Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by 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... [|)]

Now, let me get this straight. Are you saying its a bad thinkg that mr Kaiser may have some desire to have certain things done?  A lot of people have been complaining that one reason they dont like this plan is because things may not get done as promised. If your right that Mr Kaiser has an intest in getting the things done he wants done. I would say thats a plus. It may be one thing to tell you and me that, Oh, no we changed our mind or thats not what we intended... its quite another to tell Mr Kaiser that they have changed something that he wants. If he wants the dams and his "Living River" idea done. I bet they will get done.

[Rico]

^

As long as you are Mister Kaiser... getting your short list done may be an advantage to the plan...

What if you are William the Artist...?

Is it your list as well?

[tim huntzinger]

Does BOK stand anything to gain with the sale of the debt? I am not assuming they are, just curious.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Does BOK stand anything to gain with the sale of the debt? I am not assuming they are, just curious.

Really? Are we to this now? The conspiracy theories are out of control.

If BOK gets to the bond work they might make a few hundred thousand dollars profit. Kaiser owns about half the bank, so he might conceivable get a half of a few hundred thousand dollars in profit. In return for his tens of millions of dollars in donations.

Sure, he's doing for the money he's going to make.

[tim huntzinger]

I am not saying that Ozzie, I was just wondering.  I would suggest that BOK take itself out of the loop, to avoid even the appearance of such scandalous innuendo.  Do not give the grassy knoll type anywhere to go on this.  Or not, I could care less.

[Renaissance]

I'm voting yes.

This thing isn't perfect, but there's not going to be a better river plan.  It's suprisingly detailed if you take the time to investigate.  It's a reasonable reaction to the excesses of "The Channels."  It takes into account neighborhood needs and public input.  It provides parkland improvement and commercial development.  It even improves the roads, as we'll see new bridges and the reconstruction of Riverside Drive.  

Randi Miller and her ilk will fade into the sunset soon enough, but the river plan will continue for years to come.

It's time to either take action or continue the city's slide into irrelevance.  This is it.  Time to do something or continue our history of doing nothing.  I'll vote Yes.  End of story.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

^

As long as you are Mister Kaiser... getting your short list done may be an advantage to the plan...

What if you are William the Artist...?

Is it your list as well?

Not all of it lol. But my list wouldnt be your list. However, if they dont have something like my vball courts in the plan this time. I may try to pay for them myself. I mean how much can sand, some poles and nets, really cost?  Cant build restroom facilities by them but no plan is going to have everything for everyone. Though I definitely think its a missed opportunity to not have them by one of the gathering areas or near a restaurant.

I my guess is that Mr Kaiser really wants the "Living River" concept. I believe he is the one who funded the idea for it. You have to have the Zink dam improvements and the Sand Springs dam in order for the Living River part to work. Though I wasnt a big fan of the Living River part, as I have learned more about it I think its a good idea.  I like both of those dams and the Living River part so in that sense his and my lists match. And those are some big parts. I also think he will do the 71st area since the fountain has his banks name on it lol. And the QT guy will do the 41st park.

[DwnTwnTul]

When this project was first announced I was extremely excited and was a huge proponent.  After attending two meetings where politicians and business leaders attempted to sell this to the masses, I'm 100% against it.  Here are my reasons:

1.)   They keep claiming that the voters have already approved this via our vote for 2025, which included the Boeing provision.  They claim this tax is equivalent to what we would have paid if Boeing would have located here to build the 787.  
a.   When we approved the Boeing portion of 2025, we were saying that we were willing to invest in high paying jobs, NOT a river for private developers to junk up our river with tacky suburban developments such as Riverwalk.  
b.   This argument greatly insults the intelligence Tulsa County citizens.  Say, for instance, I promise to fund a student's education, then this individual comes to me and declines my offer and counters with, "Well, since you were willing to spend that much money anyway, how about a new car instead?"
2.)   They claim that this is a temporary tax and after the seven years they won't ask for any more.  What about maintenance?  Are we going to invest all this money to make it look nice and then allow it to deteriorate?  Based on our history, this wouldn't surprise me.
3.)   They state that, as a city, our return on investment will be 1000%.  "It's a 10 to 1 return."  What world do these people live?  Unicorns must live there?  There is not one economic model out there that can predict what this will bring to the city.  
4.)   How will sprucing up the banks, adding water to the river, and creating a strip center on a pier in the river, create so many jobs and so much tax revenue?  
5.)   In my last meeting Randi Miller stated that we could invest in our roads but that wouldn't even come close to the amount of money we would have for our roads based on the economic impact this project will generate.  Randi, before you take me down this magical yellow brick road, see points 2, 3, & 4.
6.)   Okay, so you say it's not about the direct impact this will have.  Indirectly companies and individuals will relocate to a city where they have a developed river.  Maybe it's just me, but I prefer cities where quality jobs exist, cost of living is low, and infrastructure is decent.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by DwnTwnTul

When this project was first announced I was extremely excited and was a huge proponent.  After attending two meetings where politicians and business leaders attempted to sell this to the masses, I'm 100% against it.

Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind?  I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?

In other words, are you sure you're not cutting off your nose to spite your face?  Randi Miller, et al, will be long gone when this thing comes to fruition.  Among those of you voting "No," what is it about the plan itself, rather than the plan's supporters, that you dislike?

I suggest taking another look at the plan itself before you make up your mind.  It really will be quite nice for Tulsa.

[shadows]

71 quoted:) 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.
=========================================

No, General Obligation bonds are controlled by Statute according to the total value of the property assessed..  Revenue Bonds are issued according to the revenue that is to be produced and has been the main source to circumvent the GO bond limitations.   In simple words they are used for counting the chickens before they hatch.  Or spend now and collect later, counting sales taxes as revenue..  

[DwnTwnTul]

quote:


Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind?  I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?

Floyd,
Thank you for keeping me in check and helping me realize that perhaps I am currently dissuaded by political rhetoric.  While they honestly believe they are helping their cause, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot.  The people they send out for these "dog and pony shows" are horrible sales people.  

I've been to two of these events now and I'm honestly TRYING to give it a chance, but I walk away from each meeting hating it more and more.  What is it you ask?  I thought I answered that in each of my previous bullet points.  Obviously you interpreted each of these as just my disgust with the politics surrounding this project.  Therefore, let me try to focus more on the details of the plan and why I am against it.  They are basically quite simple.  

1.)   The scope of this project is too large.  The benchmark being used of nearby cities developing their rivers are: OKC, San Antonio, Memphis, etc.  OKC and San Antonio are small canals in dense areas.  Cities along the Mississippi including New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis more accurately represent our situation; however, these cities have development along their river in small focused areas, not 36 miles worth of it.  The rest is left in a natural state.

2.)   The costs are too excessive.  Mr. Kaiser, et al will only pledge their generous donations, if we burden our citizens more than we already do.  I can play this game, too.  Everything in life is relative.  While I'm not as wealthy as Kaiser, I live a comfortable lifestyle.  It is possible for me to approach a minimum wage worker and say, "I will give you $10K for your child's education, if you will pay the remaining $20K."  While $10K is a lot of money to this individual, he/she simply can't afford this "discount".  The roof is leaking, a parent is ill, and the car is just barely starting in the mornings.  The parent would love for the child to further his or her education and not have to endure this same plight, but it's just not possible to fund the remaining balance of this deal.  Similarly, Tulsa must respectfully decline our benefactors' offer.  

3.)   Priorities are upside down.  While we can argue the chicken and egg aspect of this project until we're blue in the face, we must finally stop and act responsibly.  Metaphorically speaking, if my foundation is sinking, my roof is leaking, and I have a mediocre landscaped lawn, guess where I'm going to put my money first, regardless of any "discounts".  Tulsa's roads are crumbling, people are getting robbed in their own driveways, and we fall behind most of the country in many important aspects such as education and wellness.  In my opinion, Tulsa is following an immature belief that if we spend beyond our means we'll be accepted and attractive.  I, too, was once shallow; although, I actually learned from my mistakes, and value my rebuilt solid foundation.  If we are as conservative as we say we are in Oklahoma then we need to "grow up"!  Wait, "conservative" in Oklahoma means, "We're Christian and hate gays", but I'll save that tirade for another day.  

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Randi Miller, et al, will be long gone when this thing comes to fruition.  

Says who? Further, if she is 'gone,' cannot hold her accountable now, can we?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by DwnTwnTul

quote:


Out of curiosity, what is it about the plan itself that changed your mind?  I understand being put off by the rhetoric of the plan's supporters, but why is that enough to make you vote against it?

Floyd,
Thank you for keeping me in check and helping me realize that perhaps I am currently dissuaded by political rhetoric.  While they honestly believe they are helping their cause, they are actually shooting themselves in the foot.  The people they send out for these "dog and pony shows" are horrible sales people.  

I've been to two of these events now and I'm honestly TRYING to give it a chance, but I walk away from each meeting hating it more and more.  What is it you ask?  I thought I answered that in each of my previous bullet points.  Obviously you interpreted each of these as just my disgust with the politics surrounding this project.  Therefore, let me try to focus more on the details of the plan and why I am against it.  They are basically quite simple.  

1.)   The scope of this project is too large.  The benchmark being used of nearby cities developing their rivers are: OKC, San Antonio, Memphis, etc.  OKC and San Antonio are small canals in dense areas.  Cities along the Mississippi including New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis more accurately represent our situation; however, these cities have development along their river in small focused areas, not 36 miles worth of it.  The rest is left in a natural state.

2.)   The costs are too excessive.  Mr. Kaiser, et al will only pledge their generous donations, if we burden our citizens more than we already do.  I can play this game, too.  Everything in life is relative.  While I'm not as wealthy as Kaiser, I live a comfortable lifestyle.  It is possible for me to approach a minimum wage worker and say, "I will give you $10K for your child's education, if you will pay the remaining $20K."  While $10K is a lot of money to this individual, he/she simply can't afford this "discount".  The roof is leaking, a parent is ill, and the car is just barely starting in the mornings.  The parent would love for the child to further his or her education and not have to endure this same plight, but it's just not possible to fund the remaining balance of this deal.  Similarly, Tulsa must respectfully decline our benefactors' offer.  

3.)   Priorities are upside down.  While we can argue the chicken and egg aspect of this project until we're blue in the face, we must finally stop and act responsibly.  Metaphorically speaking, if my foundation is sinking, my roof is leaking, and I have a mediocre landscaped lawn, guess where I'm going to put my money first, regardless of any "discounts".  Tulsa's roads are crumbling, people are getting robbed in their own driveways, and we fall behind most of the country in many important aspects such as education and wellness.  In my opinion, Tulsa is following an immature belief that if we spend beyond our means we'll be accepted and attractive.  I, too, was once shallow; although, I actually learned from my mistakes, and value my rebuilt solid foundation.  If we are as conservative as we say we are in Oklahoma then we need to "grow up"!  Wait, "conservative" in Oklahoma means, "We're Christian and hate gays", but I'll save that tirade for another day.  

DT, there really is no comparable for the Tulsa plan. The closest might be the Trinity river in Ft.Worth. But I might point out that before the "river" in San Antonio was improved, my father visited it after WWII and assures me it was more of a drainage ditch than a river. There was little development along that ditch until they put water into it and made a canal. Same thing with OKC. The river was mostly dry and the warehouse district was plain scary.

Just do some more research on the plan. Call or e-mail Kirby Crowe with PMG. He is not a salesman, but a knowledgeable engineer with real life river experience. Making a good sales presentation is an art. I doubt Taylor and Miller recognize the damage they are doing. (Note: call me mayor, I can help...just call me.)

A couple of things you mentioned don't square with what I've been told. For instance the maintenance. The PR value for Kaiser and QT wouldn't be jeopardized with poor maintenance. They understand that and are prepared for funding long term upkeep. But in the end a properly operating County River Authority will address that. Even the current RPA is underfunded but has managed to keep the existing river parks presentable.

And the excitement value of the living river will far exceed the regional value. Trust me, people will travel from far away to experience it. That is hard to present unless you have some appreciation of why they would go to such trouble.

Lastly I want to repeat. There will be no movement to improve the roads and infrastructure if this fails other than IVI fighting the city to build a bridge. So if it fails you lose twice.

[guido911]

Since I am torn on how to vote, I choose to give my vote to whatever cancels out aox's vote.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Since I am torn on how to vote, I choose to give my vote to whatever cancels out aox's vote.

I want Friendly Bears.