The odds are - River Tax Vote

[Conan71]

Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.

I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal?  Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it.  Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?

FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city.  So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me.  It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.

If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.

My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.

Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development.  I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development.  We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.

I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal?  Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it.  Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?

FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city.  So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me.  It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.

If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.

My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.

Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development.  I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development.  We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.

Interesting conversation. Let me interject that it has also been written here that the options purchased in anticipation of the Channels have lapsed. I think they were a 12 month option. So unless they were re-negotiated, there is no skulduggery there. Would an option be made public? I also understood from hearsay that the concrete plant was sold, not the land. That may even have been printed in our local rag. Would be nice to have a concrete answer to that.

Also of some note is that a purchase price was negotiated for the apartments, so that set the bar as far as buying them. But wouldn't it just be the buildings anyway? I thought the land was longterm leased from RPA.

What a tangled web.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Swake, your points are understood about the corporate welfare comment, and how other major developments have been/are subsidized in some way with tifs or other means.

I still don't see why the county needs the exclusivity to buy the concrete plant and secondly, I'm curious as to who is silently benefitting off that deal?  Last I knew Hardesty owned the dirt, but others have told me that when he sold the concrete business, the dirt went with it.  Was that a part of the land options the Warrens had secretly signed options on or just Westport?

FWIW, John Piercey referred to Westport as one of the most viable apartment complexes in the city.  So why anyone would knock that down is beyond me.  It's the only living available on the west riverbank in Tulsa.

If nothing else, that could artificially inflate the price of the property if the county flips the land to a developer.

My point is, they either could have left the land purchase out of this tax and cut the collection period by about 1.25 years, or flip it and pay for LWD's out of the proceeds as I've already mentioned.

Lastly, there's no guarantee we won't wind up with a crappy Huffman development.  I shudder to think the county would sponsor a slap-dash development.  We deserve much better than Branson Landing- IMO Branson is one of the tackier places I've been.

My preference would be to use the Riverwest Festival Park and the industrial properties for development and leave Westport alone. The Tulsa Housing Authority complex there is not in good repair and could also be used for development, maybe with the guarantee of a like number of new low income housing units be included in the overall plan?

Breaking up the THA "ghetto" would also go a long way to improving that part of town, and making a good percentage of the project be for low income people could also go a long way to change the perception of a "playground for the rich" only.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake


The reason the tax is needed for the west bank is the cost of land. The cost of already industrially developed land on the west bank is about $50 million and a TIFF can't be used to purchase land for development.

Actually, you can. I checked, and the Oklahoma Local Development Act explicitly authorizes the acquisition of land as part of a TIF -- Title 62, Section 854

The Village is using a TIF to acquire land for their town center redevelopment project (see page 3 of the linked PDF).

quote:
BUDGET OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS TO BE FINANCED BY TAXES APPORTIONED FROM INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.1, CITY OF THE VILLAGE:

The Project Costs will be financed by the apportionment of ad valorem tax increments from Increment District No.1, City of The Village.

The categories are:

(Note: This does not increase taxes or levy any new tax on property owners or residents)

* Land Acquisition and Development Financing Assistance: $7,500,000

* Public Infrastructure and Facilities Improvements and expansion, including library, streets, buildings, water system, sewer, landscaping, streetscaping, green belt, street lighting, utility relocation, signage, park, pathways, and walkways: $7,035,000

* Project preparation, approval, implementation, and administration (including planning, consulting, legal, and engineering costs): $465,000

* Total Project Costs: $15,000,000, Plus financing costs, costs of issuance, necessary or appropriate reserves, and interest on repayment of Project Costs.

Note that The Village only using the ad valorem increment and leaving the sales tax alone.

For the River District, Jenks is using the ad valorem increment and the increment on one cent of the three cent city sales tax, which means that two-thirds of the sales tax increment will flow into the city's coffers.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by swake

BLAH BLAH BLAH

The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders.  The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap.  The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.

61% Yes 49% No

I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.

I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.

C'mon, you live in Riverview. You guys supported the Channels. The absentee ballots cast should be quite interesting.

BS AA, I was never a supporter of the Channels. I'll go back to those threads and prove it.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by swake

BLAH BLAH BLAH

The YESSIRS are as likely to demonize NAYSAYERS as backward, do-nothing, stupid pooper sticks in the mud as the N's are to portray Y's as happy go lucky rock and roller big spenders.  The Y's are angry that they live in a podunk backwater of cultural stagnancy and are determined to do anything they can to beat that rap.  The Y signs are in pastels, Oz, which do not look as angry as the N signs.

61% Yes 49% No

I appreciate the opinion of those opposed, but I've really only heard from a couple that had concrete well thought out reasons not to approve it and only one of those gave Pro's and Con's. Michael Bates article in UTW had some great points, but I wish he had given a more balanced opinion.

I'm a yes, my neighbors are all yes and my friends and family are for it.

C'mon, you live in Riverview. You guys supported the Channels. The absentee ballots cast should be quite interesting.

BS AA, I was never a supporter of the Channels. I'll go back to those threads and prove it.

Riverview did.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I was originally thinking "63% No to 37% Yes" but given the huge amount of advertising and fact that the undecided voter are lampooned as being the biggest idiots and most easily swayed, I'm thinking the Yes side will get even more. Heck, they could say that we need to pass the river tax "because of 9/11" and they could win...

I'm gonna say:

53% No
46% Yes

Looks like I rocked this one..

[chesty]

Is it too late to say:

53% No
47% Yes

[Conan71]

I thought on one of the threads, I'd predicted 53% to 47% but I can't find it at the moment.  I notice the Tulsa World made it sound a little closer, 52.5% to 47.5%.  []

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

52% NAY
48% YESSIR

KOTV sez 52/48 . . .