around Crow Creek vs Elm up by the Pearl. That makes a huge difference in cost. Then look at the density of lawyers who live along Crow Creek. Its a costly plan even if you could persuade them to participate.

I didn't say I don't like the idea.

[shadows]

Waterboy; in response to persons has no knowledge of the Arkansas river.

The Arkansas basin was carved out by the glacier that came down in the ice age, which a part it now exist under the volcanic ash in the ice caves in NM.   The settlement was left in the river basin in the central part of US.  From where it starts with the snow melts in North Colorado, on the east side of the Rockies it is a clear water stream until it reaches the Royal Gorge where it is tapped by 12 irrigation districts that irrigates some 100,000 acreages as it meanders across Kansas. When it enters Okla it is contaminated with the settlement left by the ice age.  Einstein's son came up with the theory if the river banks were hardened (concreted) and narrowed then the water would be deeper and flow faster thus it would eliminate the buildup of settlement.  (This worked with control flow but it also raised the water level in floods)

The river in Tulsa has a average flow drop of less than one foot per mile.  If the banks are concreted then we would have a flood of greater depths than the flood of 1923 that flooded about 4,000 homes.  Where would we store the water?  

In 1927 the flood in SE Kansas recorded rainfall flooding of 750,000 cfs (This is  2.5 times the flood release in Tulsa in '86). It created a wall of water up to 10 feet deep.

The dust bowl years ('33-'37) caused the river to dry up as the irrigation canals drained the water. Since we have opened the navigation channel which requires water releases from Gibson, Oologah, Eufaula or Keystone to operate the locks.  It is a juggling act by the Corps to move the water to the locks when navigation is underway.

The cementing of the banks and the lack of capacity of the Keystone increases the flood danger to the city.  The low water dams will create only an obstruction for the low fall of the river.

The Kayakers reported on Zink lake on Monday, sitting in their boats, seems to have been waiting for the Corps to release some water for their Wednesday Kayaking.

Due to the fact that predicting where the rain will fall and the amount is not an exact science, the restricting of the river is not a proven engineering feat.  In the past it seems that the figures available show the Keystone will hold in flood stages 1 ½ inches of rainfall over the entire basin.   Even with conditions available in '86, much of the water was out of its banks without any additional restrictions in the river.  

As the climatic changes increase, due to possibly the world warming and the changing paths of the severe tropical storms, being a thousand miles down stream; to change in anyway the nature of the river in consideration of wet seasons through dry seasons, would and could be very foolish.  

The river isn't broken.  It is like nature planned, to carry off  the excess rainfall when call upon to do so.  

To attempt to tax so many for the pleasure of so few, while placing so many in harms way, should never be considered as the American way or dream.    

[waterboy]

Congratulations on finding Wikipedia. Its not always correct. The banks of the Arkansas have not been cemented. In fact there is very little hardening of the banks along the entire 42 miles of river. If you are referring to the levees, they are made of compacted sand occassionally hardened with rip rap.

I never said you knew nothing of the river. But you are definitely stretching with these remarks. If we are in such danger, then we should consider building a second Keystone Dam at Chandler park pdq.