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

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?

wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot.  I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.

This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.

Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...

Exactly. You need to see the legal, signed and notarized commitment.

Michael Patton posted the text of the ballot resolution on this forum some time ago, and I think the World had it on their website, but I haven't seen it anywhere official this time around. Last time, tulsacounty.org had all the resolutions for Vision 2025, and you can still find those there, but they have not yet posted the river tax ballot resolution.

[RecycleMichael]

Hey, you revealed my real identity.

Now people will know who I am.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?

wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot.  I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.

This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.

Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.

At least you're not wasting your hard-earned money......

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Hey, you revealed my real identity.

Now people will know who I am.

Worst kept secret in history...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

One of the biggest sources of my discomfort on this.

The $52mm in land acquisition from tax payers sounds more like a slush fund to me.  To wit:

We appropriate $52mm in this vote, the new authority purchases land for $52mm.

Let's say they re-sell the land to private developers for $62mm.

They are now completely cashed out.  What happens to the $62mm?  There is no other project funding contingent on recycling the money elsewhere into projects on the river.  They now have $62mm in the coffers, so where does that go?  I believe that alone would cover the cost of the two new low water dams at the highest estimate for them.  However, we are being taxed that amount as well.

So far, I've never heard that the county would remain the owner of the acquired properties and lease them back to the private developers.

This is a big question that needs a good answer.  I've not seen one so far.

This project is too important for simple questions and simple answers.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things? I have hunted on city and county websites trying to find a link to some official wording and cant find anything. The news, the paper, or the "our river yes" website have said what the different things are, but those arent official or legal and as far as I can tell, none of them cite where they got that list or info. Those lists are not official public documents. I cant vote for what those people say is going to be done. Not doubting their honesty, but you just cant vote on,,, well they said in the paper...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

One of the biggest sources of my discomfort on this.

The $52mm in land acquisition from tax payers sounds more like a slush fund to me.  To wit:

We appropriate $52mm in this vote, the new authority purchases land for $52mm.

Let's say they re-sell the land to private developers for $62mm.

They are now completely cashed out.  What happens to the $62mm?  There is no other project funding contingent on recycling the money elsewhere into projects on the river.  They now have $62mm in the coffers, so where does that go?  I believe that alone would cover the cost of the two new low water dams at the highest estimate for them.  However, we are being taxed that amount as well.

So far, I've never heard that the county would remain the owner of the acquired properties and lease them back to the private developers.

This is a big question that needs a good answer.  I've not seen one so far.

This project is too important for simple questions and simple answers.

The lands will be acquired by the new River Authority, which is charged with project implementation.  When lands acquired for redevelopment are sold or leased (but I think sold is more likely) those funds would return to that authority to determine what to do with the proceeds and since they are proceeds from a tax with a specific intended purpose my belief is that the proceeds would have to say utilized within that overall intended purpose.  This is the same methodology as with the Tulsa downtown housing funds provided by Vision 2025 which by contract revolve for future like purpose.  Potential uses from the land sales have been discussed by various individuals (not the actual authority) to be utilized for additional purchases, infrastructure construction and possibly for the purpose of creating a maintenance endowment for the facilities once that need is determined.  

Since the River Authority has no other stated purpose I see no way that those funds could be transferred to any other purpose of entity and can only imagine the number of friends of the taxpayer suits that would be brought if such would occur.

[Conan71]

V-2025,

That would have been a nice touch if the proponents and planners could have looked at this part of the funding as a two-phase deal:

1) Raise the +/- $52mm to aquire land via the tax.  Put out an RFQ, sell the land at a profit.

2) Plough that money back into the two low water dams and the whole tax package is now $223mm, or thereabouts and the collection period could be cut to 5.5 years.

If I've read correctly there are already contingency and maintenance funds either within the tax plan itself or being speculated about from an on-going revenue stream after the project is completed.

I know it has to be frustrating for PMg and the folks at INCOG to have to step up on short notice when there are so many different aspects and not an answer as of yet for every question which is being asked.  You are doing the best with what you have to work with at the moment, and don't think I don't appreciate that.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

V-2025,

That would have been a nice touch if the proponents and planners could have looked at this part of the funding as a two-phase deal:

1) Raise the +/- $52mm to aquire land via the tax.  Put out an RFQ, sell the land at a profit.

2) Plough that money back into the two low water dams and the whole tax package is now $223mm, or thereabouts and the collection period could be cut to 5.5 years.

If I've read correctly there are already contingency and maintenance funds either within the tax plan itself or being speculated about from an on-going revenue stream after the project is completed.

I know it has to be frustrating for PMg and the folks at INCOG to have to step up on short notice when there are so many different aspects and not an answer as of yet for every question which is being asked.  You are doing the best with what you have to work with at the moment, and don't think I don't appreciate that.

Yes, there are $25 million in designated contingency funds budgeted and thank you for the sentiment.

[Double A]

Consumers face record winter heating costs
Yahoo! News
September 25, 2007

U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday.

Heating fuel expenses this winter will be highest for heating oil, with the average family paying $1,834 for the season, up 28 percent or $402 from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.

The group expects propane costs to average $1,732, up 30 percent or $384. Consumers that rely on electricity for heat will pay $883 this winter, up 7 percent or $58.

Natural gas expenses will be the cheapest of the major heating fuels, averaging $881, up 5 percent or $50, the group said.

Mark Wolfe, the group's executive director, called on the Bush administration to immediately release money from the government's Low Income Home Energy Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, to help poor families pay their heating bills as well as cover past-due high cooling bills from the summer.

"These record prices will place a significant burden on low and moderate income families this winter with record high prices," Wolfe said.

The group points out that poor households pay a higher share of their income for heating costs than other families.

During 2005, energy expenses accounted for 20 percent of the income of households that received LIHEAP assistance, compared to only 3 percent for higher income families.

The group's report is based on preliminary heating fuel estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA, which is the Energy Department independent analytical arm, will issue its official winter forecast on October 9.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?

wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot.  I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.

This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.

Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.

Thank you. I rememebered reading that somewhere lol. It would still seem like there would be more about the property purchase. I will trust that things will be done.... relatively well lol. I dont have any problem with what has happened with 2025 except wish that the wording had been done more carefully in relation to the building of the dams. It would have saved everyone a lot of hassle one way or the other. However I do wish in this instance that this ballot resolution or something had more thought out wording and detail in order to allay any questions especially considering all the wrankle we have seen from 2025. They did learn some lessons with this. The sunset clause for instance.

[swake]

It's good to know that we in this area will be little impacted by this.

Natural Gas is only up 5% with the average increase costing about $50. Probably less than that since we have pretty mild winters.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also included are two pedestrian bridges, the purchase of large  piece of land at 21st for commercial development along with two smaller pieces in Bixby and Broken Arrow.

Where in the ballot resolution is there a commitment to purchasing land at 21st Street?

I dont know where else they would be buying any land. But, just where is the "contract" we will be voting on? The only sample Ballot I could find didnt have anything on it about anything lol.  http://www.tulsacounty.org/

Where can we go look and see the legal form that shows what the money is going to be spent on, the list of projects, and the estimated costs for each of those things?

wow, for someone so for this you'd think that maybe you had read the ballot.  I gues you are just like all the rubes who voted for V2025 and are now "outraged" that the county lied about the dam promises ON THE BALLOT......yet you are going to go right ahead and let them do it AGAIN.

This town is too full of ****ing lemmings.

Just send your tax money to me, at least I can guarantee you that it will all be spent on hookers and booze.

I had read that ballot, was wanting to see more info. I have not been "enraged" about any "lie" concerning 2025. Angry that the wording wasnt better, yes. Thinking that there is some nefarious intent to "get more money", No. Wishing that there was more info and wording about what is exactly happening with some things on this new ballot, yes. Not trusting enough to vote for it this way myself, No. Thinking it would help others feel more comfortable about voting for it if there were more precise language, yes.

I dont like what happened with 2025 concerning the dams. When you look at it on simple face value it does indeed appear that those dams should be built using 2025 funds. But after looking at the whole situation we are confronted with now, I would rather do this river plan and pay for them this way. If you will remeber and go back, I was against this plan. I went back and forth but then finally settled as a no vote. But lol, I gave my reasons for it voting no and I received answers that convinced me otherwise.

One question. I kept looking at the 2025 ballot situation and thought that if it were really true that these dams were supposed to be built entirely and only under 2025, then not doing so would be a "breach of contract". Couldnt someone sue if we had legal standing. Why hasnt someone taken this to court? In going through the steps of an imagined court case in my mind I came to the conclusion that we couldnt win. If you think you could pull it off and win because there is enough evidence and proof that would stand up in court. Have at it. Either its wrong or its not. There was a breach of word to the votor, or there was not. Seriously, regrettable, misunderstandings is what it appears to me to be. And I wish this ballot would be more clear on certain things. But over all I would still vote for it.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Consumers face record winter heating costs
Yahoo! News
September 25, 2007

U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday.

Heating fuel expenses this winter will be highest for heating oil, with the average family paying $1,834 for the season, up 28 percent or $402 from last year, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association.

The group expects propane costs to average $1,732, up 30 percent or $384. Consumers that rely on electricity for heat will pay $883 this winter, up 7 percent or $58.

Natural gas expenses will be the cheapest of the major heating fuels, averaging $881, up 5 percent or $50, the group said.

Mark Wolfe, the group's executive director, called on the Bush administration to immediately release money from the government's Low Income Home Energy Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, to help poor families pay their heating bills as well as cover past-due high cooling bills from the summer.

"These record prices will place a significant burden on low and moderate income families this winter with record high prices," Wolfe said.

The group points out that poor households pay a higher share of their income for heating costs than other families.

During 2005, energy expenses accounted for 20 percent of the income of households that received LIHEAP assistance, compared to only 3 percent for higher income families.

The group's report is based on preliminary heating fuel estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA, which is the Energy Department independent analytical arm, will issue its official winter forecast on October 9.

What on earth does that have to do with this thread? lol