Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[Kenosha]

quote: I will gladly vote no...

Jenks successfully built a retail and restaurant corridor without a single dime of my money.

LOL...Try again TeeDub.  They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...

[tim huntzinger]

1. The tax hurts the County's competitiveness when trying to attract new businesses.
2. There are additional needs that are coming up that will require sizable investment.
3. We have been promised low-water dams through Vision 2025.
4. There are trust issues with the County related to Bell's that I cannot get over.
5. Investors are already stepping up with that new huge Jenks development and (it pains me even breathe the words) Tulsa Landing.
6. The renderings just do nothing for me.
7. The County has demonstrated an arrogance in their approach that rivals the Bushiites.

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha



LOL...Try again TeeDub.  They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...

Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium.    While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.

Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization?   Just one reliable source if you don't mind.

[Hometown]

I like the way INCOG collected input from citizens and formed a consensus when they developed the river plan.

I like the idea of strengthening and expanding river parks.

$500 million isn't a huge amount of money for a city our size.  But we could use some federal funding from our "do nothing" senators.

I will vote for this plan but after this one will no longer support any increase in the sales tax.  In fact we should repeal sales taxes on groceries.

We have to start moving towards fairness in our tax system and I want our rich folks to pay their fair share with a steeply progressive income tax.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by 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!

It's the proposed 61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.

Quite the Bouquet!

Oooooh, What's That Smell!  

Do you Smell THAT Smell??

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by 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!

It's the proposed 61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.

Quite the Bouquet!

Oooooh, What's That Smell!  

Do you Smell THAT Smell??

yeah, that's what I meant....lol.

[midtownnewbie]

I will vote yes.  

Before I moved here, I would visit once or twice per year.  One question I would always have is why the city had let both sides of the river develop so poorly.  In most areas outside of Oklahoma, that real estate would be the highest priced real estate in the region.  Here, the river is a dry creek bed (most of the year) that's surrounded by cheap apartments, cement plants, run-down houses, etc.  I think the Arkansas river is one of the greatest assets in all of Oklahoma.  To be able to beautify it and get it ready for private development for ONLY 4/10 cent for 7 years AND receive the $100+ million of private donation is a no brainer.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cks511

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by 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!

It's the proposed 61st Street Pedestrian Bridge that crosses directly over the treatment plant's Sewage Overflow Pond.

Quite the Bouquet!

Oooooh, What's That Smell!  

Do you Smell THAT Smell??

yeah, that's what I meant....lol.

I'm voting NO.

New pedestrian bridges so closely spaced at 61st and 41st streets, straddling the existing 31st street bridge, PLUS the existing 21st and 11th street Dual-Use bridges would only be cost-beneficial if we're forced to flee on foot in advance of Martians invading Tulsa.

Otherwise, a total waste of money, because DILUTION is NOT the SOLUTION to River Development.  We'll end up with so many tomatoes on the vine that NONE will reach a useful size.

The different development HUBS will merely cannabalize the remaining HUBS.  

CONCENTRATION (i.e. MASS, hopefully CRITICAL MASS) is the much cheaper and much wiser solution.  A BRANSON's LANDING is a concentration of development in ONE spot that could become a local DESTINATION spot.

Maybe a regional destination spot, depending on the amenities and attractions.

The Aquarium RIGHT NOW is a good fit adjacent to the River Walk Center, with food, shopping, movie theater and the walkability of a promenade.  

CRITICAL MASS.


[:O]

[swake]

Things about the plan that I would change, or that give me hesitation:

Dump the pedestrian bridge at 61st. I would like to see that $15 million put into Riverside Drive along with the $15 million set aside for the transportation study and the downtown connectors and remake Riverside between 31st and 71st.

I would like to have it in writing that the city of Tulsa will have and control a RFP for the land on the west bank at 21st.

I would like it stated that if Inhofe actually comes up with any federal funds that the tax will end a corresponding amount early.

And my biggest heartache is Randi Miller.

But, overall this is a good plan, no plan is ever going to be just what I or anyone else wants unless they personally are going to pay for it. Overall, it's very good and well thought out.  I don't get the "rushed" argument. This is a big start on the river plan started by INCOG five years ago after decades of talk about the river. There have been meetings, plans released, and talk about this for years, what is rushed?

The arguments about profiteering on this plan are weak here. Tulsa's big construction companies don't do the bulk of the kind of that this plan requires, Tulsa's big bank that might do the bonding is owned by the very man that is donating most of that $117 million in donations and the developer that is wanting to hundreds of millions at 21st isn't local.

The plan will make the river far more attractive than it is today, and give it many more recreational uses. It makes Tulsa a more attractive destination for visitors. The plan has a very good return on investment with the $117 million in donations and fact that it will facilitate hundreds of millions in private development at 21st. For every dollar in taxes there will be two or three or even more in money from other sources. It will make the already outstanding Riverparks system into a showplace.

I think this is an easy yes vote at under half a cent in taxes.

But if it fails, it's all on Randi's head.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha



LOL...Try again TeeDub.  They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...

Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium.    While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.

Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization?   Just one reliable source if you don't mind.

The Aquarium was a catalyst for the development of successful retail and restaraunt.  They took something that was pretty much in the middle of nowhere and transformed it into a destination.. With our tax dollars of course.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha



LOL...Try again TeeDub.  They absolutely have used your tax money to help build that...(Aquarium), in fact, they are now asking you to pay for bank stablization so that Riverwalk doesn't fall into the river...

Retail and restaraunt != (does not equal) the aquarium.    While I appreciate your trying to gray the issue, don't.

Also, can you cite me where they are trying to get money for bank stabilization?   Just one reliable source if you don't mind.

The Aquarium was a catalyst for the development of successful retail and restaraunt.  They took something that was pretty much in the middle of nowhere and transformed it into a destination.. With our tax dollars of course.

The Aquarium was a veritable MONEY-PIT for Jenks until our favors-trading political network traded Jenks' government support for Vision 2025 in return for paying off huge cost overruns on the Aquarium.

It's a matter of public record.

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Things about the plan that I would change, or that give me hesitation:

Dump the pedestrian bridge at 61st. I would like to see that $15 million put into Riverside Drive along with the $15 million set aside for the transportation study and the downtown connectors and remake Riverside between 31st and 71st.

Woah, woah, woah...I am indifferent to the 61st ped bridge...but I have heard that the "Downtown Connector" money is designated for an "alternatives analysis", and to provide some capital costs for transportation alternatives along the river, specifically, a light rail line or rail streetcar.  That downtown connector may be the best thing in this whole package IMO.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Woah, woah, woah...I am indifferent to the 61st ped bridge...but I have heard that the "Downtown Connector" money is designated for an "alternatives analysis", and to provide some capital costs for transportation alternatives along the river, specifically, a light rail line or rail streetcar.  That downtown connector may be the best thing in this whole package IMO.

Is this a top secret plan or can any old, say, taxpayer, be let in on it?

That gets at my biggest concern.  There seem to be all these hidden details between the very broadly written lines of the proposal, but no one seems to want to let the public in on them.  Combine that with the fact that a new trust dominated by County Commissioners and their suburban appointees will be making all of the decisions, and it makes me leery.

I'd like to be confident in my vote, but the County is making it very hard.

[Rico]

^

Nice point Kiah..

There is one person, I am quite sure, that has a written promise as to which one of the "pie in the sky - flavor of the quarter" projects will be done and which ones are maybe... maybe not.

George Kaiser

I would not be at all surprised if he gave a priority list along with his demands for the tax vote.... and this is called being a philanthropist....?

I am in no way trying to start a "conspiracy theory" here... It just was not that long ago that Tulsa was in debt to BOK for the "Great Plains" fiasco.  

Two major River Developments.... Put forward.

The Channels and this "imitation Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan"....

Miller jumps on top of both of them...
kind of a scary image just flashed through my mind...

They are sold as make it or break it deals that can not be changed..

The only thing that is missing with this would be Bing Thom..

or is he just staying out of sight..?

So much for my daily rant... [|)]

[Double A]

Tulsa County River Tax:
A Question of Style or Substance

   It seems like an age old question: what should our priorities be in life to create well- maintained, vibrant, safe, diverse, green, clean communities? Should our collective vision focus on substance and sustainability or should style and self-indulgent luxuries dictate our priorities? On October 9, Tulsa County Voters arrive at an ozone-polluted, pothole-riddled crossroads to face the decision of which way to go.

   The proposed County river tax is not a transformation, but a mutation of the geographic inequity, institutionalized neglect, economic segregation, and false promises of progress as promised as usual in Tulsa County. We will not become a progressive community by continuing to neglect the maintenance of our failing roads and infrastructure or ignoring the environmental elephants in the room in regards to river development.

It will not happen by disregarding alternative sources of funding for river development, which do not increase regressive County sales taxes that steal primary revenue streams away from struggling municipalities or by infrastructure privatization.

It will not happen by perverting the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan to include a 41st St. pedestrian bridge or wasting precious resources on unwanted, unnecessary, special elections.

It will not happen by gambling on exaggerated economic impact projections or empty promises of good-paying construction jobs that won't have any prevailing wage protections and nothing to protect against 1099 worker misclassification abuse, that places honest contractors who play by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.

It will not happen by misguided, last minute, half-hearted attempts to address the hardship this tax increase causes to our at-risk, low income, and fixed income families living paycheck to paycheck by offering a year end tax rebate to those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit that will do nothing to affect the immediate impact this new tax increase on the basic necessities of life will have on their budgets.

It will not happen by giving private special interest controlled Mayors, County Commissioners, and  their politically appointed new bureaucratic unrepresentative river authority the final say on development along the river within the sovereignty of municipalities by voting to give them a giant blank check, a new regressive tax, for continued failure to deliver the progress as promised.

   At the polls during the October 9 special election, I urge you to please vote NO, so we can begin a real dialogue on how to provide sustainable solutions to the critical long-term infrastructure, environmental, socioeconomic, transportation,  planning challenges we face in Tulsa County in order to promote, preserve, and protect real progressive values.