Reasons for my vote on the river tax

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace





2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.

And I'd like to see Owassans spend their money in Owasso.  This plan has Owasso's money going to Tulsa with no benefit.  It is tantamount to highway robbery.

And yet if we build it, you will gladly bring your visiting family and friends to enjoy it for free. New Tulsans, who will come here for the city's amenities, yet choose to build new homes in burbs like yours, will also get to visit free. With your reasoning, Tulsans should not have to pay for upkeep on 169 either since it benefits Owasso a LOT more than it does Tulsa.

Stop being selfish and short sighted. The entire region will benefit from a 500 million dollar investment in the river. You guys want the cake but you don't want to go to the wedding. If the burbs fail to support this I recommend a gate fee into Tulsa for suburbanites.

[carltonplace]

Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy


And yet if we build it, you will gladly bring your visiting family and friends to enjoy it for free. New Tulsans, who will come here for the city's amenities, yet choose to build new homes in burbs like yours, will also get to visit free. With your reasoning, Tulsans should not have to pay for upkeep on 169 either since it benefits Owasso a LOT more than it does Tulsa.

Stop being selfish and short sighted. The entire region will benefit from a 500 million dollar investment in the river. You guys want the cake but you don't want to go to the wedding. If the burbs fail to support this I recommend a gate fee into Tulsa for suburbanites.

I'm thinking of the Owasso business and restaurant owners.  How long do you think the Owasso movie theater will stay in business if everyone goes to Tulsa for the weekend.....even if just 20% of the people who would have stayed in Owasso go to Tulsa.

It's just not good for business.

I'm also wondering just how much of those new tax revenues will actually see their way back to the outer communities.  After passing this tax, they will no longer have needed breathing room for another municipal tax if they need to raise money for themselves.  It's not right.

Besides, Tulsa has more pressing issues than river development.....High Crime and Poor Streets.

When a football team has a poor game, the caich wisely pulls everyone back in and concentrates on the basics.  It's time Tulsa did the same.  Take a cue from BA and get cops on the street and crime will come down.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.

Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves.  I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa.  They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay.  I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.

And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.

I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool."  Makes sense to me.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I'm a yes

1. There will be an economic impact, it will be substantial and it will attract the attention of potential businesses and developers. Many have claimed that they want to see the math behind the $2.8 to $3.5 billion impact forecasts, and that is fine, but not one of them have successfully refuted the predictions.

It's just as hard to refute as it is to prove it when you don't know the methodology used.  I can call B.S. on the numbers, the "economists" who provide these projections can say they are real.  Unless the methodology is revealed, neither side can say for sure.  I find it interesting the number has crept up as polls seem to be showing the vote leaning toward "no".   There were unnamed "observers" who were saying that even the $3.5bln figures are conservative in the nice Tulsa World propaganda piece yesterday.  

quote:
2. I'd like to see Tulsans spend their money in Tulsa and reverse the trend of people driving to the suburbs to the newest attractions there.

I do spend the majority of my discretionary entertainment money in Tulsa, as do many Tulsans.  It's pretty rare I spend it in BA or Owasso unless I happen to be in the area for another reason.  I honestly believe not many people care to drive more than five or ten miles for a "destination" meal or drink.

quote:
3. I want to see visitors in town spending their money close to the core.

That's fine, but why close to the core?  Sales tax revenue is sales tax revenue, whether it's collected at 71st & Memorial or 23rd & Jackson.  I'd love to see this be a "destination", but I have yet to see enough concrete plans which lead me to believe this is all going to happen as they are proposing.  Unless it becomes a destination for people who reside outside the city and county, we are just shifting tax collection points.

quote:
4. I like it when there is water in the river. This might be simplistic but I dont think electrical production should dictate the water level.

There's been water in the river between 11th and 21st where development is proposed all summer.

quote:

5. The concrete plant and the City of Tulsa sand lot are eyesores in prime real estate that are keeping the area around them depressed. I want to see development here that will give the entire neighborhood a new purpose. Selfishly I also want to sit outside in a restaurant looking east and enjoying my river and my skyline.

Agreed.  This doesn't require a public tax increase to make these disappear.  Secondly, the city maintenance yard is not the primo river front property.  That's already under RPA.

quote:
6. I enjoy the river everyday. It brings a very diverse congregation of people with their pets and loved ones to enjoy the outdoors. The river and its parks contribute to a healthier lifestyle. They bring people together. I'd love to see more Tulsans enjoying this beautiful asset.

It might well do it.  Be patient and make sure all the details and pitfalls are fully identified before agreeing to a hastily put together plan.  This is not the INCOG master plan.  Listen and read carefully when you hear others talking about this- it contains "parts" of the master plan.

[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.  How can anyone with half a brain think that river development full of chain restaurants and generic crap is more important than city infrastructure needs and public safety?

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.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by altruismsuffers

Simple...NO MORE TAXES

Since I cannot vote twice and cancel out this vote (already committed to canceling aox), I will need to talk to my better half so she can cancel it out.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.

Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves.  I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa.  They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay.  I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.

And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.

I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool."  Makes sense to me.

We want to develop the river because there is undervalued property there. If we increase the value of this property it will increase the money we collect to pay for GO bonds to fix our streets. If the development includes places where people can spend money then it increases sales taxes collected which will pay for our third penney improvments to streets, and our first and second pennies for basic needs like emergency services and police.

[Conan71]

I see the tax-enrichening philosophy behind it, but it still sounds just like a ponzi scheme. []

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Your mayor was quoted in the paper yesterday saying that Owasso needs to be part of a strong core Tulsa to survive since 68% of People in Owasso work in Tulsa. If Tulsa dries up and blows away I hope Owasso will be able to replace all of those jobs.

Owasso will not dry up and blow away unless American Airlines leaves.  I am confident enough to know that AA will be the last company to leave Tulsa.  They may expand and retract from time to time, but they are here to stay.  I think I will follow BA mayor in his belief that the cities surrounding Tulsa need to take care of themselves instead of let Tulsa leach away the money that should be staying in the smaller communities.

And if you look at Tulsa, why does Tulsa want to develop the river when they can't even put water in all the city pools, fix the streets, and stop crime with the already enormous amount of taxes they take.

I was at the town hall meeting with Fred Perry where a gentleman summed up a great point by saying "If your roof is leaking, your windows are drafty, and your lights don't work, you don't go off and buy a new swimming pool."  Makes sense to me.

We want to develop the river because there is undervalued property there. If we increase the value of this property it will increase the money we collect to pay for GO bonds to fix our streets. If the development includes places where people can spend money then it increases sales taxes collected which will pay for our third penney improvments to streets, and our first and second pennies for basic needs like emergency services and police.

Doesn't it seem rather insane to build a pedestrian bridge at 41st Street to connect to an AEP Power Plant, and a 61st Street pedestrian bridge to connect to the Sewage Treatment Plant Sewage Overflow & Retention Lagoon??

That is even dumber than trying to move sand around in a prairie river......

The highest and best use of a prairie river that periodically OVERFLOWS is just what it is now used for:

A PARK.

With walking and bicycle trails.  A few scattered playgrounds and picnic tables.

These type investments won't be wiped out in the next "300 Year" Flood.  Our last major flood was 1986.

We're about due for another big one.....and, we ALMOST had a big one back in very rainy June.

[^]

[TheArtist]

Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges.  Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges.  Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol

Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??  

Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges.  Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol

Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??  

Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??

Hey, when your legs and lungs are about to give out on ya. That extra mile or two saved can be a lifesaver. Especially for us old coots. [] It can be quite a gap when you head south from the 21st or 23 area and try to make the loop and have to decide on 51st or 71st as your turn around options. Those arent pleasant running, rollerblading or biking options either, especially when its windy (as it usually seems to be on that bridge) and the cars are rushing by and that bridge actually bounces up and down a bit and has relatively low railing. Big semi goes by and its liable to blow my skinny arse right off the bridge into the river.  When was the last time you tried running, rollerblading, or biking, across either of those bridges?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges.  Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol

Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??  

Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??

Hey, when your legs and lungs are about to give out on ya. That extra mile or two saved can be a lifesaver. Especially for us old coots. [] It can be quite a gap when you head south from the 21st or 23 area and try to make the loop and have to decide on 51st or 71st as your turn around options. Those arent pleasant running, rollerblading or biking options either, especially when its windy (as it usually seems to be on that bridge) and the cars are rushing by and that bridge actually bounces up and down a bit and has relatively low railing. Big semi goes by and its liable to blow my skinny arse right off the bridge into the river.  When was the last time you tried running, rollerblading, or biking, across either of those bridges?

PLAN ahead, and save the rest of us $282 million dollars.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its not insane when your on the other side of the river and are worn out from, jogging or biking and want to get back to the east side and are looking for the closest option. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe these are one way bridges.  Not everyone stays on just one side of the river. Perhaps you can see the 61st bridge as a way for people on the west side to escape the sewage treatment plant and get to the east side. lol

Uh, like they can't use the existing I-44 or 71st Street bridges to escape west Tulsa??  

Have the 11th, 21st and 31st street bridges also disappeared??

FB, you are now only allowed the following roads:

21st, 71st, memorial and peoria

If west tulsa has to 2.5 miles one way or the other to get around, so do you.