Vote Yes Commercials

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


I also am pretty sure that the vote yes commercials were not aired or produced for free. The vote no people have just as much opportunity to open their own wallets and pay for ads.

Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not?

This is a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A handful of construction companies and other businesses stand to make a lot of money from this and can justify contributing large amounts to make sure it passes. If you're going to get a contract for $50 million, a $50,000 contribution is no big deal. That's a buck for every thousand you stand to make.

The cost is spread out among all Tulsa County taxpayers, so that even a modest campaign contribution would be a significant proportion of the money someone would safe if the tax fails. If the tax is going to cost you $1,000, even a modest contribution of $20 is proportionally a much bigger share of economic benefit than what the construction company is contributing.

You see the same phenomenon in lobbying. It's worth paying for lobbyists if your company stands to make millions from a change to the tax law or the earmarking of a Federal contract. The cost of that benefit to a single company is spread out so broadly that no one person or company can justify funding a lobbyist on the other side. Public interest groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and Club for Growth help to aggregate opposition to these special deals, and often they're funded not from direct economic self-interest but from principle or passion.

The interplay of concentrated benefit and distributed cost also explains why elections for state auditor are dominated by contributions from abstractors and elections for state insurance commissioner are dominated by contributions from insurance companies and agents.

I'm sure your example is good. But, you're assuming a contractor is going to get 50 million and spending $50,000 to get the business is a good investment. But he's not going to have 50 million after expenses. He will net much less, with competitive bidding probably less than 10% which is less than 5 million. Still a good investment but not crazy good.

Do you resent local contractors from profitting from river development? Would you rather it be outsourced or just not done at all? They will be accused of insider profiteering whether or not they support the plan. Might as well do what makes sense for them. That's pretty well accepted behaviour. No one checks the anti-forces to see how they may profit.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

This is a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A handful of construction companies and other businesses stand to make a lot of money from this and can justify contributing large amounts to make sure it passes.

I don't doubt that construction companies have donated to the vote yes campaign. They always do and do have motives of making more business.

But I see that Quik-Trip is part of the yes campaign. What is their motive? They won't probably be able to locate a store on the river development and collecting more in taxes doesn't help them.

Are you saying that the vote no people can't contribute money? That big business are always for more taxes?

There are a handful of elected officials involved that seem to be able to raise money for their own elections, why can't they do the same here?

Just because you vote no doesn't mean you got no money.

The vote no crowd is doing a great job in getting the message out without money, yet complain about the ads the vote yes people have paid for.

I think you have just lost focus.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


I also am pretty sure that the vote yes commercials were not aired or produced for free. The vote no people have just as much opportunity to open their own wallets and pay for ads.

Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not?

This is a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A handful of construction companies and other businesses stand to make a lot of money from this and can justify contributing large amounts to make sure it passes. If you're going to get a contract for $50 million, a $50,000 contribution is no big deal. That's a buck for every thousand you stand to make.

The cost is spread out among all Tulsa County taxpayers, so that even a modest campaign contribution would be a significant proportion of the money someone would safe if the tax fails. If the tax is going to cost you $1,000, even a modest contribution of $20 is proportionally a much bigger share of economic benefit than what the construction company is contributing.

You see the same phenomenon in lobbying. It's worth paying for lobbyists if your company stands to make millions from a change to the tax law or the earmarking of a Federal contract. The cost of that benefit to a single company is spread out so broadly that no one person or company can justify funding a lobbyist on the other side. Public interest groups like Citizens Against Government Waste and Club for Growth help to aggregate opposition to these special deals, and often they're funded not from direct economic self-interest but from principle or passion.

The interplay of concentrated benefit and distributed cost also explains why elections for state auditor are dominated by contributions from abstractors and elections for state insurance commissioner are dominated by contributions from insurance companies and agents.

I'm sure your example is good. But, you're assuming a contractor is going to get 50 million and spending $50,000 to get the business is a good investment. But he's not going to have 50 million after expenses. He will net much less, with competitive bidding probably less than 10% which is less than 5 million. Still a good investment but not crazy good.

Do you resent local contractors from profitting from river development? Would you rather it be outsourced or just not done at all? They will be accused of insider profiteering whether or not they support the plan. Might as well do what makes sense for them. That's pretty well accepted behaviour. No one checks the anti-forces to see how they may profit.

My own smouldering resentment against the Vote Yes TAX VAMPIRES is really pretty simple:

Unlike candidate elections which have actual campaign contributor limits, by clever maneuvering there are no individual campaign LIMITS on what the Tax Promoters can raise and spend to promote and pass a tax.

A tax which they in turn will profit from handsomely.  Flint and Rooney financial interests contributed a pittance compared to the revenues thrown to them on the Arena construction.  

And, just how much profit did they make:  
It's a secret.

Likewise, the two Sole-Sourced bond underwriters contributed a pittance, and then gained $millions in bond underwriting fees.

Nice racket, if you're one of their Connected Cronies......

[B)]



As to the Vote No forces, the only beneficiaries would possibly be those cities that planned to raise their own sales taxes, and would be forestalled by the Kaiser River Tax raising a tax that they also plan to raise.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025


The other solution to the City of Tulsa's (and other community's financial problems like streets and needing more cops is more taxes for government operations... all in favor?  

I wonder if those leading the against movement will knock others down to march out front for a "let's grow government operations tax" which is the only other viable long term solution available to the City of Tulsa unless of course you just like to complain and be against which if that is the case keep up the good work because decay is your friend.  

So here are two options:

(1) Raise county taxes by 0.4% for seven years -- $282 million. Pay a bunch of it to Manhattan Construction, Flintco, Kirby Crowe's PMg (program management), and John Piercey (bond financing). Eventually generate enough economic activity to bring in $85 million (county wide, not all of it in Tulsa) that can be used for fixing streets, hiring cops, and putting water in the city's pools.

(2) Raise city taxes by 0.4% for seven years. I think the rule of thumb is $70 million per penny of city sales tax? So that's $196 million over seven years. The $196 million goes directly to fix streets, hire cops, and put water in the city's pools.

Both approaches involve the same cost to taxpayers -- 0.4% sales tax. One would bring in $196 million to fund basic government services. The county approach would bring in "as much as $85 million" to fund basic government services.

Which would be a better deal for the citizens of the City of Tulsa?

Which would be a better deal for Kirby Crowe?

BETTER FOR TULSA, guess you missed that lecture in economics about growing your overall market base vs. competing with others (who already have you beat)for a bigger piece of the same pie as sound business practice.

If you favor option number 2. You will be doing it again and again and again rather than creating the real potential for growing the economy in order to provide a permanent funding solution with more and better JOBS.

Go ahead Michael, demonize me if makes you feel righteous in your quest.  It is not your first time and likely will not be your last from my observation of your methods.  You want infrastructure but you regularly go after those employed in that field. I am proud of what I do and I sleep well each and every night knowing that I bring value to the community with my days work.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

Questions for Vision 2025 (Kirby Crowe):

Here is something that has been rattling around in my brain for awhile. Please don't take it as confrontative.

You work for PMG which has a contract with the county for overseeing the implementation of Vision 2025 and 4-to-Fix. PMG has also done work for several other entities but it looks like the bulk of the work and dollars involved are for the county projects.

Since the River Tax has not been approved yet, how have you and PMG been so involved in the planning process for it? Do you have a contract for that? Are you doing it pro bono as a citizen?

I guess the thing that is rattling in my head is that I can't help but think there is a conflict of interest here.

For example, Becco Construction does a fair amount of road work around the Tulsa metro. If a representative from their company came on Tulsa Now and was talking about how deeply they had been involved (to the exclusion of competitors) in the process of planning a road before the general public even knew a road was going to be proposed and possibly voted on, I would think that was a conflict of interest. And if they were telling me how great the road was going to be and that I should vote for it, I would think that was a conflict of interest - especially if they planned on bidding the work.  

If you are working under contract for helping plan the River Tax package, there seems to be a conflict of interest as passage of the proposal implies you will have the contract for implementation too. Or would that contract be up for competitive bidding?

FAIR QUESTIONS

Yes, I am with PMg and am the Managing Director of the firm which I started.  After many years on the consulting engineering side I observed first hand the need for public projects to have effective, practical, professional management which brought value to the client.  Is it my living?  Yes, part of it.  Am I getting rich?  No, PMg charges fees for services - not commissions and with Tulsa County our fee increases have not kept up with the cost of inflation.  Additionally, we provide a considerable amount of service pro-bono to the County and others.  

PMg (via Vision 2025) administrates the Corps of Engineers Phase 3 contract with Tulsa County, for the environmental studies related to the Corridor Master Plan.   This has been stated in recent news articles and I believe I have addressed it here as well.  

Following many meetings with representatives of the foundation concerning the river PMg, was requested by the Kaiser Foundation to consult on potential river projects that they felt were important and finally they asked us to to develop presentation materials which they utilized in various presentations and until the press conference our logo was on them.   When the amount of time required became awkward for them to ask for without compensation we were offered and accepted compensation for our time which was appropriate.  

As I have stated before; I believe that the river projects are critical to Tulsa's long term future and for the campaign PMg's time, including my time here, has been tracked for reporting as an in-kind contribution as we are required by law to do.  

Let's throw out some others...

Am I or is PMg a Metro Chamber member?  No, but we did manage their relocation several years ago into the current space they occupy pro bono (long story requiring beverages) and I do like the direction I see the new leadership going and am considering a membership.

Have I been demonized by those with opposing opinions, I'll let you be the judge.

Funny thing, I could have set up a phantom name and remained hidden here but I believe the net makes that all too easy and there appears to be more than enough games here already.

And lastly out of fairness, to whom am I responding?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Why should we trust anything coming from the pro river camp at this point, if the information they are relying on to come up with these delusional outcomes that this new tax will generate is as reliable as the corps study on the environmental impacts of these low water dams?

Read more than the headline and intro, then spout. Your lucky anyone even responds when you do this.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Originally posted by recyclemichael


I also am pretty sure that the vote yes commercials were not aired or produced for free. The vote no people have just as much opportunity to open their own wallets and pay for ads.

Your post says that the vote no people can't afford to make a fancy commercial. Why not?

Do you resent local contractors from profitting from river development? Would you rather it be outsourced or just not done at all? They will be accused of insider profiteering whether or not they support the plan. Might as well do what makes sense for them. That's pretty well accepted behaviour. No one checks the anti-forces to see how they may profit.

A tax which they in turn will profit from handsomely.  Flint and Rooney financial interests contributed a pittance compared to the revenues thrown to them on the Arena construction.  

And, just how much profit did they make:  
It's a secret.

Likewise, the two Sole-Sourced bond underwriters contributed a pittance, and then gained $millions in bond underwriting fees.

Nice racket, if you're one of their Connected Cronies......

Finally some details as to who the Tax Vampires are funneling tax payer money to. Only sorry, you have no figures, we're just supposed to take your word for it. Its big. Really big. These Blood Thirsty Tax Vampires are Unquenchable!

I love this. You're sure they profitted handsomely but, since those profit numbers are private YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW! Thats great. Nonetheless you're sure they contributed a pittance. How much of a pittance? And received huge revenues. How much revenue became profit?

Name the two sole source underwriters please and let us know just HOW MANY MILLIONS did they rake in and how much was left after expenses.

See, I don't think you know these things. BUT it doesn't keep you from yelling them out like they're all criminals looking for another score. You criticize Vote Yes camps for not giving details. Well, where are your details sir?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025


The other solution to the City of Tulsa's (and other community's financial problems like streets and needing more cops is more taxes for government operations... all in favor?  

I wonder if those leading the against movement will knock others down to march out front for a "let's grow government operations tax" which is the only other viable long term solution available to the City of Tulsa unless of course you just like to complain and be against which if that is the case keep up the good work because decay is your friend.  

So here are two options:

(1) Raise county taxes by 0.4% for seven years -- $282 million. Pay a bunch of it to Manhattan Construction, Flintco, Kirby Crowe's PMg (program management), and John Piercey (bond financing). Eventually generate enough economic activity to bring in $85 million (county wide, not all of it in Tulsa) that can be used for fixing streets, hiring cops, and putting water in the city's pools.

(2) Raise city taxes by 0.4% for seven years. I think the rule of thumb is $70 million per penny of city sales tax? So that's $196 million over seven years. The $196 million goes directly to fix streets, hire cops, and put water in the city's pools.

Both approaches involve the same cost to taxpayers -- 0.4% sales tax. One would bring in $196 million to fund basic government services. The county approach would bring in "as much as $85 million" to fund basic government services.

Which would be a better deal for the citizens of the City of Tulsa?

Which would be a better deal for Kirby Crowe?

BETTER FOR TULSA, guess you missed that lecture in economics about growing your overall market base vs. competing with others (who already have you beat)for a bigger piece of the same pie as sound business practice.

If you favor option number 2. You will be doing it again and again and again rather than creating the real potential for growing the economy in order to provide a permanent funding solution with more and better JOBS.

Go ahead Michael, demonize me if makes you feel righteous in your quest.  It is not your first time and likely will not be your last from my observation of your methods.  You want infrastructure but you regularly go after those employed in that field. I am proud of what I do and I sleep well each and every night knowing that I bring value to the community with my days work.

They say we need 600million dollars of road repairs to keep us at the level we are. And I am sure by the time they get around to "fixing' that proverbial last road, the ones they fixed first will need repairing and round we go all over again. We need to grow the economy so that the taxes we have will be able to keep up with road maintenance. We need to get more population densities, especially attracting those types of educated, urban, yp people that make good money. The more people we have living in areas like downtown and areas around it the better. Those roads are going to have to be paid for whether nobody lives there or 1000s. .

What gets me is how I always hear people complaining about this being a "playground for the wealthy" or catering to yuppy YP type people going out to have a drink etc.  As if thats a bad thing? What kind of people do they want to encourage to stay in or move to our city? Poor working class people? How much taxes can they pay in comparison? You run off the wealthier people who is left to pay for the roads, police, etc.? The same amount of roads are going to have to be repaired regardless of who lives here, might as well attract more people who spend more money thus paying more taxes to help fix them.  

Lets see. I am not one of the wealthier of my YP "ilk". Rather poor and small time in the scheme of things and probably too old to be a YP anyway lol. I only employ 2 people. 3 including myself. Looking back over the last 3 months I have spent about 20-25 thousand dollars. Bought a little french country light to go in the kitchen just yesterday, 900 dollars paid about 80 dollars in taxes for that. (Thats a lot of groceries. over how long a period would it take for a poor person to pay for that much roads?) Building a studio in my backyard, am paying cash and not using my tax ID number, I am not that picky over taxes, I am extreemely fortunate and dont mind paying them. Will be buying fixtures and furniture for that. Heck just bought 6000 dollars worth of canvas from the local art store will need another 6000 worth in a few months. I eat out a lot, occasionally buy some expensive wine, like buying decent things. Car. etc. etc.  A lot of my friends like that contemporary designer furniture for their new homes and condos. Have you seen the prices? That stuff aint cheap. I could go on and on.... Many of my YP friends make a heck of a lot more than I do and they spend money. Aka each one of them pays a looot of taxes and if they dont want to live here. Who gets left paying for the roads?

When I hear some one who doesnt make much money, some older person or east or north sider perhaps, saying they dont want to do anything that would attract people like me and my friends to the city. I cant help but think. "Well who is going to pay that 600million in roads?" They say it will put a burden on them for food. And you hate to think of that, but then I cant help but think if the demographics stay mostly poor people. How much food can they possibly eat to make up for the fact that they will be paying for it by themselves without people like me paying taxes? I pay a lot of taxes in comparison. Just one of me can really help pay for a lot more things. If they dont like 4tenths of a tax for 7 years to equal 280 million. How much will they have to pay, by themselves, to pay for 600 million, and then likely have to start all over again? If you dont want to cater to those who can and do pay a lot of taxes. The burden will shift ever more to the poor to make up for what the wealthier could have been paying. Again, the same amount of roads will be here needing to be repaired and kept up...for a long time. (and you can argue about the rich and their tax shelters etc. but I am not talking about them, I am just talking about middle class YP types like myself. Plus I guarantee you even those wealthy people spend a lot more money on buying things than I could ever dream of.) I know its not politically correct to talk like this but I dont know how else to say it.

We have to grow the tax base and the economy or you will fix the roads and soon after your done "if you ever really are" you will be right back where you are now.  If you want the city to grow. What kind of people, jobs, taxpayers, do you want to attract? What do you do to help attract them? If you dont attract those types of people. just what type of people and growth will you get? Is there a direction the city wants to go, or is it just fix what we got and keep doing the same thing and keep getting what we have been getting. We arent going to be able to attract the suburban types like we once did. The suburbs will beat us at that game. I think we need to be able to attract the urban types who like living in nice, beautiful, lively, urban areas. Of which YPs are only one type btw. No the river isnt everything there are other parts to this picture, but the opportunity our river gives us to improve our attractiveness and lifestyle, for generations, is very fortunate. I think we should finally take advantage of it. This may not be the perfect plan for it. But I think we should do most of these things, in some form or another,  very soon. The economy is doing amazingly well here, lets keep it going. Its gonna go down sooner or later and we are definitely not going to be able to do much then, roads or otherwise.

Sorry for the long rant lol.

[Tiny]

Hmmmm ... I guess ole Tiny Tim Smith may have been right in the previous post ... look what ran in the Tulsa world today.

Tulsa World this morning

A federal biologist says the Corps of Engineers' report used a faulty assumption.


The Arkansas River might not bring enough water to Tulsa to support additional low-water dams without harming the environment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say.

The agency is questioning an environmental impact study by the Army Corps of Engineers in advance of the Oct. 9 vote on taxes to support proposed river projects.

But a consultant who worked with the corps on its first report on the projects says they won't harm wildlife.

"I'm convinced, in my professional opinion," said Gaylon Pinc, a consultant who is working with Tulsa County and the Corps of Engineers on the environmental part of the master plan, "that the net effect will be an improvement to the river and to the habitat."

A spokesman for the corps said it hadn't started the process that could result in a permit for the projects, and until it does, he can't say whether possible environmental problems can be overcome.

Pinc's report to the corps found no reason to oppose a key part of the proposal -- constructing low-water dams near Jenks

and Sand Springs in addition to altering the dam near 31st Street and Riverside Drive.

A Fish and Wildlife biologist, Kevin Stubbs, said the corps' analysis assumed an unrealistically high average flow of water in the river.

Partly because of the natural flow of the river, and partly because of electric power generation at Keystone Dam, the amount of water in the Arkansas tends to fluctuate a great deal from day to day, even from hour to hour, Stubbs said.

"It tends to be all or nothing," said Stubbs, a member of an advisory committee for the proposed river developments in Tulsa.

"You have a lot of water or hardly any water. Statistically, the average will be somewhere in the middle, but in reality you never see the average."

Without enough water coming downstream, pollutants could build up behind the dams, possibly creating a fetid and murky pool, Stubbs said. And the amount of dissolved oxygen could drop, too -- essentially suffocating fish in the river.

"Averages don't mean anything to a fish," Stubbs said. "If you have eight hours of low flow followed by two hours of high flow, if you're a fish you're still dead. The two good hours won't bring you back."

The corps' environmental impact study used a standard called "7Q2," a complicated method of predicting the lowest average flow of water that a river would be expected to have over an extended period.

The problem, Stubbs said, is that the Arkansas routinely falls below its 7Q2 level.

In fact, during last year's drought, the river fell below 7Q2 on all but three days during a three-month stretch, re cords from the U.S. Geological Survey show.

Instead of using the 7Q2 standard, the Fish and Wildlife Service wants the corps to study what impact the dams would have on water quality during drought conditions, with 2006 used as a benchmark.

"You can make an argument that last year was an extreme situation and it won't happen again," Stubbs said. "Well, it won't happen every year, but it is sure to happen again, sooner or later.

"And you have to account for extremes like that when you plan a project like this."

Tulsa's existing low-water dam, which creates Zink Lake south of the 21st Street bridge, has been shown to reduce fish populations for miles downstream, according to a report from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Pollution, nonetheless, hasn't been a major issue in Zink Lake.

The proposed low-water dams, however, would create larger pools of water and would come one after the other along the river's course, creating a cumulative effect, Stubbs said.

More important, Zink Lake is upstream from Tulsa's sewage treatment plant, but Jenks is downstream, Stubbs noted.

"You're going to be pooling water at precisely the point where you want to dilute this discharge," he said. "What happens when you have 10 or 12 hours -- or even 10 or 12 days -- without a significant amount of fresh water coming into that pool?"

Tulsa County voters will decide Oct. 9 whether to approve a $282 million plan to build the two low-water dams and renovate Zink Lake.

The projects would be financed by an additional 0.4 percent sales tax. Those revenues would be added to a $117 million pledge by the George Kaiser Family Foundation to develop attractions along the river.

Proponents acknowledge that Tulsa will endure periods of drought, during which the low-water dams will likely not be able to keep the river high.

Especially on weekends, when Keystone Dam tends to release less water as it reduces power generation, water levels may drop, said Pinc, the corps' consultant.

"The vast majority of time, we're going to have a good, steady flow of high water," Pinc said. "As for the extremes of nature, there's no way to avoid them. We'll simply have to suffer through them, like we suffer through them now."

Ken Levit, the executive director of the Kaiser Foundation, referred environmental-impact questions to Pinc.

Pinc promised that officials would work with the federal wildlife agency to minimize the environmental impact as they design the low-water dams and the supporting infrastructure.

Wildlife habitat can either be protected or "replaced" by restoring similar habitats elsewhere along the river, he said.

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, however, predicted a net loss of habitat, especially for native species of fish, in a report prepared for the corps' environmental impact study.

The low-water dams would destroy about 10 miles of "prairie river habitat," said Brent Gordon, a fisheries biologist who prepared the report for the state agency.

And the water level will fluctuate too much to replace the river habitat with a sustainable lake habitat, Gordon said.

"What you end up with is neither," he said. "People think that if you want fish, all you need is water. But that's not true. It's not even close to true."

Neither the federal Wildlife Service nor the state Wildlife Conservation Department could block construction of the low-water dams.

But under the federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, the Corps of Engineers must consult both agencies before it can issue a permit for the construction.

Edward Engelke, a spokesman for the corps, said the process that could lead to a permit for the projects would also involve consulting historical groups and conducting public hearings.

That process hasn't started, so it would be premature to address the river projects specifically, he said.

Hypothetically, if a project could harm an endangered species such as the least terns that nest in the Arkansas River in the Tulsa area, it might not receive a permit, Engelke said.

However, such impacts often can be mitigated or the project changed in modest ways to allow it to proceed, he said.

When the Creek Turnpike was planned, problems that a bridge over the Arkansas River would have produced for least terns led to design changes that allowed the project to advance without hurting the birds, he said.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
Heck just bought 6000 dollars worth of canvas from the local art store will need another 6000 worth in a few months.

We just spent six grand on new appliances and fixtures for the kitchen. The taxes on them equalled 511 dollars and if this vote passes it would be 535 dollars in taxes.

24 dollars is a lot of money if I was buying a few nick-nacks, but on a major purchase that I would only do occasionally, it was reasonable.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025


BETTER FOR TULSA, guess you missed that lecture in economics about growing your overall market base vs. competing with others (who already have you beat)for a bigger piece of the same pie as sound business practice.

If you favor option number 2. You will be doing it again and again and again rather than creating the real potential for growing the economy in order to provide a permanent funding solution with more and better JOBS.

Go ahead Michael, demonize me if makes you feel righteous in your quest.  It is not your first time and likely will not be your last from my observation of your methods.  You want infrastructure but you regularly go after those employed in that field. I am proud of what I do and I sleep well each and every night knowing that I bring value to the community with my days work.

Demonize? I don't think of you as a demon or a bad person, Kirby. By all accounts you do a fine job in your line of work. The monthly Vision 2025 reports are very thorough, and I hope at some point you post them on the vision2025.info website.

But as the saying goes, to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If someone runs a business that manages large public construction programs, it's only natural for that person, when choosing between different approaches to "growing the pie," to prefer the approach that involves a large public construction program.

Acquiring new civic toys when we can't take care of what we already have is not going to grow our local economy. It will only transfer money from the rest of the county's economy to the construction industry.

Taking care of our streets, keeping our parks in good shape and fully operational, and reducing crime will matter just as much, if not more, in keeping and attracting a quality workforce and ultimately growing the local economy.

I'm not inclined to raise sales taxes for any reason at the moment. I'm still puzzled that we spend more and more (adjusted for inflation and population growth) for less and less in basic services. I'd like to see a top-to-bottom audit of the city public works department and a review and implementation of the recommendations of the city government performance audits that have already been done.

But if we are going to raise sales taxes with the ultimate goal of having more money to spend on basic public services, spending the tax increase directly on those services is clearly the most efficient approach.

[Tiny]

Waterboy Quote -  

quote: Two things tipped me off that you're not genuine. One is your constant reference to the river and the impounds as sewer water and sewer smell. Yet you fish in that water? No one who spends any amount of time up and down the river or any fluctuating lake would talk bs like that. I got news fella, lots of people run, walk, play, eat and drink around that lake you think is so smelly. And we don't smell any sewer. Maybe its the smell of your own selfish interest that is masking your true motives here. If you really believe its so bad why would you have anything at all to do with the area?

The Tulsa World ran the article and information from Brent Gordon and others that varified what I said in that post you replied to with the quote above. You think I"m not an authority on release of water but I think I may be more in tune to it than you realize since I've studied these release flows for a very long time. I've been down there sometimes 150 days a year and seen first hand how much water actually comes out of the dam. The article that ran in the Tulsa World today confirmed what I said about the river flow and sewage problems you'd have with the dammed river. The sewage problem I was referring to was the stinch that comes from the river when you drive over the 71st street bridge ... as I'm thinking right now the dam at Jenks is going to be below that area and that's the one that's going to be stinking the place up. Zink dam isn't the one I was talking about. It was also confirmed that Zink dam took it's toll on the fish population down river as well but what remained was the striper spawning area just below Zink ... once that dam is put up down river that's probably gone as well because they're designing the dams so that the fish can get through there which is even worse as they will go through and then their eggs are going to die as a result as confirmed by Kurk Kuklinski ( I may have spelled his name wrong ) Fisheries Biologist for the Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife. This is a quote from Kurk posted a few days ago.

quote:
A lot of good it will do to open the gates and let fish pass to spawn. Guess what happens to the striper eggs after they are spawned and fertilized? They will flow downstream (like they need to do) until they reach the impounded water of the first dam, where they will immediately settle into the silt and debris of the substrate because there is not enough moving water to keep them floating. So the dams will provide fish passage for spawning, but the net result is just as if the fish never spawned...dead striper eggs don't turn into striper fry and fingerlings.

You think I'm not for real, well I can assure you that I am and more in tune to this issue than you'd ever realize. What I am is a fisherman and that's it ... damming the rivers won't effect me one bit as I don't go down river near far enough to be effected in any way except maybe when it comes to hybrid fishing ... I do like to do that and when the ODWC loses it's source for hybrid eggs then that does effect me just a little bit ... I don't fish for hybrids but maybe once or twice a year though so that, I can live without. I also don't fish for any of the species that they trade those hybrid for but what I do is try to help the ODWC when and where I can .. when they have a project that I can help with then I'm there. I helped them with a show to promote catch n release of the larger bluecat last year with Fisheries Biologist Jeff Boxrucker and others that were there was Paul Moore, Dan Miller, Brent Gordon and a guy they called Stimey or something like that. I also stay in touch with a few ODWC fisheries biologists on occasion and they've informed me about the bad outcome these dams are going to have. If they do go up then enjoy your sewer pond all you want but there's likely going to be a few months out of several years in the future that no one's going to be wanting to be around that one below zink dam. Low flow will make it so. nuff sed!

[swake]

Again,

2006 was not a representative year as the Keystone dam was closed for repairs (for the first time in 40 years) so the flows were not representative of normal flows.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake


And it's not just Tulsa, it's every city in the state. But, big cities with urban issues have higher costs to run, so Tulsa and Oklahoma City are hurt worse. Oklahoma City actually collects less money on a per penny, per capita basis than Tulsa. of course they have even fewer cops per capita than we do that make even less and they have no public pools, a weaker parks system and even worse rated roads.

OMG  "No public pools???"   WHERE do you come up with the BS you post?  What a joke.  Didn't that seem just a bit unlikely, even to you?  It takes about 30 seconds to go to OKC's city website and find that is of course not true.  Makes it more than a little difficult to put much faith in your other claims. . .

[TheArtist]

If there is a drought. Wont the fish will be just as dead in a river with no water in it as they would be in a stagnant lake?

Remember when they emptied Zink lake a while back? They can emty the new ones just as easily. There doesnt have to be any more "stench" than there is now.  

If we dont have enough rain. The lakes can be emptied and the river flow as it usually does, or wouldnt. Even Zink lake can do that now.

The fish spawn and migrate during certain times and Keystone takes that into account already by releasing water during those times. It can still do that with these lakes.

The Sand Springs lake will enable the water to flow more often in the river than it can now.

The TW article you showed had a list of remedies along with it. I would have figured they would use most of them anyway. I dont think anyone here, knowing how varied the flow in this river can be, expected that these dams would be able to make things perfect all year round, every year. That would be a ridiculous assumption. I still believe it will help put more flowing water in it more often.