Vote Yes Commercials

[yayaya]

ok-I don't get it-WHY would anyone want the Kaiser money to leave Tulsa!?  Are you guys nuts!
Look at what they are doing all over Tulsa-
I just watched the boards for a while-but I KNEW the naysayers would go to town on this river deal.  I walk/run on the river every weekend, and let me just say it NEEDS improvement-I have nearly been run down by "on your left" bikers who come up so fast they startle you.
I used to live in Philidelphia, and one of the most calming, wonderful places to get away from dowtown where I lived was to run along that "stinky" river in Philly.
The tax isn't going to kill anyone-why don't you guys focus your effort on no taxes for groceries?  That would definitely ease my tax burden with three teen kids.

[Tiny]

yayaya, I don't care where the money goes just as long as it leaves the river be .. it's not just tulsa's river ... it's oklahoma's river and further down stream and up stream it's other people's river ... not that the lowhead dams will effect the other states, but it will be a great effect on Oklahoma. some city folks want the dams but it seems that most of them don't. if this were a statewide vote then it'd get crushed by a landslide. when a 15 to 30 mile stretch of the river means so much to so many people then it's pretty bold of those people to even think they've got the right to mess with it, imho. seems that there's been two major conservation agencies that's looked into the blocking of the dams being put in so it's definately not a good thing for oklahoma to have tulsa put up the dams. zink is evidence of that with it's 0% usage other than the pedestrian bridge and bike trail. they coulda had that without putting zink dam in. they could do all kinds of stuff around the river without messing with the river itself. we need the river to stay the way it is for several reasons. One improvement would be to blow up zink dam however. it serves no purpose but just being a big silted in water hole. it also disrupts fish migration to keystone dam which is a necessary flood control dam and power generator. it's also just 15 miles away from tulsa but they want that in their back yard and want the public to pay for the biggest percentage of it. people that won't have any benefit from it at all aren't wanting to pay for it. let the kaiser money go for river bank development like ya'll want but for goodness sakes leave the river alone.

[Tony]

The vote will be no Oct.9 so all this will be a somewhat moot point -- Tulsa county is getting an expensive straw poll to see what way the wind blows  -- I don't like the FACT that I am getting dams (as proposed) rammed down my throat. It is CLEARLY EVIDENT these dams designs are what DEVELOPERS want and not what is best for the Arkansas river which belongs to ALL OF OKLAHOMA -- I agree with Tim on this, state law and federal law should reflect all Oklahomans not just a select site thru Tulsa County. We ALL can have our cake and eat it too on these proposed lakes, and it can be accomplished in such a way that will meet ecological requirements -- but to do so the elevations will be lower and the DEVELOPERS won't get high enough off the floodplain to be able to build on -- (they have to be above the 1986 flood level to get insurance) The PROPOSED lakes will not get used anymore than Zink lake does -- they won't draw people from out of state to spend a day on the pedestrian trails just to look at a rootbeer colored pond. Why can't we celebrate the river for what it is and attempt to restore the beauty of the river bottom and banks, I am 100% behind cleaning up the banks and the river -- I just think (along with US Fish And Wildlife and ODWC biologists) that the dams (as proposed) are a bad plan. INCOG planners and developers haven't set one foot of their GUCCI loafers in the river bottom mud -- proposals like this should seek input from those who really use the river - anecdotal observation from people who have had years of actual river use should be part of any planning process -we (the users) have been TOTALLY left out of planning for this proposal -- its "we hear you but you don't count from the developers" that is just plain wrong. Gaylon Pinc is an oft quoted so called expert yet at the INCOG pep rallies that were held in Jenks I ppoinedly asked him what fish were in the river and he didn't even know what a Sauger was (a very important fish in Oklahoma) to this the MAYOR of Jenks replies "We won't let environmentalists stop our plans" HMMMM such a great ATTITUDE from a self-appointed KING.

I am willing to work out a compromise but they are usually satisfactory to none -- so it will be majority rules this time.

After defeating this proposal we will be past the TAX deadline that would benefit Kaiser bottom line so money withdrawn there, thats sad and was the REASON this early vote was called in the first place.

This is a great discourse for Tulsa and maybe , just maybe, citizens will wake up and see what can be done to help our threatened River --

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Tiny

yayaya, I don't care where the money goes just as long as it leaves the river be .. it's not just tulsa's river ... it's oklahoma's river and further down stream and up stream it's other people's river ... not that the lowhead dams will effect the other states, but it will be a great effect on Oklahoma. some city folks want the dams but it seems that most of them don't. if this were a statewide vote then it'd get crushed by a landslide. when a 15 to 30 mile stretch of the river means so much to so many people then it's pretty bold of those people to even think they've got the right to mess with it, imho. seems that there's been two major conservation agencies that's looked into the blocking of the dams being put in so it's definately not a good thing for oklahoma to have tulsa put up the dams. zink is evidence of that with it's 0% usage other than the pedestrian bridge and bike trail. they coulda had that without putting zink dam in. they could do all kinds of stuff around the river without messing with the river itself. we need the river to stay the way it is for several reasons. One improvement would be to blow up zink dam however. it serves no purpose but just being a big silted in water hole. it also disrupts fish migration to keystone dam which is a necessary flood control dam and power generator. it's also just 15 miles away from tulsa but they want that in their back yard and want the public to pay for the biggest percentage of it. people that won't have any benefit from it at all aren't wanting to pay for it. let the kaiser money go for river bank development like ya'll want but for goodness sakes leave the river alone.

So we are back to the argument about not harming the natural river.

The Arkansas River not in it's natural state now. The animals and plants that should surround and interact with the river don't exist because the river is passing through an urban area of nearly a million people. We define the riverbanks in region and don't allow them to naturally shift because of all the development right up against the riverbanks. The river's flow is greatly altered on a daily basis by the Keystone dam built to prevent the natural flooding that should occur, but isn't allowed. The river's chemistry is altered by all the urban rainwater that is guided into the river by a massive unnatural flood control system built to protect hundreds of thousands of homes and thousands of businesses. You would have to go miles above the Keystone dam to find a river that is natural in any way. You are arguing to preserve the river in it's current UNNATURAL state.

That makes perfect sense.

[Tony]

And you proponents are asking that we further destroy the river -- doen't fly with me -- how about RESTORING the river to a more NATURAL state -- it can be done but certainly not with
YOUR proposal - A lake is not a pedestrian use of the river -- interacting with the river doesn't mean sitting on a concrete patio sipping a margarita -- interacting with a river is wading in it, sliding your feet thru the sand, mud and rocks, and that is the biggest difference we have with proponents who want to further DAMAGE an already threatened river -- must be the MAYOR of Jenks , I am replying to.

(Granted the river was channelized years ago by USACE to alleviate flooding }, levies raised etc, BUT with bald cypress planting along streambed elevations , center river islands to divert low flows into a more concentrated channel the river THROUGH Tulsa can be made a showpiece that will ENHANCE the beauty of downtown -- plans for lakes for development are unrealistic --

For a change it would be nice to see some outside the box thinking on this -- take down Zink move it down past 21st, then raise the elevation with a rock rapid type structure,(instead of an impassable DANDEROUS weir structure) put another one in line and so on till we have a CLEAN flowing river that can heal itself of the sewage gray water and storm drain runoff.

The planners are so one dimensional -- kinda like City Hall []

[swake]

We are talking about further altering an already non-natural 20 mile urbanized section of the river.

20 miles out of a river that is 1,469 miles long. Or, exactly 1.4% of the river, and that 1.4% is again, far from natural now.

I think you will be able to find another fishing spot somewhere in that nearly 1500 miles of river.

[yayaya]

my thoughts exactly-I personally love to fish, but seems like when my dad used to take me we we go and float the white river in southern OK-
or go to a lake, stream or river.
Please, progress should not be stopped for fishing-uh, personally I would go WAY downstream to fish-please come up with something better than fishing

[Tulsa4Life]

I'm ready for a change. I'm ready to stop having the Arkansas River be the butt of everyones joke. I'm ready to be really proud of something in Tulsa. That place I can take my friends when they come in from Dallas for the weekend. I'm ready for them to regret not coming back to Tulsa after they graduated college. The same companies that many of them work for are here in Tulsa, but Tulsa "hasn't been ready to develop the river." Well Tulsa... I don't know how much longer I can wait

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

And you proponents are asking that we further destroy the river -- doen't fly with me -- how about RESTORING the river to a more NATURAL state -- it can be done but certainly not with
YOUR proposal - A lake is not a pedestrian use of the river -- interacting with the river doesn't mean sitting on a concrete patio sipping a margarita -- interacting with a river is wading in it, sliding your feet thru the sand, mud and rocks, and that is the biggest difference we have with proponents who want to further DAMAGE an already threatened river -- must be the MAYOR of Jenks , I am replying to.

(Granted the river was channelized years ago by USACE to alleviate flooding }, levies raised etc, BUT with bald cypress planting along streambed elevations , center river islands to divert low flows into a more concentrated channel the river THROUGH Tulsa can be made a showpiece that will ENHANCE the beauty of downtown -- plans for lakes for development are unrealistic --

For a change it would be nice to see some outside the box thinking on this -- take down Zink move it down past 21st, then raise the elevation with a rock rapid type structure,(instead of an impassable DANDEROUS weir structure) put another one in line and so on till we have a CLEAN flowing river that can heal itself of the sewage gray water and storm drain runoff.

The planners are so one dimensional -- kinda like City Hall []

You really need to study the Master Plan and the proposal as most of what you are saying needs to be done IS IN THERE!

First off, Mayor Vic does not "do computers", so it can't be him.

Ok as to your objections.  This proposal includes a combination of virtually everything you say.  The intent is to enhance interaction with the river not to make a total hardened edge, no where is that identified or proposed.

Fix Zink – the Ogee weir goes away.  I personally fought hard for the inclusion of this in the master plan and it will happen to Zink and the new proposed dams, NO MORE KILLER WIERS.  What Zink will get is significant new gates added in the center section for silt and flow passage, be made deeper by raising the top of the dam a bit (18-30 inches likely and deeper is healthier for impoundments), and the remaining portion of the dam will be made into a cascade or other step style weir that will enhance water quality by entraining more air as the water goes over it.  An interesting note is that on half a dozen waste water treatment plants I have managed the construction of the very last item after all of the other treatment process has been a cascade aerator/outfall weather it was needed or not because it is essentially FREE treatment.  In addition to cascades and gates Zink will include a flume through the dam to provide for fish passage up stream which can also be managed to provide a SAFE white water passage through the dam.  The only thing not advocated is swimming.  Wading, boating, toes in the sand or mud, floating, etc are all identified appropriate uses.  

Living River – Between Zink and the Jenks impoundment the river will be turned into exactly what you describe (except for maybe the cypress trees but that will be looked at in the design for living bank stabilization, ie. no sea of rip-rap) with a narrowed low flow channel (approx 500 feet wide) that allows flood flow passage, creates islands for habitat and makes for a fun venue for water sports and wildlife viewing.

New Lakes – not everybody likes lakes, not everybody likes a managed river, not everybody likes the current river look, what you will get is a combination of all three.

The river is healing, water quality today is significantly better than 5-10-20 years ago,  with this proposal we firmly believe it will get even better and the burden for being a good steward then becomes even stronger to those who utilize it for discharges (permits and storm sewers) that what we have now.

[Tony]

I guess you didn't read or don't belive what US Fish And Wildlife nor ODWC thought on YOUR dam proposals  -- I have seen the four dam "concept" design "proposals" and all still use a CONTROLLED gate -- deeper water IS NOT better unless you are talking about a lake that will form a thermocline -- which none of these "ponds" will. Your Vision 2025 suppositions IGNORE the science and HOPE you are correct in your ASSUMPTIONS (kinda like the flow data) we could have some basis for agreement would you LISTEN to the SCIENTIFIC experts -- but you choose to ignore or dismiss them --

AND OLD Vic voiced HIS opinion at the first SO CALLED INCOG public hearing in Jenks -- certainly no friend of the river or the fish and wildlife in it  --and WHY should I be required to go elsewhere to fish? the fishing is good at times right downtown --

Your "Living Concept" is a great IDEA -- we differ on the Biological SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS --

Here is a question for ya -- who is the Biologist on the Vision team ? -- whats that? there isn't one? It certainly isn't Gaylon Pinc of PMg.

Still voting NO till you proponents come up with a better plan IN the river.

OH yea I am STILL waiting to hear who your biological EXPERT IS, maybe its Vic Vreeland he knows a lot about SNAKE OIL.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Tiny
I've never seen people fishing in zink lake at all but seen lots of people fishing below it. the lake itself is pretty much dead to fishing activity. never seen any boats on it or anything of any kind ...

What?

There are fishermen fishing off those piers almost everytime I walk across the bridge. I have personally caught many a fish there, just not for a few years.

Just because there aren't boats doesn't mean there aren't fishermen.

The fishing is better past the dam, but that dam creates awfully good fishing in the lake certain times of the year.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

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!

Wasn't that Betty Boyd in a couple of those "vote yes" commercials?

Dang.  Don't get on the bad side of that "Blood Thirsty Tax Vampire" Betty Boyd... wouldn't wanna see her in a dark alley at night...

"Ladies and Gentlemen... in this corner...... Betty 'the bloodthirsty tax vampire' Boyd..."

---both pics can be found at tulsatvmemories.com---

***Yeah, I'd pay some serious $$$ to see her wrestle Betty "the Golden Girl" White" in a no-holds barred cage match... [}:)]

/sarcasm

[Rico]

In today's Tulsa World there is an article regarding how the TYpros came to endorse the "River Tax"...

They sent 3000 members a survey...

10% responded...

60% of the 10% were in favor of the "River Tax"...

Mister Roby came to the conclusion that this was enough to endorse the "Tax"...

Roscoe P. Coletrain would love this math...

300 member of 3000 responded.....

Of the 300 responses 180 members were in favor of the Tax...

So let's see... 180 members in favor... that took the time to fill out a possible question sheet of what was probably 10 questions or so....  

That comes out to a "Majority in Favor" of the Tax according to Mister Roby....

He says in the article "had the results come back the opposite they would not have endorsed the "Tax"....

180 members of 3000 is  approximately 6 percent....

Boy that is enough to "Endorse just about anything isn't it....


The Mayor had a "Mentoring" Month.... Quite possibly Mister Roby missed his opportunity to brush up on his math....

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

In today's Tulsa World there is an article regarding how the TYpros came to endorse the "River Tax"...

They sent 3000 members a survey...

10% responded...

60% of the 10% were in favor of the "River Tax"...

Mister Roby came to the conclusion that this was enough to endorse the "Tax"...

Roscoe P. Coletrain would love this math...

300 member of 3000 responded.....

Of the 300 responses 180 members were in favor of the Tax...

So let's see... 180 members in favor... that took the time to fill out a possible question sheet of what was probably 10 questions or so....  

That comes out to a "Majority in Favor" of the Tax according to Mister Roby....

He says in the article "had the results come back the opposite they would not have endorsed the "Tax"....

180 members of 3000 is  approximately 6 percent....

Boy that is enough to "Endorse just about anything isn't it....


The Mayor had a "Mentoring" Month.... Quite possibly Mister Roby missed his opportunity to brush up on his math....

Same way we pick presidents and mayors.

[Rico]

^

LOL If our luck is as good with this Tax as it is with Mayor's and Presidents we are in for one heck of a ride...[]