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

[carltonplace]

My spot check was yesterday.

How do you know it was a sign stealing crew and not a neighbor or the wind?

[cannon_fodder]

If you really think your sign has been stolen put out another one or 20 more, this time with a web cam on it.  Nothing gets on the news faster than an opposing candidate steeling a sign (or in this instance a high profile steeling sign person on the other side).

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by 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...

Why vote for it if you are not happy with it? You really can't be buying into the B.S. about this being the last and only chance to develop the river? The high pressure sale and emotional appeals for this hastily thrown together, conceptual, unspecific, undetailed, river development tax, is necessary because it does not stand on it's own merits. The reality is we can turn this down on Oct 9, develop a real river development financing plan instead of just vague concepts for river development with unreliable cost estimates. We could vote on it as soon as the state/county primary elections or later in the November general elections. You gave many reasons you are unhappy with this tax, yet you didn't give any for why you'll support it. Care to share?

[Double A]

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?

The real question everyone should be asking is why the backers of this plan neglected to seek state or federal funds before raiding the primary revenue streams for struggling municipalities with a regressive tax that hurts small business and the working poor?

[cannon_fodder]

I fall into the same boat DoubleA.  I'm probably going to vote yes simply because I have yet to hear a better proposal.  I want SOMETHING to be done, and no one else is stepping up with viable alternatives.  I guess not wanting to lose out on the private money is another reason.  

I'm split.  On one token I want the river to be more usable and a real destination.  The idea of having water in it appeals to me. Development along the river appeals to me.  Generally just more shiny new things in Tulsa is a good thing and when private enterprises steps up with hundreds of millions it caught my attention.

Then again...  the plan is a bit vague.  The tax is a bit vague.  More taxes are generally bad.  The numbers (9000 jobs) seem ridiculous.   And the amount of money we are talking is heinous.  I also have some concerns about the good ole' boy system taking advantage of tax payers.  The rushed nature also seems alarming.

You have certainly raised some notable concerns on this issue... so I remain split.  If a viable alternative was given, I would vote NO with confidence.  But as it stands...

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I just haven't seen anywhere, or in the posted graphic, where there was $40M for a study. There is a transportation study as a small part of a $15M budget for downtown connectors.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Threats?  No threats have been made.

There is however an acknowledged risk that local businessmen make when they choose to inject themselves in politics.  

It's a risk that possibly it will turn around and bite them in loss of clientele.  That's isn't a new idea, and it's no threat.  

Quick-Trip is diversified far outside of Tulsa County, and even if fewer people patronized them due to their leadership's promotion of the new tax, it would not sink them.

What is hurting them is lost cigarette sales due to Indian Smoke Shops.  Cigarettes bring a lot of people into their stores, then are cross-sold other products.

I believe that when Quick-Trip or any other retailer buys merchandise for RE-SALE, they pay NO SALES TAX.  Nada.

They do charge their customers sales tax, however, on the final sale of the product.

They would pay the equivalent Use Tax for goods they buy for internal use, such as cleaning supplies, for instance.

I have nothing at all to do with KFAQ.  I do think that KFAQ airing the issue of the proposed 61st Pedestrian Bridge passing directly over the Sewage Plant Overflow lagoon may have prompted the Lorton's World to subsequently file a news article regarding the river "smell".

Leadership by the Lorton's World?

Surely, you jest.

No, they are one of the Controlling Oligarchy Families here in Tulsa.  They want control.  

They promoted with lavish, feel good, pie-in-the-sky optimism the city's investment in Great Plains Airlines, while retaining a secret majority equity interest in the company.  

That was craven financial self-dealing at the public expense.

And, to my knowledge, they are a major shareholder in F&M Bank, who just coincidentally received one-half of the Vision 2025 Bond Underwriting work, without I might add of having the benefit of Competitive bidding.

And, the Lorton's World never met a tax it didn't like, except for a sales tax on newspapers.

Definitely did NOT like that tax!

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by 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...

I hear Blair owner will not sell.  Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell?  What if the concrete place refuses to sell?  They can't use eminent domain for private development.  Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by 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...

I hear Blair owner will not sell.  Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell?  What if the concrete place refuses to sell?  They can't use eminent domain for private development.  Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?

The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by 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...

Why vote for it if you are not happy with it? You really can't be buying into the B.S. about this being the last and only chance to develop the river? The high pressure sale and emotional appeals for this hastily thrown together, conceptual, unspecific, undetailed, river development tax, is necessary because it does not stand on it's own merits. The reality is we can turn this down on Oct 9, develop a real river development financing plan instead of just vague concepts for river development with unreliable cost estimates. We could vote on it as soon as the state/county primary elections or later in the November general elections. You gave many reasons you are unhappy with this tax, yet you didn't give any for why you'll support it. Care to share?

because sometimes you settle... you take what you can get, when you can get it... i dont think this is the last chance for the river but it is the only option NOW and i want something done now not five or ten years from now... plus, i'll take a nice park; i just want the mixed-use as well... it is not really an either or for me... i just wish theyd gone for broke and even planned more... i'm willing to concede on the 41st street bridge... after ten years of marriage i'm willing to compromise, a lot... and finally, i don't think we pay enough im taxes for what we expect anyway... so tax on little doggie, i'll pay it...

[Vision 2025]

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?

No part of the proposed plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds.  

Should federal funds:  

1.  Get authorized.        (This is what Inhofe is working on)
2.  Get appropriated.        (Happens sometime in the future)
3.  Make their way here, in a reasonable time, they would be utilized and very likely would reducing the local cost of this project depending upon what the funds are actually authorized for.

[Conan71]

Why vote for an incomplete and, at this point, fairly obscure plan?

This swift vote all seems to have been set in motion by Kaiser's generous gift.  John Piercy stumbled around the answer last Tuesday night, but apparently (I'd guess for tax reasons) Kaiser has to get this money off his hands this year.  According to Forbes, he's worth $11 bln.  I understand that doesn't mean he has $11 bln in cash under his mattress, but I'm sure he could come up with it in short order.

There is still a key environmental report due which does not sound like it will be completed prior to this vote.  Unless I'm mistaken, the conclusions could impact dam design or the channeling aspect.  My assumption is it could wind up impacting costs or scotching a part of the project.

The primary property for the "land acquisition", according to John Piercy is the concrete plant.  $52mm for that plot?  Even if you are talking about the city maintenance and engineering center, those are properties which don't need to be purchased by the "authority".  That is a total waste and confiscation of taxpayer funds, if the idea is to turn around and flip the property to private developers.  You will never see a penny of that money after it is into county hands.

The Tulsa World's support for this is hardly entirely altruistic and civic-minded.  What types of business use the daily print media for advertising?  Retail and Service type businesses.

This has been pumped up to absurd proportions by the "yes" campaign:

$2.8 bln, $3.5 bln, whoops, no that's even very conservative say "observers".  9,000 new jobs for our kids.  Great, but I want my kids to do more than work in retail or food service after I pay for their college education.  Hell, the river is even going to fix our streets.

Here's the point: in the absence of any hard details, it's convenient to float out wild speculation about the overall impact.  No doubt improving the river becomes an asset we all can appreciate, but how about waiting until they can at least provide a cohesive final plan with all potential players at the table, with their final designs in hand- before we grant them 4/10's of a penny?

If river development is truly something the private donor's are doing for altruistic purposes, then I'm sure some of them would come forward with the funds to complete the rest of the studies which they are threatening to terminate if this vote fails.

How many of you would ever buy a house on-line without so much as looking inside it, or much less having structural and EMP inspections done?  Of course you wouldn't because you don't have enough information to make sure it's a sound investment.

The call to vote no is hardly fear, it's common sense.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

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?

No part of the proposed plan is dependent on the receipt of federal funds.  

Should federal funds:  

1.  Get authorized.        (This is what Inhofe is working on)
2.  Get appropriated.        (Happens sometime in the future)
3.  Make their way here, in a reasonable time, they would be utilized and very likely would reducing the local cost of this project depending upon what the funds are actually authorized for.

"sometime", "would be", "very likely", "would", "depending"....

Those are the kinds of words that have a lot of people not wanting to vote on this.  "Definitely", "is", "are", "will be", inspire more voter confidence.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by 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...

I hear Blair owner will not sell.  Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell?  What if the concrete place refuses to sell?  They can't use eminent domain for private development.  Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?

The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.

I thought the intent was to sell it off for private development.  If it were to expand the parks, I would agree with you.  But I don't think in OK you can take private land to sell to another private developer.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by 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...

I hear Blair owner will not sell.  Does anyone know if there is anything the board can do if someone refuses to sell?  What if the concrete place refuses to sell?  They can't use eminent domain for private development.  Would they use the money to purchase land elsewhere?

The can use eminent domain since it's for public use. Although, as I understand it, the concrete plant is still owned by many-time-donor Hardesty and the Litho place behind it has been for sale for awhile. Likely not too many hickups there.

I thought the intent was to sell it off for private development.  If it were to expand the parks, I would agree with you.  But I don't think in OK you can take private land to sell to another private developer.

blair was for public use, not private. They were moving riverside drive onto it.