TulsaNow river forum - post discussion

[sauerkraut]

It's a darn good thing I don't live in Tulsa, I could not really make up my mind on this issue. I normally would vote down every tax hike but in this case it's really a small tax hike, and since Oklahoma's sales tax is already sky high a little fraction more really won't be noticed much. This is for the river and that's really the only natural resource Tulsa has. Tulsa needs to make the best of the river. The other side has some good points also. I'm leaning on favoring the River Tax, but that's just me...

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A


I would support a tax to fully fund the 4 billion dollar backlog of needed unfunded infrastructure maintenance of not only streets, but for other needed improvements like the city wastewater treatment plant on the west bank- a glaring oversight in the concepts to be voted on in the Kounty Kommissar Kaiser Tax vote. The best one I wrote that got asked (re:utilization of local minority contractors) didn't get answered by anyone, it was completely disregarded by the panel.

I would likely support an infrastructure tax as well.. I'd support a bill to give everyon in oklahoma free college tuition or a bill to parachute naked ladies and gold dubloons down onto Tulsa. My only point was that no-one was offering up a road bill (just like no-one is going to go for Eagleton's V2025 Second Mortgage idea) so why bring it up?

10yrs ago I toured northpoint when it was being "built by minority-only contractors" and a member of our group asked the guide why he didn't see any hispanics, native americans, or asians. He was asked to leave. When an inclusionary project is itself exclusionary, what is the point?

As an addendum to that I did think I saw a native american plumber later in the day...

[Ladytrader2]

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.

This is my first time on this board, and I've been reading a lot on both sides and haven't seen anything about the "senior citizen rebate", until now.  The 'Yes' side's ads on TV and Radio add the comment, "And, Seniors get a Rebate", at the end.  But, what they don't say is, that rebate is only for those who are already taking the Earned Income Credit.  Those who haven't taken the credit in the past cannot get the rebate.  And, those already taking the EIC have to choose between that credit or the Rebate...they do not get both.  So, Seniors are not gaining anything monetary by voting 'Yes'.  It is somewhat deceiving, in my opinion.  Lots of senior citizens on fixed incomes who hear that short statement are going to think, "gee, I get money back if I vote "Yes"...but, they do not check any further because they are so "trusting", don't have computer skills, etc., and, the time comes to get the rebate and they are told, "sorry, you can't get that because you have not filed for the EIC", or "you have to choose which one you want, the EIC or the Rebate, you can't have both." Well, they sure can't take back their vote.

I think the "No" side should be doing more to get the truth about this "rebate" out there, because older citizens are going to think they are going to get their tax, or part of it, back at the end of each year, but, this is not the way it works.  No one is going to gain financially with this so-called "Rebate."[]

[TheArtist]

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

[Ladytrader2]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think perhaps that you just misspoke. But are you suggesting that some may think that they may be getting more money back if they vote yes when you say "gaining anything monetary"?  As in getting more money than they pay out?

Oh, and welcome to the forum. Always nice to hear a new perspective.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.  There are seniors who have heard that little ending to the ads and they think they will be getting back most of if not more than they pay out during the year.  This has them thinking it is in their best interest to vote "Yes" whether they are for it or not because they will get back what they spend at the register.  I'm not sure what you meant by that I must have misspoke?  Can you elaborate on that?

[dsjeffries]

Perhaps this speaks to my age a bit, but I noticed some discussions in the Tulsa, OK network on Facebook...

Someone started a discussion about "VOTE NO!!!".  Someone else entered and said they'd heard about the tax but didn't know anything about it... She was directed ONLY to the No campaign's website ("This site below will tell you all about the river tax") and came back from it saying that it can't pass because it will hurt her family and 10 month-old son...

I just couldn't help myself, so I stepped in and  posted links to INCOG, Tulsa World, KTUL, KOTV, the County website, the yes campaign and the graphic showing the proposed projects (you know, all the information she WASN'T shown).

Since the girl in question was most likely concerned by the "this will destroy low income families" argument, I outlined what the projects included (including the $117m donation) and brought up the tax rebate for low-income families and senior citizens.

At this point, I was met with an argument claiming that the tax would cost the average senior citizen $800 per year extra and that the $25 rebate doesn't even touch that... so I did some visual math and showed that for an $800 burden, that senior citizen would have to spend $200,000 on taxable goods, and that the estimated burden of $96 was closer to an actual number.

This is the point that the discussion went from the river to personal attacks against me.  Apparently, I'm an egotistical, elitist outcast, never fitting into a group (is that a bad thing?), trying to get attention by being a prick and proving people wrong... and my profile picture is a basis for making fun of me...

Providing links to information which present both sides apparently made me childish, too.

Anyway, somewhere during this so-called 'discussion', I remembered a quote from Hairspray...

I thought I'd share it all with you here.  I think it's appropriate for this river tax, regardless of whether you're for or against it... Tax votes, or any vote, really, tend to bring out people who refuse to speak with anyone who disagrees with them.

And the quote: "You two better brace yourselves for a whole lotta ugly comin' at you from a neverending parade of stupid."

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604



I just couldn't help myself, so I stepped in and  posted links to INCOG, Tulsa World, KTUL, KOTV, the County website, the yes campaign and the graphic showing the proposed projects

Don't you mean concepts? Projects have plans. Please don't insult my intelligence by erroneously citing the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

[waterboy]

How ironic. The quote is reaffirmed in merely one post.

Thanks for the quote. Would look good on a bumper sticker.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

How ironic. The quote is reaffirmed in merely one post.

Thanks for the quote. Would look good on a bumper sticker.

[]  Gotta love it.

[dsjeffries]

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

[TeeDub]

Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

Paddling, sailing, kayaking... all of those are activities that can take place on the river... People just aren't allowed to swim in it.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Just a point of curiosity...   Why do all the "proposal" pictures show people paddling sailing or otherwise in the water?

Will Sand Springs be dumping their sewage somewhere else, or are these just the uninformed public who will be playing in that water?

Unless you are on top of the mountain where the stream begins everywhere is downstream of somewhere else.

Sand Springs does not "dump" their sewage into the river, they do however discharge effluent from their waste water treatment plant into the river.  The interesting part is that all effluent into the river is actually required to be cleaner than the water in the river itself.  The river designation is secondary body contact but those discharges are required to meet primary body contact standards.

to prove that level of treatment the bio monitoring requirements for treatment plants along the river require that that specific bugs and fish be able not only live in but reproduce in 100% effluent from the discharge sources with no dilution.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

On the news it said this development area extends north to the crow creek bridge at 36th.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

I don't know if it's been brought up in the previous pages of posting, but there have been concerns over having a pedestrian bridge at 41st instead of a vehicular bridge.

Well, if you look at some of the renderings, they show the pedestrian bridge to be 'off to the side' from 41st Street, allowing enough room for a vehicular bridge to be built later on.  So the pedestrian bridge won't hamper any efforts of building the other, and it makes it safer for pedestrians.

This was brought up during the TN debate, too.

yeah, but because of who owns the land on the other side, it will never happen... he wont let it...