Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

It is my understanding that there are many churches that offer temporary sanctuary to non-English speaking, undocumented aliens.  Food, shelter, clothing, walking around money, and information.  

Are identity documents provided?  

Maybe they are just put in touch with the right people.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

If you're carrying a map in one hand, and a tape measure in the other, WHERE do you hold the confiscated Vote NO sign?

Is it a wedgie??

Must make it difficult to walk.

How did your Volunteers handle Vote NO campaign signs along Harvard, between 71st and 81st?

Can you REALLY determine the exact boundary of the City Right of Way vs. the yard property line, on one of those old, unimproved former county Farm-to-Market roads?  Like Harvard, 61st, 81st, 91st, etc., without using a Survey Instrument???

[Double A]

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.

At least permanent high paying jobs would have been created as a result of the Boeing deal, instead of just low paying temporary construction jobs with no prevailing wage protections and low paying service industry jobs if they even materialize. Wouldn't it be nice if the private developers who benefit from the corporate welfare in this tax would have to guarantee the economic impact projections and sales tax collections the same way Boeing would have to guarantee the jobs in order to collect their corporate welfare/blackmail? Where are the guarantees for a return on the investment in this tax? It's simple, there aren't any. Big difference.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

At least permanent high paying jobs would have been created as a result of the Boeing deal, instead of just low paying temporary construction jobs with no prevailing wage protections and low paying service industry jobs if they even materialize. Wouldn't it be nice if the private developers who benefit from the corporate welfare in this tax would have to guarantee the economic impact projections and sales tax collections the same way Boeing would have to guarantee the jobs in order to collect their corporate welfare/blackmail? Where are the guarantees for a return on the investment in this tax? It's simple, there aren't any. Big difference.

I found Piercy's comments amusing (loosely paraphrased):

"Boeing could've been gone in ten years.  The river will always be here.  Those are the kind of secure jobs we need (assuming he was slurring out the kind of jobs river development will create long-term)."

I believe all that was encapsulated after he made a comment about our crappy wage call center jobs we presently attract.

Oh, the irony.

[cannon_fodder]

Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign.  No matter what it said.  

and to show that I give props were deserved:

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

Made me chuckle.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Just to clarify RM... when you say "never picked up signs our of a person's yard" do you mean out of any portion of what would commonly be referred to as a yard or specifically "non-easement" part of the yard?

If I had a sign 5 feet from the curb and my easement runs in 12, I would have a real problem with someone entering my property to remove that sign.  No matter what it said.  

and to show that I give props were deserved:

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

Made me chuckle.

Glad we can still laugh.

Did I mention that in my spare time I vacation in Canada, clubbing baby seal pups for entertainment??

Back to business:  In the technical reading of the city ordinance, virtually any REALTOR sign placed in the residential yards right next to the curb is illegal.  

Remember the 12' Rule.  NO EXCEPTIONS for Political Speech, right?

And, NO EXCEPTIONS to the 12' Rule for our good friends of Recall, the REALTORS.  

Right, RecycleMichael??

If illegal, then they can be harvested by any concerned citizen, right?

Hmmmmmh......

Wonder if the individual Realtors will pay a $5.00 per sign bounty to get their signs back??

Perpetual beer money, at last!  Pick up three REALTOR signs on the way home, and there's a new 18-pack in the Fridge for some enterprising lad.

Did I not say UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ordinance?  There can be NO SIGN PAIN, unless the PAIN is SHARED EQUALLY.

Disparate impact.

NOTE TO GTAR from Medlock and Mautino:  Payback time.

Getting the picture yet?

[rwarn17588]

If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?

If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

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.



[^]

I am this same Bledsoe.  For more information on this past fight see:  http://www.tulsansdefendingdemocracy.com/2006/04/position_of_tulsans_defending.html

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If it's an unconstitutional ordinance, why don't you call the ACLU or a civil-rights lawyer?

If you're that bothered by it, act instead of complain.

There are at least two active lawyers responding on this Topic.

Cannon Fodder apparently does not think the ordinance is Unconstitutional.

Don't know what Bledsoe thinks about the sign ordinance.  

Bledsoe could be the right man for the job. .

Apparently, he's got some considerable backbone and tenacity, considering his involvement in getting the DISCRIMINATORY form of city government changed in 1989, tearing the city a new one in the process.

As I understand it, he was more recently a leader of a group fighting to keep the Strong Mayor/City Council organization from being changed into the At-Large Councilor evil machinations of the Lorton's World.

Maybe he'll opine....

Calling Mr. Bledsoe. The citizens of Tulsa need your guts and brains again.

[RecycleMichael]

Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.

Yes, stunning street vistas clear of those tacky Vote NO signs, but amazingly cluttered by Overhead Utility Lines as far as the eye can see.

Now those power lines are TACKY.

[:X]

[RecycleMichael]

I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign. They are usually in residential yards and we don't go there.

You call the realtors "friends of recall"...why do you hate realtors, Friendly Bear?

Because they exercised the right to free speech?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign. They are usually in residential yards and we don't go there.

You call the realtors "friends of recall"...why do you hate realtors, Friendly Bear?

Because they exercised the right to free speech?

I sold a house once, and I've been mad at them every since, of course.

The REALTOR signs, if within 12' of the curbline, are illegal, aren't they??

GTAR leadership were principals in the Recall Cabal.  Gave their good name, and gave their money, in the name of good continued residential development in Owasso and Bixby.

Or, keep that fresh water flowing from Tulsa to Bixby and Owasso for the next 40 years......

And, Councilors Mautino and Medlock were guilty of the temerity of asking, "Why is Tulsa doing this?".

So, of course, they had to be Recalled.

[:O]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Our group does not go into residential yards to remove signs. We are completely a volunteer group who gets together and cleans commercial corridors.

There used to many illegal signs around town, but the city crews are doing a great job in cleaning them up.

I think that the best part of our campaign has been to help educate everybody on the rules. I can see the difference all across town.

So, if your volunteer group is completely innocent, Recycle, which CITY crews go into peoples YARDS to remove NO RIVER TAX campaign signs?

City Sign Ordinance Gestapo, or Public Werkes Gestapo? Or both?

Or, maybe the TPD is arresting those yard signs?

Hmmmmhm, at $5.00 Bounty per sign, and using a TPD-issued patrol car and using City of Tulsa purchased gasoline to Patrol our neighborhoods looking for Vote NO campaign signs within 12' of the curbline, that could add up to a tidy profit for our over-worked, underpaid Men in Black.

SNAPPY new black uniforms, with their pistol belt buckles emblazoned with a motto:  

My Honor is Loyalty.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


I am not bothered by nor have I ever picked up a realtor sign.

Why not? Metro Lofts has their signs illegally placed all over my neighborhood.