TulsaNow river forum - post discussion

[tim huntzinger]

Yeah but who are the homeowners and who are the builders? In this instance the builders are the ones driving the process.  When the homeowners put in the order in the Vision2025Tax(.org), they said a couple of dams and bridges.  Next thing we have the Channels and all this.  There is no talking to the builders and that is quite unusual.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

Source?

Easy.  Michael Bates' Sept. 12 Urban Tulsa Weekly column, entitled "Show Your Work".

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17971

At the end of the column, he lengthily describes Big John "Stonewall" Piercy financial obfuscation.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Eagleton made some good points but I think some of his harassing of his opponents was a bit uncalled for. The only really "new" information to me was that the 4/10th's tax would "sunset" early if inhoffe ever comes up with the federal funds that were promised oh so long ago. It was also highlighted that the matching funds requirement for the dams was in the original Vision2025 handouts and articles, but was neglected to be mentioned in the actual ballot.

There were a lot of people coming and going but at any one time there was 100+ so I'd say around 150 attended altogether. The pro people also didn't bring their displays until after the forum started instead of letting people mill around before it began. I was less than impressed with Eagleton's plan which was basically to take out a loan against possible future overages from Vision2025 or to extend the timeframe of the Vision2025 tax. With all of his talk about the unreliability of sales tax, that seemed like a pretty big gamble.


FYI: Tulsa World story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070919_1_A7_spanc70263

Councilor Eagleton has a good business head on his shoulders.

His idea of using the several hundred million dollarss in projected tax collection OVERAGES from Vision 2025 is a sound financial move.

Unfortunately, Tulsa County Financial Advisor John Piercey, the long-time "dear" friend of fellow Tulsa County Ring Unindicted Co-Conspirators Bob Parmele and Dirty Bob Dick, is hiding the financial numbers.

Michael Bates formally asked him for the numbers three weeks ago.  When Mr. Piercey would not comply, Michael Bates reports in his weekly UTW column he even got Commissioner Perry to twist Big John's arm to release the numbers.  

Still, Mr. Piercey is stonewalling providing the Vision 2025 financial projections, and he has NOT complied according to Mr. Bates latest UTW column.

Piercey's hiding the numbers, showing as they will at least a $200 million projected overcollection of Vision 2025 dollars.

Most of the Kaiser River Tax proposal could be done with the existing Vision 2025 tax fund collection income stream.

But the greedy Swells want MORE.

Promoting a new sales tax that hurts Tulsa's poorest and neediest families the worst.  And the Swells could care less.

And, then they'll be back for more, and more, and more, and more taxes.  They are insatiable.

They'll never stop.  They are insatiable TAX VAMPIRES.

Save your wooden stakes.

[!]

The poorest and neediest get a tax rebate that will offset most of the increased tax.

How about let's just not raise their sales tax rates in the FIRST place??

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

"some woman on tv was claiming that companies were going to terminate employees that were against the tax"...... Friendly Bear was on TV?

Is your bank AGAIN using the mandatory VOTE YES technique of a campaign sign INVOLUNTARILY placed in employees yards UNLESS they punch the OPT-OUT button??

Like they did in Vision 2025??

Hmmmmmmh??

[}:)]

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

Ugh...KLANG!!!  Back to you Kettle

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

In my opinion, Busby was flustered when Pinc or Piercy would run over and was trying to be polite.  However, he never objected to giving the other two some extra time to respond to a new point.  I felt he was a fair moderator.

When I spoke to him I did mention there were some cynical remarks on here about having vote yes signs in his yard.  He said there's still things he wants to learn and appreciated points made by the anti's.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy



And my analogy of the day. Anyone who has ever built a new home is familiar with the process the county is going through with the river project. You start out with a plan, an estimated budget, a banker to finance you and a builder you trust (or not). If your smart you'll employ an architect but most don't. Thats when the fun begins. Within no time you'll be over budget, adding and subtracting features, hassling over trim, doorknobs, lighting etc. and desperately trying to hold the line on costs. Then you find out the garage is designed over a slab of bedrock, and has to be moved to the other side, the bathroom is too small, the banker is impatient, the builder is too busy to talk, subs aren't being paid and show up drunk, the carpet came in the wrong design, and on..and on. Still you get a home built and its beautiful, the bank closes and is happy, the next buyer has no idea all the trouble you went through but loves your house.

That's life, its no different for public construction either except EVERYONE is watching and critiquing. Mostly those who never built a new house!

I liked the analogy of issuing a "blank purchase order" to the county.

Every project I have ever done, through a couple of companies I've worked for, the city, county, THA, TAA, etc. ad nauseum has required specific details, itemized pricing, contingencies, and required completion dates.

I don't think it's too much to ask for more details prior to giving our approval, they expect it from suppliers and contractors.

So far we only have a bill of goods.

We need the actual bill of materials- with full details.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I see the good councilor is still quoting Churchill whom he so closely identifies. What he lacks in logic he more than makes up for with theatrics and snarkiness. Played to the crowd and raised the volume when his points were weakest. That seemed to work.

Afterwards, I tried to get his attention to pose a couple of questions. One was how he thought using v2025 overages to finish the dams was not a tax which he so vehemently opposes. By not pushing to end the tax when v2025 projects are finished, he is in effect extending a tax and delaying construction a decade or more.

The other question is how he thought our tax base would erode with a mere 4/10cent increase in sales tax when 80 miles away OKC raised their sales tax substantially more and leveraged an increase in tax collections. Lastly I wanted to point out that Jenks Riverwalk and the Aquarium were in fact subsidized by public monies though not directly through a sales tax.

He was too busy berating the moderator for giving those other guys too much time for their responses. Never thanked the moderator for his efforts, just smarted off and left. Classy. Colin was gone like the dawn.

I sought out the pro speakers who welcomed my remarks (as one would expect). Thanks, TN for putting it together.

So, you say that the forum Moderator Mr. Unbiased Busby, with the two OUR RIVER YES campaign signs plantly prominently in his front yard, gave the PRO TAX side MORE TIME with their answers than he gave the ANTI-TAX side???

How nice of him.

[V]

In my opinion, Busby was flustered when Pinc or Piercy would run over and was trying to be polite.  However, he never objected to giving the other two some extra time to respond to a new point.  I felt he was a fair moderator.

When I spoke to him I did mention there were some cynical remarks on here about having vote yes signs in his yard.  He said there's still things he wants to learn and appreciated points made by the anti's.

Mr. Unbiased Busby's got the backbone of a Slug.  

He does what he was told to do.

[Conan71]

Were you there last night, FB?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Were you there last night, FB?

How could you MISS a trained bear riding a bicycle around the room?  

All for RecycleMichele's bloviating benefit.

[}:)]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, you got me on that one.  I was referring to his use of historical data and hard facts on many of the questions.

I, too, was impressed with the digging...for the most part.  One exception was the mental yoga he and his partner employed to counter the argument that Oklahoma is a low-tax state.  Something to the effect that if Tulsa were a state, it'd have a tax ranking of 20, not 50.  But Tulsa is not a state, it's an urban area.  And there are hundreds of other similar urban areas who offer similar urban services, to a greater or lesser degree.  How do we compare to those directly?  Comparing Tulsa to their state averages is meaningless because their tax rates are mitigated by the rates in their rural areas, too.  In the same way that Eagleton got Tulsa's taxes to "rise", the tax rates for all of those other cities would rise, too.

So, "if Tulsa was a State", is just a flawed attempt to counter the obvious...our taxes are among the lowest in the nation.  That said, I did not think that the pro river guys did a very good job of convincing me this investment, at this time, was the best one.

I don't trust either side entirely.  I think that the no tax guys are simply that, no tax guys.  This notion of using Vision 2025 overages to do things is just something they are saying today in order to defeat the new tax.  I suspect they'll be against it on October 10th, regardless of how the vote turns out.

I also think the pro river side has a package that is not thought through and not ready for prime time.  It shows, and I don't think they can fake their way through it.

And so, the only thing persuading me one way or another is the private leverage (30%), which is what it is supposed to do.  Darn those smart rich people (shakes fist).  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Okay, you got me on that one.  I was referring to his use of historical data and hard facts on many of the questions.

I, too, was impressed with the digging...for the most part.  One exception was the mental yoga he and his partner employed to counter the argument that Oklahoma is a low-tax state.  Something to the effect that if Tulsa were a state, it'd have a tax ranking of 20, not 50.  But Tulsa is not a state, it's an urban area.  And there are hundreds of other similar urban areas who offer similar urban services, to a greater or lesser degree.  How do we compare to those directly?  Comparing Tulsa to their state averages is meaningless because their tax rates are mitigated by the rates in their rural areas, too.  In the same way that Eagleton got Tulsa's taxes to "rise", the tax rates for all of those other cities would rise, too.

So, "if Tulsa was a State", is just a flawed attempt to counter the obvious...our taxes are among the lowest in the nation.  That said, I did not think that the pro river guys did a very good job of convincing me this investment, at this time, was the best one.

I don't trust either side entirely.  I think that the no tax guys are simply that, no tax guys.  This notion of using Vision 2025 overages to do things is just something they are saying today in order to defeat the new tax.  I suspect they'll be against it on October 10th, regardless of how the vote turns out.

I also think the pro river side has a package that is not thought through and not ready for prime time.  It shows, and I don't think they can fake their way through it.

And so, the only thing persuading me one way or another is the private leverage (30%), which is what it is supposed to do.  Darn those smart rich people (shakes fist).  []

I think you gave the fairest assessment of the debate so far.  

The argument was Oklahoma has one of the lowest tax burdens.  That takes into account all rural areas as well as the urban areas.  I believe Eagleton's point was Tulsa's tax liability is not amongst the lowest in the nation.  Essentially, I think his point was that if you compared the tax burden of Tulsans to the tax burden of citizens of states on that list, Tulsa citizens would come out in the upper half of the tax burden pile- nationally.

Tulsa is being asked for more tax money, not the state.  I believe that was the point.

On the "yes" side you have two men who have even more job security if it passes and they were surprisingly not well-prepared considering the depths with which each is involved in the planning and financing.  

On the "no" side there was a "no new taxes, funding streams do exist" and a "no taxation until you give us better details".  Not exactly Dan Hicks kind of stuff.

[bokworker]

FB, let me be the first to thank you for the fact the we do NOT have the sign-in-yard opt out decision to make this time. I am so pleased that I did not have to mull over the possible implications of this decision when I am more concerned with writing a thank you letter to "W" thanking him for leaning on fed chairman Bernanke to lower rates by 1/2% so that all of our econimic problems are now solved....

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

FB, let me be the first to thank you for the fact the we do NOT have the sign-in-yard opt out decision to make this time. I am so pleased that I did not have to mull over the possible implications of this decision when I am more concerned with writing a thank you letter to "W" thanking him for leaning on fed chairman Bernanke to lower rates by 1/2% so that all of our econimic problems are now solved....

I'll bet there are more than a few employees in your organization that are exceedinlgy glad they do not have to punch the "Opt-Out" of a Vote YES to the Kaiser River Tax option this year, coming as it does right on the heels of a large, bank-wide staffing cut-back publicized recently in the local media.

Glad you may the cut, and are still around too, BOKWerker.