Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?

[Renaissance]

I posted because I saw an absurd topic by an absurd poster extended by good faith replies.

Good faith replies to irrational posts on internet forums, thereby giving more opportunity for irrational posting, is known as "feeding the trolls."  I thought I'd suggest to the other posters that they not respond to your baiting.

You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person, so why try?  You're a nasty little troll, clogging up an otherwise more or less pleasant forum, and I'm very much looking forward to your return to hibernation.

October 9 can't get here soon enough.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I posted because I saw an absurd topic by an absurd poster extended by good faith replies.

Good faith replies to irrational posts on internet forums, thereby giving more opportunity for irrational posting, is known as "feeding the trolls."  I thought I'd suggest to the other posters that they not respond to your baiting.

You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person, so why try?  You're a nasty little troll, clogging up an otherwise more or less pleasant forum, and I'm very much looking forward to your return to hibernation.

October 9 can't get here soon enough.

There's no baiting by me in the slightest.

It's a legitimate Query, honestly asked.

And, expecting an earnest, honest reply.

If there's been baiting done, it's been by others baiting and threadcrapping this topic.

RecycleM and Cannot Fodder come to mind.

And, I actually OUTRANK you, having 4 stars to your puny 3 stars, even after resting in a Hibernation of one year.


[:X]

[cannon_fodder]

Yeah, sorry Floyd.  I figured if I outlined the state of the law with references and clarifications that he might get it.  Unfortunately, he did not even understand my logic paradigm, let along the entire point.  Some people just take what they 'hear' at face value.  Must be those damn liberal judges making things up again.

Stupid common law tradition dating back to the 1200's.  How dare these judges use that kind of new fangled radicalism.

I shall abstain from feeding the trolls.  I always fall for this, I'm like the man who tries to save the drowning guy in the flood and everyone goes "of course he drown too."  Just not as heroic.  []

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

[:X]

I do respect the kissy face.  

[]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Yeah, sorry Floyd.  I figured if I outlined the state of the law with references and clarifications that he might get it.  Unfortunately, he did not even understand my logic paradigm, let along the entire point.  Some people just take what they 'hear' at face value.  Must be those damn liberal judges making things up again.

Stupid common law tradition dating back to the 1200's.  How dare these judges use that kind of new fangled radicalism.

I shall abstain from feeding the trolls.  I always fall for this, I'm like the man who tries to save the drowning guy in the flood and everyone goes "of course he drown too."  Just not as heroic.  []

Your altruism is touching. You're a Hero.  
Really.

Then again, the imprecision of either a homeowner's measurements, or the Tulsa city code enforcement Gestapo to determine EXACTLY where a private residential property line 12' set-back from the city easement lies for proper Campaign Sign placement, without actually performing a detailed, precise site survey, seems highly suspect.

Could the arbitrary, capricious, and imprecise City Code enforcement of the 12' set-back then be interpreted, when taken as a whole with the City Sign Ordinance, that someone in power doesn't want certain campaign signs to be placed even on Private Property, and is seeking to DISENFRANCHISE certain of the citizens?

Now, THAT sounds unconstitutional....

How can you express free speech with a campaign yard sign planted on your own private property if you have no expectation that the city code enforcement knows with any precision actually where the city easement ends, and where the private property line lies, and thus whether the campaign sign is legal or illegally placed?

Oh, if the city or one of Councilor Bill Martinet's Sign Trolls vacumns up the campaign sign from a private yard, then it MUST have been illegally placed?

[]

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

Sorry guys, I just have to respond to this one.
It is just plain wrong, legally and generally.  The only limitation on religious organizations (or other tax-exempt groups) in political matters is in promoting candidates or political organizations like the democratic or republican parties.  There is absolutely no limitation on them becoming involved in issues of the day such as war, poverty, taxes, justice, abortion, immigration, streets, liquor, environmental issues or any other public policy.

See:  http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I think taxes can be a moral or ethical issue.  Some might say that a regressive sales tax is unjust.  I know several people who tell me they cannot support any more sales taxes for this reason.  For them it is a moral issue.

I must say that I do not like our present sales tax structure. In relative terms, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than middle class and rich people.  It is a "regressive" tax.  As it approaches 10% it is getting too high.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

I especially do not like the fact that essential food is taxed and services are not.  There is a justice issue in a poor mother paying sales tax on milk and bread for her children and a rich lady paying no tax on her hair and nails.  There is a moral dilemma for me in a large corporation paying no sales tax on their attorneys fees to defend a pollution lawsuit and a family paying almost 10% on basic clothing for their children.

Others see a sales tax as the fairest of all taxes--every one who buys pays and many who buy from outside Tulsa County will be paying for the river development.  Historically, Oklahomans have defeated most other forms of taxes.  In modern times, the public has almost only voted for sales taxes.  Remember, Oklahoma is the lowest taxed state in the union.  

See:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

I think religious people and organizations are justified and indeed maybe obligated in speaking out about unfair taxes.  However, in relative terms, I support the river proposal and will vote for the modest sales tax increase.

I see more good and less evil coming from its passage--this includes more good for poor people who will have the free use of the equivalent of New York's Central Park.   More good for the low-income neighborhoods along the Sand Springs line, in West Tulsa and from 41st to 71st along Riverside Drive who will see their property values increase and the ability of rental property to be improved.  In real terms the low-income rebate, if it motivates more qualified people to file an income tax return to get the earned income tax credit, will actually get them a net monetary increase-- the EITC and the rebate.  CAP and the TU legal clinic will prepare the return for free.

I think you can cherry-pick this proposal to death, but no one problem has tipped the balance for me and this includes an "evil" sale tax that will only last seven years and for a family making $25,000 or less and will only cost it $2.50 a month with the low-income rebate.

I suggest that as moral and religious people we vote for this tax and then work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now. IMHO, this tax, used for the infrastructure for a great public place, is certainly much more fair than the corporate welfare/blackmail of the Boeing deal in 2003 with Vision 2025, a sales tax that was approved.

[cannon_fodder]

Now wait a minute...

Is the city actually taking signs out of people's yards?  All of my post was discussing public medians and rights of way, not EASEMENTS.  If the city has an easement on your property they can use it for whatever the easement grant is for (ie. utility), but they have no rights beyond that.

Can someone clarify, is the city entering into people's front yards and taking signs?  If so, that's weak.  Maybe not illegal, but weak.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe


I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I am equally glad I don't go to your church.

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe


I suggest that as moral and religious people we ... work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now.

I agree with you on this part though.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now wait a minute...

Is the city actually taking signs out of people's yards?  All of my post was discussing public medians and rights of way, not EASEMENTS.  If the city has an easement on your property they can use it for whatever the easement grant is for (ie. utility), but they have no rights beyond that.

Can someone clarify, is the city entering into people's front yards and taking signs?  If so, that's weak.  Maybe not illegal, but weak.

The Troll has drawn the Loose Cannon back over the Bridge to the Banana Republic of Tulsa.

Okay, I'll explain.

A few months ago, RecycleMichael, had a favorable, Lorton's World puff piece article about a group of volunteers that he leads that under Councilor Bill Martinet's alleged urging, are going around and vacumning signs from the city rights of way.

RM was also quoted in the article as saying his group would receive "training" as to what constituted the city easement.  

Since many houses all over Tulsa obviously front or backup to major city streets, someone in his group would be put into a position of exercising judgment about where the 12' feet ARBITRARY city easement ends, and where it begins.  Remember, these are supposedly VOLUNTEERS.

For instance, on Harvard Avenue between 71st and 81st, the street has no curbs and only bar ditches for drainage.

The curving road and resultant curvy yards are not precisely squared off in relation to Harvard.

And, there are multiple campaign signs along  Harvard Avenue in front of those houses.

The same is true for almost any two lane former farm to market roads that are now called 61st street, 81st street, 91st street, 101st street, etc.

Uh, just EXACTLY where does the 12' end, and the private property begin along such a street?

Uh, even if the homeowner PAID for a new survey so that he could with LEGAL PRECISION plant his campaign yard sign clearly on his side of the property line, would the city sign enforcement, Public Werkes Dept., or the Sign Nazi volunteers make the same measurement??

I think they'd just grab the sign, and go.  A Smash and Grab against free speech rights.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the uniform 12' easement is in fact uniform in every subdivision in Tulsa.

I think the 12' "standard" set-back was something that the acting Tulsa City Attorney retrieved from some hidden orifice.

The current city subdivision building codes have much wider streets, a post-WWII standard that was adopted in relation to allowing Fire Trucks access to a neighborhood even if cars were parked along both sides of the street.

RecycleMichael is free to opine to clarify or re-but, but I think I've essentially got the facts of his campaign sign vacumning force correctly stated.

The pretext of campaign sign vacumning, of course, is city beautification, and "preserving" the city right of way.

The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations.

Again, the latest sign enforcement was created as a counter-measure to stifle any grass roots political message, subsequent to two failures of proposed Arena sales taxes.  

The local power establishment just had to shut down the Vote No signs.

Their newest wrinkle of the Local Ruling Power Elite is the East Tulsa Used Car Dealer offering a $5.00 bounty on the Vote No signs.

Wonder who's funding the $5.00 per??

Wonder who determines the provenance of the sign being brought in for the $5.00 bounty?  

Must have been in the public right of way, right-o?

[:O]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

quote:Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

Sorry guys, I just have to respond to this one.
It is just plain wrong, legally and generally.  The only limitation on religious organizations (or other tax-exempt groups) in political matters is in promoting candidates or political organizations like the democratic or republican parties.  There is absolutely no limitation on them becoming involved in issues of the day such as war, poverty, taxes, justice, abortion, immigration, streets, liquor, environmental issues or any other public policy.

See:  http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=155030,00.html

I am glad my church and my minister have commented on and taken stands on political issues.

I think taxes can be a moral or ethical issue.  Some might say that a regressive sales tax is unjust.  I know several people who tell me they cannot support any more sales taxes for this reason.  For them it is a moral issue.

I must say that I do not like our present sales tax structure. In relative terms, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than middle class and rich people.  It is a "regressive" tax.  As it approaches 10% it is getting too high.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

I especially do not like the fact that essential food is taxed and services are not.  There is a justice issue in a poor mother paying sales tax on milk and bread for her children and a rich lady paying no tax on her hair and nails.  There is a moral dilemma for me in a large corporation paying no sales tax on their attorneys fees to defend a pollution lawsuit and a family paying almost 10% on basic clothing for their children.

Others see a sales tax as the fairest of all taxes--every one who buys pays and many who buy from outside Tulsa County will be paying for the river development.  Historically, Oklahomans have defeated most other forms of taxes.  In modern times, the public has almost only voted for sales taxes.  Remember, Oklahoma is the lowest taxed state in the union.  

See:  http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/475.html

I think religious people and organizations are justified and indeed maybe obligated in speaking out about unfair taxes.  However, in relative terms, I support the river proposal and will vote for the modest sales tax increase.

I see more good and less evil coming from its passage--this includes more good for poor people who will have the free use of the equivalent of New York's Central Park.   More good for the low-income neighborhoods along the Sand Springs line, in West Tulsa and from 41st to 71st along Riverside Drive who will see their property values increase and the ability of rental property to be improved.  In real terms the low-income rebate, if it motivates more qualified people to file an income tax return to get the earned income tax credit, will actually get them a net monetary increase-- the EITC and the rebate.  CAP and the TU legal clinic will prepare the return for free.

I think you can cherry-pick this proposal to death, but no one problem has tipped the balance for me and this includes an "evil" sale tax that will only last seven years and for a family making $25,000 or less and will only cost it $2.50 a month with the low-income rebate.

I suggest that as moral and religious people we vote for this tax and then work in the legislature to reform Oklahoma tax law to make it more fair.  But I think we have to use the tax system we have now. IMHO, this tax, used for the infrastructure for a great public place, is certainly much more fair than the corporate welfare/blackmail of the Boeing deal in 2003 with Vision 2025, a sales tax that was approved.

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

I thought after you said a higher sales tax because of its regressive impact on the poor was a moral issue, I was expecting you to say you were voting NO on Oct. 9.

Hence my surprise. Aren't you the Bledsoe that stood up to fight against the recent Lorton's World engineered power-grab to add At-Large Councilors to the City Council structure?  There was a Bledsoe so involved, as well as a Blesoe involved in the lawsuit that forced a change in our form of city council structure back around 1990....a Minority Voter Disenfrachisement issue.  Very Valid what was done to require the change.

I appreciate that Bledsoe's tenancity in a good cause.

On sales taxes, I doubt if the Legislature has any appetite for reform of the sales tax on groceries.  Oklahoma is one of the few remaining states, about 10 as I recall, mostly in the South, that still levies sales tax on groceries.

Afterall, we were the next to last state to outlaw Cockfighting, and the last state to legalized Tatooing, for gosh sakes.

One last thought:  If the Kaiser River Tax passes, it will be FOREVER.  This is just Phase I.  The local construction companies will never let it lapse.

Thanks for contributing, nonetheless.

[^]

[RecycleMichael]

We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.

Is the CITY Sign Enforcement or Public Werkes Department picking up signs from people's yards, under the pretext they are sited in the city Right of Way?

Hmmmmmmh??

Do your volunteers not exercise their own judgment as to where the so-called City right of way begins, and where the private residential yard ends??

Hmmmmmmhh???

If what you're saying is the Truth, did it occur to you that Mr. Martinet and who he is fronting for, just might be USING your Volunteer organization to achieve that Ulterior Motive??

Your motive may be pure as the driven snow.

Maybe.

But I doubt it.  Based on your voluminous, vituperous, and vociferous defense of the indefensible in the Forum.  Forever.

Did your Volunteers pick up any Vote NO campaign signs along Harvard, between 71st and 81st?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

We have never picked up signs in a person's yard. Our group will not.

We did receive training, and got exact right-of-way maps before we organized volunteers.

The majority of the signs we remove are promoting light hauling, roofing, house buyers and personal products and services. We concentrate specifically on medians and arterial intersection corners.

Do not try to imply that we have done anything wrong or are involved in targeting one type of sign. We pick up all signs when we do a cleanup.

For you to say..."The ulterior intent is to stifle the free expression of speech of unfunded or poorly funded grass roots organizations"... is absurd. We are a grass-roots group with a simple mission of keep Tulsa beautiful.

So, let me picture your group in action:

Your group of Volunteers is out walking along the shoulder of a busy road, with a Right-of-Way map in one hand, a tape measure in the other hand, and which hand is picking up the Vote NO campaign sign?

Or, maybe you're carrying the signs in your mouth?

Have any of your group redeemed the $5.00 cash bounty offered on the Vote No Signs by Mr. Used Car Dealer??

There's some beer money waiting.

[]

[RecycleMichael]

No. We have not taken signs to the car dealer.

No. We were around long before Councilor Martinsen ran for office.

Yes. We do take tape measures with us and consult with maps before we do a sweep.

No. We do not work shoulder-to-shoulder. We generally find a safe place to park and then spread out quickly.

Yes. You have no idea and just want to cause trouble.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

Does that include the issue of illegal immigration and HB 1804 too? We have churches and religious leaders that knowingly and willfully aid and abet criminal activity with impunity, should they be held accountable for their actions?