Common sense says YES to river vote

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Wow, I've never seen a more apt time for the old quote:

"Hope in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first."

Aren't you voting no on this tax, hoping a better plan comes along? That's an elephant-sized BM right there...

[}:)]

Where did you EVER get the idea I'm voting no?

Actually I was making the quote in reference to hoping that Federal funds would be forthcoming to cure the poop plant.

Ahh...

'cuz yer a big negative nancy : )

Better than being an a**l Alice...

Common sense would seem to indicate a Vote NO to the Kaiser River Tax.

A Vote Yes is primarily to date being made on emotional appeals, of the ilk of "It's For the Children", followed by pie-in-the-sky wild predictions of "It's about 9,000 jobs to be created".

Voting YES has little if nothing to do with Common Sense.

It's over.  Back to your cave.  Until next time.

[brunoflipper]

[Tiny]

time to rejoice at a mojority of 53% NO!


and a big

from the state of Oklahoma Fishermen and women to the 53% that voted NO!

[jtcrissup]

Common Sense 60,740 (47.5%)
Status Quo 67,026 (52.5%)

[USRufnex]

I'd be curious to see how the city of Tulsa voted... and Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby...

I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...

I heard on the local news that BA folks voted no at a 4-1 ratio and Owasso people voted no at a 2-1 ratio...

Maybe a Tulsa plan would have passed... or a Sand Springs plan or a Jenks/Bixby plan...

Live and learn.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be     Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...

BA is myopic.  If the general image of Tulsa improves, the general image of BA improves.  Jobs in Tulsa benefit BA.  This us vs. them mentality of the suburbs vs. the city is ridiculous.  This issue wasn't about the river alone, it was about investing in infrastructure that spurs economic growth for the entire metro area.  The river was just the vehicle for spurring that growth.  And why not the river?  Bodies of water have been focal points for communities for centuries.  The opportunity cost of doing nothing with the river is far higher than 0.4 cents!

[xzyzyx]

I reemerge everyone beware


Not to rain on anybodies parade but This was my reply to TU Law:

Are you kidding? I mean after this rant It seems to imply your actually serious. The "River Tax" benefits the haves and has nothing to with improving the environment of the "have nots". Apparently according to the vote we know who was more passionate about the so-called river tax. We voted yes to such projects when we voted for "Vision 2025" We (Tulsa City Limits) shouldn't be asked to fit the bill for the small, but I admit the growing suburbs. If they want it then they should pay for it. For a city who relishes on being "Jenks America" disassociating the state, for which they were created just adds to the animosity. Hey "Jenks America" Pay for your own damn tax- river development. As said before, we have already been through this' we voted yes, you wanna add a few suburbs to the list? I don't think so. Do you want a new "River Walk" maybe that should have been included in the previous vote. Jenks, wanna expand your part of the river? Don't expect Tulsa Citizens to pay for it? Jenks America, see if America will fund your cause. I don't feel obligated to a "city" who won't recognize the state wherein they reside.

In case those of you who have failed to do your homework, most of the property that lies beneath the AR river belong to the Indians thanks to our wonderful forefathers. If you think for one moment they won't seize the opportunity to assert their property rights, well that just shows again your ignorance to the issue. For those lawyers out there who would like to argue that fact, reliction and accretion never forget it because it will ALWAYS bite you in the end, Indian affairs Treaties Tit II § VI (b)(If you don't like that one do your own research (389 U.S. 290)). It is more confusing than "Adverse Possession" Ouch! Don't imply to your students that they would be better off with this idea, well because, if they're half way, their money lies in those who don't already have a retainer with a Law Firm they won't be working for. Mislead to please and you failed good luck next time

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
I just don't think the mayor of BA wanted to be handcuffed with a 0.4% river-only tax that clearly didn't benefit BA enough... in fact, it would be     Broken Arrow citizens paying to give Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa and Sand Springs a competitive advantage...

BA is myopic.  If the general image of Tulsa improves, the general image of BA improves.  Jobs in Tulsa benefit BA.  This us vs. them mentality of the suburbs vs. the city is ridiculous.  This issue wasn't about the river alone, it was about investing in infrastructure that spurs economic growth for the entire metro area.  The river was just the vehicle for spurring that growth.  And why not the river?  Bodies of water have been focal points for communities for centuries.  The opportunity cost of doing nothing with the river is far higher than 0.4 cents!

Myopic is a street that runs both ways... [B)]

One-third of Broken Arrow voters actually voted FOR this river-only proposal, even though it DIRECTLY BENEFITTED economic rival Jenks... maybe BA would like to spend tax dollars on their own city in the future and felt this county tax would jeopardize that option...

Instead of demonizing suburban voters in BA and Owasso, maybe you should look at city of Tulsa voters pitted against each other, or even the voters in Sand Springs while your at it... here's a few choice Tulsa precincts...

01 -- Houston Elem Sch, 5402 N Cincinnatti... Yes 73, No 397

13 -- Rudsill No. Reg. Library, 1520 N Hartford... Yes 94, No 460

39 -- McClure Comm Ctr, 7440 E 7th St... Yes 130, No 266

44 -- Eastland Family Ctr, 12929 E 21st St... Yes 112, No 288

60 -- Cooper Elem Sch, 1808 S 123rd E Ave... Yes 161, No 458

99 -- Disney Elem Sch, 11702 E 25th St... Yes, 80, No 203

149 -- Grace United Methodist, 519 S 49th W Ave... Yes 120, No 294

139 -- LaFortune Towers, 1725 Southwest Blvd, Yes 120, No 170


Why yes, territorialism and class warfare are alive and well in the city of Tulsa...

48 -- St. Paul's UMC, 1442 S Quaker, Yes 541, No 136

156 -- Cascia Hall PAC, 2520 S Yorktown Ave, Yes 361, No 68

703 -- Jenks West Elem, 1200 W 91st St, Yes 556, No 371

351 -- Bixby City Hall, Yes 398, No 399