TulsaNow river forum - post discussion

[Double A]

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.

You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

P.S. QuikTrip is not Quick Trip.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

I believe the statement was it would preclude a vehicular bridge.

pre·clude      /prɪˈklud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-klood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing.
1.   to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible: The insufficiency of the evidence precludes a conviction.
2.   to exclude or debar from something: His physical disability precludes an athletic career for him.

I'm sorry, I meant to say QuickTrick.

Smarten up.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

I believe the statement was it would preclude a vehicular bridge.

pre·clude      /prɪˈklud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pri-klood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing.
1.   to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible: The insufficiency of the evidence precludes a conviction.
2.   to exclude or debar from something: His physical disability precludes an athletic career for him.

I'm sorry, I meant to say QuickTrick.

Smarten up.

The word was indeed preclude, except there was a  'wouldn't' before 'preclude'.

Wouldn't+preclude= would not preclude.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I cant imagine anyone thinking they would be getting a rebate, that is more than they paid in. Has there ever been such a thing? A "rebate" is a "deductuction from an amount paid in, a return from a payment".

I am fairly sure seniors read the paper, often more than the average person actually. There have been plenty of articles in newspapers and on the news that state the amount of the rebate and what the amount of the tax is.

[Admin]

A complete video of the forum is now available at the Tulsa Now home page.

[Wrinkle]

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

[Ladytrader2]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

Right...that's just how I see it, it is just baiting people to vote "Yes" when they will not be eligible when the time comes to get it.  I think it's for Seniors and people in a certain income bracket (I might be wrong about the latter).  But, nevertheless, since there's no way to figure how much a person actually pays in sales taxes, it will be a percentage based on income and number of people in the household?

[Ladytrader2]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I cant imagine anyone thinking they would be getting a rebate, that is more than they paid in. Has there ever been such a thing? A "rebate" is a "deductuction from an amount paid in, a return from a payment".

I am fairly sure seniors read the paper, often more than the average person actually. There have been plenty of articles in newspapers and on the news that state the amount of the rebate and what the amount of the tax is.

I think they will be under the impression that they will get the rebate in addition to the EIC.  I had not read anywhere that it would be a replacement of that credit, and, someone just recently explained it to me.  

Also, some in the really low income brackets might think it would be more than they would get from taking the EIC.  I may be wrong, but, I continue the way it is being presented in the ads is deceptive.  There's no ad explaining the "rebate".  Of course, this is entirely my opinion and I'm open to information on this from someone who definitely knows how it will work.

[perspicuity85]

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Ladytrader2

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

From what I've read, the 'rebate' would end up being offered to only the few folks who also qualify for Earned Income Credit, but who have opted to not take it. That's about a dozen or so, and they'd be too ignorant to know how to obtain either.

So, in my eyes, the rebate is just bait.
It's really non-existant.

Right...that's just how I see it, it is just baiting people to vote "Yes" when they will not be eligible when the time comes to get it.  I think it's for Seniors and people in a certain income bracket (I might be wrong about the latter).  But, nevertheless, since there's no way to figure how much a person actually pays in sales taxes, it will be a percentage based on income and number of people in the household?

I thought it was seniors and families making less than 50,000 a year. $25 credit would be equal to about $125/week in purchases at walmart and taco bell.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Double A
You are so naive and misinformed. It's not what's pictured, it's what's not. Where's the Quick Trip gathering place in that conceptual rendering? Smarten up.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe everyone other than you isn't naive and misinformed, but that maybe you're too cynical?

You're well aware that even at the Tulsa Now River Forum, it was mentioned that a vehicular bridge could later be built next to this pedestrian bridge.

Smarten up?  That's good advice.  Maybe those who spew such great advice should follow it.

P.S. QuikTrip is not Quick Trip.

someone, more in the know than me, would validate that the 41st st vehicular bridge was kaiboshed by the west bank land-owner/41st street gathering place donor... it won't happen in our lifetime...

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

How arrogant. The river needs us to sustain it? Gimme a break. The river sustains itself, despite our meddling. OKC has a canal, not a river. That's why Bricktown works, it is on a human scale that is conducive to that type of development.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

My perspective on the whole river issue:

Tulsa is slowly falling behind other cities across the nation because a large number of citizens are against any form of urban development.  I'm part of the young professional generation as well, and I am amazed at the lack of support with generally all major projects in Tulsa.  Tulsa is probably the most unknown city of its size in the U.S., and still thousands of local citizens are against anything that will move the city forward.  Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.  That's just the way it is.  This isn't The Channels, this is an infrastructure project.  Infrastructure is supposed to be supported by governments and taxes.  Whether you live in the urban core, or the suburbs, you will always benefit from the marketability of the general region you reside in.  Believe it or not, job creation is actually related to the marketability of a geographic region.  A vibrant urban core attracts young professionals- about 80% of my peers want to live in a vibrant urban core.  Furthermore, Tulsa has a big problem with retaining the already-present young people in the city.  When the native Tulsan newly graduated college students pass up Tulsa, they take their tax money somewhere else.  By not voting for civic infrastructure projects, you are really just allowing more of the tax burden of the community to be placed on you, because you're not investing in ways to bring in new taxpayers or retain the ones already in the community.  The world is a far more competitive place today than ever before, and cities have to give themselves a competitive advantage against other cities in order to retain their brightest young people and attract outside job seekers.  Okla. City installed a man-made river.  All this vote is asking for is to sustain and further utilize a natural asset the area already has!

Someone's been drinking the TYPros Koolaid.

Main Entry: in·fra·struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'in-fr&-"str&k-ch&r, -(")frä-
Function: noun
1 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
2 : the permanent installations required for military purposes.

Infrastructure is not a project to provide cool new places for young professionals to hang out.

It is also not the countY's responsibility.

Do you really think the citizens of the city of Tulsa would pony up a tax increase to develop Black Jack creek for Collinsville?

Companies go to regions with a low tax burden, well maintained basic infrastructure, low crime rates, cheap labor, and if all that is met they will use lifestyle as a tie breaker.

Just like a football team that has lost a few games, Tulsa needs to return to the basics of a functioning city.  Once the trust of the citizens has been regained....then the right time to take on another project has come.

Right now....we're still trying to digest Vision 2025.  Wasn't that supposed to fix all of Tulsa's problems?  Why don't we finish those over-budget projects first?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by chesty


Right now....we're still trying to digest Vision 2025.  Wasn't that supposed to fix all of Tulsa's problems?  Why don't we finish those over-budget projects first?

Can you name 3 over budget projects? 2?