4 tenths part 3? What would it have?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.

and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.

Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?

Yeah, poor Sand Springs. That v2025 money is really dragging them down. Not. How do you know they won't support a half cent tax? You live there, work there, run polls there?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.

and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.

Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?

i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less.  every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.

and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.

Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?

i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less.  every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.

So we agree that toll gates put up on the outskirts of town would be within Tulsa prerogatives. Owasso will be required to pay market price for our drinking water. The county government is unnecessary since each city will have sovereignty over their own fiscal and economic development. That means no county sheriff, no county jail cause each city will provide their own. And if a criminal passes over the city limits, he becomes the next city's responsibility.

Is this the plan? Try not to change your post before you at least read the response.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.

and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.

Dang! You are an donkey! Well the midtowners would appreciate watching you gargle in sewage along with the northsiders who don't support anything but their own interests. I suppose you're a uniter, not a divider too eh?

i've already stated how I think the river should be proposed and voted on, you can take it and spin on it, I could care less.  every city should have sovereignty over their fiscal and economic development.

So we agree that toll gates put up on the outskirts of town would be within Tulsa prerogatives. Owasso will be required to pay market price for our drinking water. The county government is unnecessary since each city will have sovereignty over their own fiscal and economic development. That means no county sheriff, no county jail cause each city will provide their own. And if a criminal passes over the city limits, he becomes the next city's responsibility.

Is this the plan? Try not to change your post before you at least read the response.

unfortunately county goverments must exist due to state law, but that doesn't mean they have to be omnipotent.  it would be ideal if they had no taxing authority at all and that would solve their appetite for taxation.  since the state makes them exist they should have to fund them, not the cities.

owasso water deal cant be changed for decades.  however, hopefully someone smart will be around when it does to leverage the deal to tulsa's benefit and not give it away.  

the way you describe criminal handling isn't too far from the way it is today.

you're tollgate idea is just stupid and doesn't deserve a response.

[waterboy]

You probably shouldn't be making judgements about what's stupid. The county is there for a reason, not just to collect taxes. When there are disputes between cities, fleeing criminals, crimes committed between the two entities, the county is the part of government who has the responsibility and the authority. Just like when those same things happen between states, the Federal government is the governing entity. I guess you would eliminate states too? Same logic. No you probably would eliminate the federal jurisdiction. The taxes are collected to enable each entity to do its job.

Without the county and state governments you would have cities and states squaring off against each other like Alfalfa Bill Murray and the state of Texas a century ago. And without a strong county presence, the city could and would find a way to make the predatory suburbs pay for their blood sucking. A toll gate was an extrapolation of that power but more likely it would be in the form of toll roads like the Creek or a city income tax for those who are employed within the city, regardless of where they live. I'm told that's what Kansas City does. They then rebate according to income level, but they get to play with your money all year long. These are the kinds of things that happen when you cut our regionalism or emasculate the county.

Owasso has a long term contract? All the more tasty. Without a regional outlook by Tulsa here's what we do. After they grow their city off of cheap water, Tulsa jobs, and Tulsa infrastructure we can raise the price through the roof when it lapses. Sort of like how drug dealers, pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies, the first bites are always cheap.

That's stupid.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

I second this........... Keep the County out of it.

The County should get the hell out of the sales tax business, they don't need it. It would be great if there was a way to strip the County of their authority to levy sales taxes altogether.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.

The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular  & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.

Nothing for North Tulsa?

Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.

I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.

The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular  & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.

Nothing for North Tulsa?

Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.

I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.

I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....

You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.

The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular  & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.

Nothing for North Tulsa?

Only on real thing for South Tulsa, and that's because I'm pretty sure the city makes a good percentage of it's yearly budget from that area and traffic mitigation is a must. North Tulsa gets some token project every time but west Tulsa gets nothing, which is why I put a couple of things for them.

I also think that as long as downtown suffers, North Tulsa will too. Getting Downtown going again and the growth of Langston and OSU will do more for Tulsa than a strip mall or a swimming pool. Keep in mind I also put a good chunk towards infrastructure, mass transit etc and have always believed the hills NW of downtown would be a great outdoor ampitheater space.

I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....

You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]

Not mine. Downtown? That's just the same old song and dance.  How about 244 corridor development? If visitors head downtown from the airport, this is their main corridor of travel, not to mention visitors from the booming areas of Mayes and Rogers Counties and northwest Arkansas. I think redevelopment of this corridor would be the spark that could draw revitalization north of the Berlin Wall that is the Crosstown Expressway. Would this be a magic bullet for North Tulsa? Of course not, but it's got to be better for North Tulsa than just throwing more money at downtown.

Speaking of replacements, I heard the Chamber Youth recruited someone to run against Councilor Maria Barnes.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A


Not mine. Downtown? That's just the same old song and dance.  How about 244 corridor development? If visitors head downtown from the airport, this is their main corridor of travel, not to mention visitors from the booming areas of Mayes and Rogers Counties and northwest Arkansas. I think redevelopment of this corridor would be the spark that could draw revitalization north of the Berlin Wall that is the Crosstown Expressway. Would this be a magic bullet for North Tulsa? Of course not, but it's got to be better for North Tulsa than just throwing more money at downtown.

Speaking of replacements, I heard the Chamber Youth recruited someone to run against Councilor Maria Barnes.

I tend to be broader in my definition of Downtown, to include areas just outside like OSU Tulsa, Langston, etc. Greenwood has better development outlook than the east end at this point.

I'm not sure what you mean by 244 redevelopment but they definitely have enough gas stations and mcdonalds. [!]

It is definitely the most utilitarian and barren looking highway we have at this point. If you're talking aesthetics, I'm all for it.

Be interested to see how areas like Kendall-Whitier take to opposition of their reigning champion.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico


I think you could well be the appropriate replacement for "Randi"....

You would get my vote and wouldn't have to send me one brochure to feed through my shredder.
[}:)]

I don't have enough money or people in my pocket, sorry. You have to have your own personal business that is directly effected by your political office BEFORE you go up for election.

[Rico]

Well when they say "best plans sometimes go astray" they aren't just kidding....... Take a few minutes and read this article regarding the "Trinity River Project"




TCC's second college try
By Mitchell Schnurman
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Tarrant County College is working on a Plan B for its new campus -- all the while hoping that it won't be needed.

That's how dicey the situation has become for the groundbreaking project in downtown Fort Worth.

It's a prudent but discouraging move. Several pieces have to come together soon, or the college may be unable to build one of the campus's signature elements: a wide pedestrian bridge that links two sides of the city and provides a gateway to the river for students and the public.

TCC leaders are optimistic and moving ahead on all fronts, with their fingers crossed.

The campus has already had problems with rising costs, schedule delays and an 11th-hour challenge to the design. Now, in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, it's hung up on a crucial permit process with the Army Corps of Engineers, and that means more delays and possibly more money.

TCC has a little wiggle room with a $22 million contingency in the construction budget. But the board and administration have said they won't float bonds, raise taxes or raid college programs to scare up more funding.

That leaves two paths: satisfying the corps quickly enough to build the campus as planned or scaling back to the point that it doesn't require the corps' approval.

"If there's a significant increase in costs, we must not just move forward," Trustee Bobby McGee said in phone interview Friday. "We need other options."

That may sound like common sense, except that TCC has already spent $40 million on construction and has a huge hole in the bluffs near the Tarrant County Courthouse.

Talk about boxed in: The district's $200 million construction contract now has to be rebid because a lot of work has to be delayed.

Imagine renegotiating with your home builder after half the foundation has been poured -- and asking to stretch the build time. Not exactly a strong bargaining position for TCC.

The college district is in a hurry to get the new campus up and running because attendance has been booming. So it started construction late last year, before all the approvals were granted -- and after the corps had raised new, substantial questions about the plan.

That aggressive strategy is looking pretty risky today.

The campus design calls for several buildings on both sides of the Trinity River -- some next to the central business district, others on the near north side and anchored in the levees along the river. The concern is that the new construction, including the pedestrian bridge, will weaken the levees and leave the city vulnerable to flooding.

When TCC and its consultants began working with the corps in summer 2005, they believed that the review would take about a year. Then Katrina ravaged New Orleans and savaged the reputation of the Corps of Engineers.

Levee safety became a high-profile issue. And flood projects nationwide faced closer scrutiny, along with more oversight beyond the local offices.

The TCC campus would have attracted attention under any circumstances because it's a potential threat to a levee system that's working well. Post-Katrina, it was destined to be put under a microscope.

Engineers for TCC have worked with the corps to figure out a way to protect the area, primarily with a giant steel-and-concrete wall built into the bedrock.But other issues remain, and the entire plan has to be formally vetted and approved by the agency. That starts with the Fort Worth office, then Dallas and, finally, the corps headquarters in Washington.

More than two years into the process, approval from the corps is still several months away. But at least the major technical issues appear to be resolved.

"We're down to the last few pieces on the hydraulics," said Gene Rice, project manager for the corps' Fort Worth office. "We feel like we're pretty close."

Rice wouldn't say whether that means 80 percent or 90 percent finished. The corps is far too cautious for that.

David Wells, the TCC vice chancellor who's been guiding the project, is aiming to submit the formal application to the corps in December. That would leave time for the public to comment on the environmental and cultural resources and let engineers confirm that the new campus won't increase flooding downstream.

"It's an aggressive schedule, but I believe it's doable," Rice said.

Getting the review through Dallas and Washington could take another 60 days, meaning that construction on the northern side of the campus couldn't start until February.

What will that do to the construction price? Since spring, much of the residential construction business has dried up because of the housing bust. That's eased prices on materials and labor, but commercial activity has remained strong.

Architect Bing Thom has been working on a campus design without the bridge and without much contact with the levees, Wells said. The general idea would be to put the administration building and conference center to the south, next to the central business district; the classroom buildings would be bunched further north, on the north side.

A bridge could be added eventually, either after corps approval or after the Trinity River Vision builds its bypass channel. The TRV work will do away with the nearby levees entirely, but that's at least a decade away.

While TCC has been building on the south side of the campus for almost a year, it hasn't broken ground on the north, because the corps asked that it wait. "The corps' concern was that if we began any work, people would assume they'd given final approval," Wells said.

Who could miss the lesson now? With projects this big and this complex, it's dangerous to make assumptions.
schnurman@star-telegram.com
Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sunday and Wednesday. 817-390-7821

[waterboy]

There were some positive signals in that article too.

One, the college is growing quickly, probably because of its proximity to the Trinity River Project. It validates that these types of projects attract young, education oriented types.

Two, the Corps is being even more careful after having a high profile failure in Nawlins. That may mean more time for completion but surely more safety.

Three, with the housing bust comes a greater availability of supplies and labor. Greater supply means lower prices, which means our project has a better chance to be built at or under budget.

Four, they are using coping skills to keep moving. They have a back up plan, are communicating with the public and there is no sense of disaster, only obstacles to overcome.

I like the attitude of Foat Wuth. We could learn from them.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...

Yeah, that'll work, if I was forced to pay a toll so I could get to work everyday, I'd move.  So would several other young, middle, and old professionals.  OKC has more jobs.  So does Dallas, Kansas City, and Joplin.  I did a quick check for my chosen skill and there are currently 4 job openings in Tulsa, using the same source for the same job in Denver, I find 287 jobs listed.  I'd move if Tulsa made it more prohibitive for me to get to work.  How's the lack of a work force ever going to allow Tulsa to attract new employers.

What I think Tulsa should do, is find a way to become more efficient by setting proper priorities based upon the role government is supposed to have in a community.  If this is done, I bet you will find that no tax increase will be needed to fix our roads and bring our crime rate down.  Priority needs to be on fixing current infrastructure, not on giving the mayor's staff a raise and financing a new city hall.  With such irresponsible spending, I can't believe you guys are actually discussing what you would spend the next tax increase on.

It's your money, why don't you spend it on yourself instead of discuss how you want government to spend it for you, or do you not trust yourself to spend your own money correctly?

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...

Yeah, that'll work, if I was forced to pay a toll so I could get to work everyday, I'd move.  So would several other young, middle, and old professionals.  OKC has more jobs.  So does Dallas, Kansas City, and Joplin.  I did a quick check for my chosen skill and there are currently 4 job openings in Tulsa, using the same source for the same job in Denver, I find 287 jobs listed.  I'd move if Tulsa made it more prohibitive for me to get to work.  How's the lack of a work force ever going to allow Tulsa to attract new employers.

What I think Tulsa should do, is find a way to become more efficient by setting proper priorities based upon the role government is supposed to have in a community.  If this is done, I bet you will find that no tax increase will be needed to fix our roads and bring our crime rate down.  Priority needs to be on fixing current infrastructure, not on giving the mayor's staff a raise and financing a new city hall.  With such irresponsible spending, I can't believe you guys are actually discussing what you would spend the next tax increase on.

It's your money, why don't you spend it on yourself instead of discuss how you want government to spend it for you, or do you not trust yourself to spend your own money correctly?

Thanks for letting us know what Tulsa should be doing to improve. It means a lot to have someone on the outside giving us positive and balanced feedback. If you ever need/want any insights on utopian Owasso let us know. We'll be happy to return the favor.