Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

So it has to be perfect before it meets your exacting standards? Even juries are directed to rule on the preponderance of evidence. Some issues are more important than others. I remember when my firstborn was being checked out and the nurse told me he had an apgar score of 8 and I asked what that meant. Apparently they judge criteria like skin tone, body temp, activity, breathing and heartbeat with each one worth about the same value. You could score an 8 and not be breathing. But I digress.

I'm calling you out dude. What special interests, how is it only for them and how do you know? No bs. Answer all three with documented fact or stop saying this stuff.

                                               I'd settle for satisfactory. No matter how you score this tax it will be stillborn due to the abusive pregnancy of it's crack addicted mothers. What PSIs? How about these:                            private special interests

That's no answer, just more bs. Perhaps you could tell me how Hilcrest Hospital is a private special interest, how the development will benefit them as opposed to other hospitals or the rest of us and how you know that.

Still waiting for that answer. Here's another one. Is Hillcrest/Ardent Services a privately owned company? Or are they one of those Publicly held Special Interests? What's their angle?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

I understand your argument. What would be the solution to the circular causation you describe? If:
*the City can't pass such a project on its own,
*it would pass if it were county wide but the accountability and checks and balances are suspect
*each city should duke it out for their own plans which means the sum of the parts will not be as effective as a single program.

The county will find out in about a month that they cannot pass this, as it currently stands.

That doesn't address my question. It only indicates you have heard the current polls.

Unified core development costs are only about $155M out of $400M of public/private money intended to be spent. That should be obtainable for the cities that the river passes through.

If core development is so important, one would think the proposed private money would have designated some money toward that - to guarantee at least the core development. Take half of the proposed private money ($58M) and you only need less than $100M. Use the dam money from V2025 plus some overages and you are left with a small amount to be financed. Maybe the Feds or state would even pony-up for the rest.

Then we could collect all the pop bottles in town and ship them to where they have refundable deposits and add that to the private money and bingo, core paid for. Sorry for the snarkiness. You show some naivete in how and why things are financed the way they are and why donations are being made. When it comes to infrastructure like dams, bridges and highways, the govt. is better equipped. Even IVI is a for profit proposal.

I disagree that the remainder of eventual development would be fragmented. There is a River Plan in place, after all, that can guide development as it naturally occurs.

Yet, none of these cities are bound by the plan. Sand Springs may decide they don't even want to build their dam, so there goes the living river for Tulsa. Tulsa may decide to keep their lake high and strangle the Jenks lake. Who could stop them? Broken Arrow doesn't even want to play but their residents will visit. Should we charge them admittance?

I don't think the OKC project is analagous to ours. The make up of the city is different and the Oklahoma River and Bricktown did not go through those other cities. And OKC had the Murrah tragedy as a spring board. Nonetheless they all agreed to co-operate with MAPS under pressure from the mayor.

Although the Arkansas River passes through Tulsa and some other cities, it does not pass close by to the bulk of Tulsa County's population.

Yeah, its over 5miles away in some areas. Whew! Could be as much as a 15 minute drive. Don't share that analysis with Bass Pro. It'll scare them out of town.

The first MAPS may have been as a result of Murrah, but they passed another one and a third is most likely to pass.

They passed the next one because the first one worked. We won't even pass the first one.

I'm not trying to change your mind. Just responding to more of a continuuing list of faulty logic that I have seen in reasonings against the plan. I have my own reservations but they aren't strong enough to overcome the benefits we will see.

[tim huntzinger]

[Conan71]

Great one Tim!  Anyone care to print those out as yard signs?  I'd put one in my yard.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Great one Tim!  Anyone care to print those out as yard signs?  I'd put one in my yard.

Yes, I'd like to decorate my yard with a blazing non sequitur as well. </sarcasm>

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

The problem is that the passing of V2025 had little to do with the county handling it and more to do with the citizens being ready for it (i.e. after 9/11, numerous job losses, and seeing the MAPS project results in OKC). The City of Tulsa residents - over 70% of Tulsa County's population - voted positively for all four V2025 propositions. The county claiming they 'got it done' when the city couldn't reminds me of someone playing the same slot machine all day while losing all their money; immediately after leaving their machine someone else who just found a quarter on the floor puts it in that same machine and hits the jackpot. Frequently such a winner mistakes lucky timing for something more, and thinks more highly of themselves than they ought.

Twizzler- excellent post.  I chose only to quote one of your paragraphs to save reading space.

Tulsa got the arena by V-2025 offering the following tit-for-tat:

-A number of new construction and improvement projects in outlying cities- every community got something and I'd say what they got is somewhat proportionate to the amount each community adds to the county sales tax base:

-Economic development vis-a-vis trying to provide funding to attract greater job investment from Boeing which could have benefitted everyone in Tulsa County

-Funds for more higher ed building projects

-New health care facilities

-etc. ad nauseum

There was something in it for every community, and something to benefit and attract every race and demographic.  It was a stroke of marketing genious.

Had it been a county-wide vote for a new arena in downtown Tulsa, I believe it would have failed miserably.  It's a regional attraction, but when it's centered in one community it's a lot harder to get people from other cities on board.  If Collinsville, Owasso, and Broken Arrow all thought there was something good in the river for them, I think it would be easier to get those votes for this project.  Even considering the benefits to Jenks and Sand Springs, Tulsa stands to gain the most from it.  There is a certain myopia with people who don't live as close to the river that it's just a bunch of Maple Ridgies and downtowners who will benefit from this- which isn't true.

I suspect if it fails, it will be re-packaged with something which directly benefits BA, Owasso, and Collinsville.

[TheArtist]

I wonder if this could work?... Let Jenks pay for and design their own dam, it looks increasingly like they may be able to do just that. Tulsa build a higher redesigned Zink Dam and part of the Living River concept. Could the Zink Dam be built high enough so that it captures more water to help the canoing/kayaking part run more often? It may not flow all the time but far more than it does now. That way we wouldnt be seen to be "destroying" so much habitat and creating a "cesspool" below the waste treatment facility.Just let Jenks deal with that problem if they want lol. It wouldnt cost as much. And we could throw in the Pearl District Plan with its lakes and canals to boot since it would mainly be a Tulsa thing and wouldnt have support from the other cities.

I would like to see the Zink Lake dam be like one of those "artificial rapids". Basically a stepped design with rocks built into it. Looks really nice and even when the water is low during drought times the whole lake can be drained and the small stream that is left can meander in a natural looking sandy river bottom. Then fix up the banks, clean them up, fancy up the trails, add some nice water features, play areas, fountains and park spaces here and there.

I am still torn with buying the property on the west bank to sell to a developer. I know our property costs a lot more than in Jenks. But they are getting some very well designed and built developments there. Couldnt a tiff be enough? Could we use a tiff to make sure the development met certain priorities like having it face the river, be multi use, etc?

One thing that really concerns me about the possible Tulsa Landing developer is the quality of Branson Landing. If that is an indication of what the quality of design will be for any Tulsa Landing...well that will be sad because from what I can tell of the examples of previously done developments that the River District is cuing off of, that development, and Jerry Gordons development is of a higher quality. That would suck if Jenks River District is stone and brick with nice architectural details and Tulsa Landing is a cheap, Plane Jane mostly stuccoe type thing like Branson Landing is.

[Conan71]

^ +1

Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?

That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer.  IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^ +1

Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?

That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer.  IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.

As I understand it, he does. But I think the landing folks might want westport too.

[Tony]

I am against the proposal as it now stands.

Primarily due to the ecological damage these low head dams (as curently designed) will have on an already damaged river - I can stand the .04 tax that really doesn't concern me. Most people look out on Zink "pond" from the top of the pedestrian concrete walking trail -- the only use of the lake is by the rowing team - the water is stagnant 60% of the year and doesn't support a variety of fish- primarily all that exists in it are those fish tolerant of warm water and low O2 levels.

The currently proposed dams from the INCOG working group have a laydown gate design, the lakes will be too  deep and turbid for pedestrian interaction just like Zink is.

If we want to see water in the river, raise elevations at SEVERAL strategic points with natural rock weirs, this allows fish migration , silt passage and won't be a continuing drain for maintenance on Tulsa County Taxpayers - the developers want a lake they can install concrete piers up to the water edge with shops, restraunts, and retail establishment -- I personally can't imagaine anything uglier in a greenspace.

A user friendly river allows you to visit the river bottom, see the fish in the stream, dig your toes in the sand or gravel, and interact -- this proposal as designed doesn't allow that except in areas immediately next to the downstream side of the dams.

There are better ways to accomplish "Water in the River" in my PROFESSIONAL opinion neither the Kaiser NOR INGOG proposals will do that.

Both ODWC and US Fish and Wildlife are against the proposed dams -- additionally past studies by ODWC found a DIRECT correlation in species loss when Zink Dams was installed.

Tony
Member
Oklahoma Striped Bass Association
Tulsa Oklahoma

[TheArtist]

I dont want to see a "walled river" either. And that is not what we are going to get. I would love to see a few walled places like some parts along any West Bank development across from downtown. So that the shops, restaurants etc. are right near the water and you have a promenade over looking the water. Even just a quarter mile section would be nice. That is not the whole river and leaves plenty of places where you can, "wiggle your toes in the sand".

Course I wouldnt complain if we got something like this new river development that they are doing in Minneapolis. []



Whatever we get better danged well be of a higher quality than what is going up in Jenks.

[Tony]

Some people like Van Gogh others like paint by numbers, as said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which is why we vote []

Compromise is like a bad stepchild ya wanna kill the birth parents and the kid.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^ +1

Does anyone know if Hardesty still owns the dirt the concrete plant is on at 23rd St.?

That should be a simple enough transaction between the private owner of that land and a developer.  IOW- something which could happen and be developed for commercial without a large tax package.

I understand that site went with the sale of MIDCO.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler


City projects generally fall under the responsibility of the mayor and city council - a good system of checks and balances. In other words, direct accountability. The three Tulsa County commissioners have virtually no checks and balances and neither would the authority the river vote creates.
.

Then why is it that the majority of projects that have encountered difficulty with budget or are delayed for other than for cash flow needs in Vision 2025 been City of Tulsa projects?  

The vast majority of Vision 2025 projects are 100% administered by either the local community or entity benefiting from them or who will operate them.  They are known as project sponsors.  What Tulsa County provides to Vision 2025 is strict control of the funds, detailed reviews of all expenditure prior to payments being made on behalf of that sponsor.

No checks and balances at the County my foot.   Vision 2025 has a 24 member Sales Tax Overview Committee (that the County does not control the majority of) then we have the State auditor's office plus an independent private audit firm working and lastly we get nearly constant media attention.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

As to why Tulsa has encountered budget problems or delays, I would probably blame the previous mayor. Even with the escalated costs of material/labor, the arena was overdesigned for the given budget. Pelli said as much when the design was unveiled.

Well said.

The city administration allowed the designer to do whatever they wanted. LaFortune appointed his public relations coordinator to the oversight committee instead of a budget or engineering person.

I like the iconic design, but we should have had the oversight to keep it under budget.

That is the main reason I voted for new leadership.