The Final Push........"River Tax"

[Rico]

The final 15 days, before the vote, are now upon us...

Progress? Yes the "Yes" team has made progress.


Many of the proponents of this plan have chosen to use just about every political trick in the book to transform this into one of the most palatable items ever to come down the pike.


In just this short amount of time they have everyone from young children to Grandmas predicting that this is the very least we can do for our descendants...  

What a guilt trip they have laid on the table.


"Do this for Tulsa do it for your children and grandchildren."


I'm sorry but I would hope that I could do better for my children and grandchildren...

Mister Kaiser has placed an unacceptable term upon his charitable gift??

"Decide which one of these bill$ you want before  they all disappear."

If I were leaning towards voting for this.. The hoopla, that has now reached a dissonant  pitch, would be enough to make me vote no.

The "Channels" and now the "River Tax" have been touted as some sort of panacea for all that ails Tulsa.

I can't buy it...

Below is the sort of development they say was chosen as the "Best For Tulsa"

Which Tulsa....?

Certainly not the Tulsa I would like to see Downtown...

Maybe they are referring to the Tulsa Jenks would like to see just a few miles away from the Aquarium.

With a $25 Million cushion and  $40 Million for  Downtown "Connector Study"

We should see some action out of this Downtown around 2014.

[TheArtist]

Its not the river "OR" downtown, OR the streets, OR schools, OR crime... There are a lot of other things that are going on, or will be. There are lots of different groups and organizations working on various projects to make Tulsa better. Get out there and join a group or a cause and make a difference. This river plan and tax shouldn't stop you or anyone else, from doing other positive things. Its just one more piece that will add to the over all picture.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico


With a $25 Million cushion and  $40 Million for  Downtown "Connector Study"

Did you read the graphic or just post it?

[waterboy]

I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.

Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.

Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.

Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.

Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias.  They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper.  FOUR.

As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:

By and large, they are not paying for it.

The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.

Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax.  Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.

Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.

[]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I am glad to see that details have emerged and questions have been addressed. The Tulsa World has spent a lot of print space explaining, visualizing the plan and answering questions. Though they have a positive slant on them and the answers are not always to my liking, they have responded.

Meanwhile, the no side continues to offer up conspiracies, unrelated road issues, doom & gloom scenarios, sign burnings and politics. It must be hard for them to only be able to rely on neo-conservative radio stations and alternative weeklies to get their message across. Any businessman who thinks they are getting good advertising value from those vehicles should pay attention to the weak and narrow response they elicit.

Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

The Lorton's World really outdid themselves with their bias.  They had no less than FOUR Reader's Forum Op-Ed endorsements of the Kaiser River Tax in their Sunday paper.  FOUR.

As to the multitude of local businessmen who endorse the Vote YES Tax Grab, they can easily do so for one very simple reason:

By and large, they are not paying for it.

The 500,000 residents of Tulsa County will be paying for it.

Some of the prominent local businessmen should really think twice before they publically endorse the tax.  Quick-Trip's Chester the Jester, for instance.

Those of a Vote No persuasion could easily find another business to patronize.

[]

I am honored you chose my post to respond to. Surprised you found time to respond being so busy with KFAQ and all.

The World is attempting to use their private business to take a leadership role in the community. Most award winning newspapers do the same. Just like KFAQ who blathers on about good and evil, liberals and the devil all morning. Do they allow equal time for yes forces? If you want equal time print your own newspaper.

The World printed negative news stories about the plan early on, even one about the sewage treatment plant, but frankly, no one steps up with any legitimate no arguments to be published. Only accusations, fear mongering and threats like you use.

And why aren't the local oligarchy's toadies, the leading businessmen, not going to pay for the river development? Do they not pay that 4/10 cent tax? Are they excluded? Or do you assume they buy everything online or out of state where taxes are lower?

There will be a price to pay for the mindless opposition to any taxpayer funded progress your group embraces. Your threats don't scare anyone.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy



Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan.  The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project.  Hello?  Federal funds?  What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds?  Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams?  Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by waterboy



Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan.  The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project.  Hello?  Federal funds?  What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds?  Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams?  Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?

All the projects in this plan are fully funded by the said amount that each project is listed for on the ballot plus the 25 mill for cost overruns. If federal funds are collected then the tax can be expired early.

Unless of course you can find a project that says we are raising 5 million for several, and everyone knows that even one will cost substantially more than the 5 mill. But wouldn't something with costs that glaringly out of skew be obvious?

[brunoflipper]

Ok, im voting for this but im not happy...
where is the detailed planned retail/mixed use that was shown in all the initial drawings?... are they going to get the blair property?...

without retail/mixed-use and without getting the blair land, this is just a bigger nicer park... gathering areas are bull****... no amount of improvement to just get a "nicer park" is going to get this town a damn thing... im only for it because of the west bank land acquistion and kaisers money is already on the table... and that damn 41st pedestrian bridge, wth? where is that going? who is going to cross to the west side at 41st? should have made that an auto bridge and really connected the west bank...

and i agree, those editorials by the typro clowns were complete bull****... not a single one of those kids' more successful colleagues is going to move to tulsa because we fixed up the river... hell, 3 of those jackasses mentioned downtown and connectors or not, this plan won't do diddly for downtown...

apparently, nothing will be done on the east bank- which is a huge mistake... and im not happy about it...

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by waterboy



Did anyone notice that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river development? Every leading businessman and politician from both sides sees the potential. The more I see the no arguments and who lines up with them, the more committed I become a "yes".

I also noticed that Congressman Sullivan came out in favor of the river tax plan.  The interesting part of his comment was when he said he would help the county/city in the pursuit of federal funds for the project.  Hello?  Federal funds?  What part of THIS plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds?  Is this another bait and switch, like the Vision 2025 plan for low water dams?  Where is the fine print on this deal that tells us which parts are dependent on the receipt of federal funds?

Again,

The county has said repeatedly that IF federal funds are finally forthcoming that the tax will "sunset" early.

But, I'm betting you already knew that, just like I bet you knew the 2025 dam money was for matching funds when you voted against it.

The 2025 money was always for local matching funds, it stated so in articles at the time of the vote, on the web site for 2025 and in the literature for the vote. This was not a hidden fact. The matching funds were not in "fine print".

That it didn't state this implicitly on the ballot would have had more to do with the fact that the dams were just one of three river projects and there were a total of 4 ballot items with something like 35 total projects. If every detail had been included on the ballot for each project the ballot would have been ten pages long. It was long enough as it was.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Rico


With a $25 Million cushion and  $40 Million for  Downtown "Connector Study"

Did you read the graphic or just post it?

What I read was the article attached to the graphic...

Knowing you Sgrizzle... there is a reason for the question.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its not the river "OR" downtown, OR the streets, OR schools, OR crime... There are a lot of other things that are going on, or will be. There are lots of different groups and organizations working on various projects to make Tulsa better. Get out there and join a group or a cause and make a difference. This river plan and tax shouldn't stop you or anyone else, from doing other positive things. Its just one more piece that will add to the over all picture.

Spoken like a true TYPros

William I had no idea........[:O]

[Rico]

Last comment time will allow....

The meeting on 6th St this evening would be a great location to see how this is worked up close and personal........

[}:)]

[carltonplace]

I drove around town yesterday to get a sign count; "No River Tax" signs are greatly outnumbered by "Our River Yes". I only counted properties with a sign, not total number of signs.

I noticed that neighborhoods closer to the river were of course in favor and there were more yes signs than you could count. I saw no difference in support between well to do, average or lower income. Also no difference between areas that are largely Republican or largely Democrat. No difference in North Tulsa, South Tulsa, East or Midtown (I didn't make it accross the river to West Tulsa or out to the burbs).

As you drive away from the river, there are fewer and fewer signs either yes or no. Could be that these areas are not vocal, dont really care or don't have access to signs.

I did not see any area where the no sign was predominant or even on par with the yes sign.

Not that this is in any way scientific, just interesting to note.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I drove around town yesterday to get a sign count; "No River Tax" signs are greatly outnumbered by "Our River Yes". I only counted properties with a sign, not total number of signs.

I noticed that neighborhoods closer to the river were of course in favor and there were more yes signs than you could count. I saw no difference in support between well to do, average or lower income. Also no difference between areas that are largely Republican or largely Democrat. No difference in North Tulsa, South Tulsa, East or Midtown (I didn't make it accross the river to West Tulsa or out to the burbs).

As you drive away from the river, there are fewer and fewer signs either yes or no. Could be that these areas are not vocal, dont really care or don't have access to signs.

I did not see any area where the no sign was predominant or even on par with the yes sign.

Not that this is in any way scientific, just interesting to note.

Did you count before or after the sign stealing crews came through? Our sign was stolen sometime Thursday night.