Oklahoma's next big city

[Kenosha]

by Ted Streuli
The Journal Record October 9, 2007

In a move frighteningly reminiscent of the Oklahoma State Aquarium deal, Tulsa voters decided that a premier plan to develop the Arkansas River wasn't worth and extra four cents of sales tax for every $100 spent. That's right, four-tenths of one percent, or a whole extra dollar when you drop $2,500 on that new plasma screen you've been eyeing.

Tulsa could have had the aquarium, named the state's best attraction, but took a pass and let Jenks have it. Jenks also, therefore, got the retail development along the river and the property and sales taxes that go with it.

The No River Tax people are no doubt celebrating with Michael Bates, because they'verted all that wasteful government spending and they'll be able to use the money they've saved to fix a few potholes.

Saying that view is short-sighted would be an understatement on the order of Noah saying, "Hmmm. Looks like it might sprinkle."
Look first at who was on which side here: The folks who know how to turn a buck were not only unanimously in favor of it, but private industry pledged substantial investment to bolster the public's four-tenths of a cent on the dollar. The hand-to-mouth crowd was opposed. The latter perhaps doesn't understand the economic priciple of multipliers or returns on investment.
Take a look at what happened a decade or so ago in Kemah, Texas with Landry's Corp., Tillman Fertitta and some run-down restaurants in a run-down fishing village. Residents of Kemah said they might like to have their waterfront developed, and they got the Kemah Boardwalk. It might bring in some money. Those residents now enjoy some of the lowest property taxes to be found in the area. The city coffers are full, so the police department has a new station, state-of-the-art equipment and plenty of officers. Infrastructure problems are almost non-existent because the city has plenty of money to take care of repairs and maintenance. They're so well off, in fact, that Kemah residents get free garbage service because City Hall can't quite spend all the money that comes in from that waterfront development.
Fixing a few more potholes makes your drive to work easier, and when you're done you have filled potholes. Fixing a waterfront, on the other hand, comes back ten or a hundred or a thousand-fold in hotel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and new jobs that pump still more money into the economy. And that would have paid for more potholes than any city can make.

The short-sightedness of Tulsa voters doesn't hurt only Tulsa, it hurts the state, which already suffers from a reputation for a lack of vision. Newsflash: Tulsa is no longer the center of the energy industry. That distinction belongs to Houston. It's not coming back. With all the momentum of Vision 2025, the Arkansas River plan could have been the biggest diamond in the crown. Ask Idaho. Or San Pedro, Calif. Or Portland, Ore. Or Knoxville, Tenn. Or Sacramento, Calif. Or any of the countless U.S. cities that have figured out one simple truth: People like to be by the water and they're willing to pay for the privilege.

But fear not, Jenks might find a way to pick up the ball. It will seve them right -- just look how poorly they're doing over there with that silly aquarium. After all, the city's slogan is Everything's going our way. Yep. And be sure to thank the 67,026 short-sighted Tulsans who voted against the river development measure for that.

[tulsa1603]

I don't think it's fair to blame "Tulsa voters" when this was a county wide election.  It will be interesting to see what cities voted what way....

[YoungTulsan]

I stop reading an article when I see that the author fails at math.  4/10ths of a cent is 40 cents on $100 and $10 on $2500.  Still, not a huge sum of money, but the article is off by a power of 10.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I stop reading an article when I see that the author fails at math.  4/10ths of a cent is 40 cents on $100 and $10 on $2500.  Still, not a huge sum of money, but the article is off by a power of 10.

True Tulsan. The rest of the article is spot on, but since he missed a decimal you missed all that. It wasnt' a perfect plan, (better stop reading...I misplaced an apostrophe) it was the only plan. None of these leading NO figures will work with the existing plan, and of course they haven't the skills necessary to come up with their own plan. The result is nothing. The equivalent of traffic gridlock.

[Breadburner]

I wonder who the author is related too......

[cannon_fodder]

As I stated here:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7767

I hope we here some alternatives from the NO crowd now.  I want to hear how we fund the better roads, schools, and alternative river tax plan.  WE were told to vote NO because we needed to fix our roads and schools and that they wanted river development but wanted to pay for it other ways.  

Now I want to know how those things come to fruition?

Seriously, I want to see progress and I don't care where it comes from at this point.

[brunoflipper]

wow i completely agree with the article...

and now i feel like davazzz...
this town has nothing progressive...
it is and will continue to be a backwater ****hole... we can't even seem to spit-shine our turd...

[xx(]

f'in suburbs, burn up the roads and leech off the infrastructure and utilities... whistling to work, while the core dies...

and holy crap, i've got to call the election board because my ballot was totally missing the box for "streets" instead of "river"...

mark my words, these no tax jackasses will use the same tactics to torpedo any street bond... they don't to pay for anything... we've now gotten what we pay for... our town is a lovely rusted-out 57 belvedere...


the following is anecdotal, but completely true... i've lost four neighbors, one relative and two colleagues to other pricier metros (st. louis, kc, charleston, minneapolis, boston ) in 12 months... everyone of them was under 45, had kids, and had great jobs here... they bailed... despite the "awesomeness"[] of raising kids here, either one or both of them, was more excited about being in a town that was "not tulsa"... the truth hurts...

i work in a high-line field, directly involved in the recruitment of 6 figure salaried positions... 6 candidates in 12 months- all of them were very excited about the job and all admitted it was more money than they could get elsewhere- but none of them took the jobs... instead, the three i know about, went to portland, kansas city and austin... and the reason the gave for passing??? either they or their spouse could not make themselves comfortable with the notion of moving to tulsa...

i find tulsa's lack of faith disturbing...


i want a city income tax and i want it now.

/end of rant

[swake]

So,

Kaiser is going to send his money to San Fran, good for him. The way he was ripped by the "no" side, who can blame him? That's another $100 million down the drain for this city. Perfect.

This town is sick, the politics are poisoned.

I wait for the great plan to improve the city from the "no" side. Of course, there will never be one. They just washed $700 million plus in private development down the drain to save a buck a week. Outstanding work.

Jenks thanks you by the way, again. A billion dollars in river development on the fast track with zero competition. You naysayer's were all upset over losing the Aquarium? That's nothing compared to what Tulsa is going to lose and miss out on now. The Drillers are gone, river development, gone, growth along the river, gone. And Jenks is going to take it all.

A prediction. Taylor will propose her plan with a reasonable tax for streets and it will be the same song, different verse from the "no" crowd. With 2025 it was "do the river first", with the river plan it was, "do the streets first", with the streets it will be "hire cops first", if they tried a plan to hire cops it would be "we need economic development"..... What they won't say is that what they really want is to just pay for nothing.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

So,

Kaiser is going to send his money to San Fran, good for him. The way he was ripped by the "no" side, who can blame him? That's another $100 million down the drain for this city. Perfect.

This town is sick, the politics are poisoned.

I wait for the great plan to improve the city from the "no" side. Of course, there will never be one. They just washed $700 million plus in private development down the drain to save a buck a week. Outstanding work.

Jenks thanks you by the way, again. A billion dollars in river development on the fast track with zero competition. You naysayer's were all upset over losing the Aquarium? That's nothing compared to what Tulsa is going to lose and miss out on now. The Drillers are gone, river development, gone, growth along the river, gone. And Jenks is going to take it all.

A prediction. Taylor will propose her plan with a reasonable tax for streets and it will be the same song, different verse from the "no" crowd. With 2025 it was "do the river first", with the river plan it was, "do the streets first", with the streets it will be "hire cops first", if they tried a plan to hire cops it would be "we need economic development"..... What they won't say is that what they really want is to just pay for nothing.

I've never been a big fan of the burbs, but live and let live. The Tulsa I loved is gone. The wife and I decided this morning that once our last is in a magnet high school, which is 6 months, we're preparing the home for rent or sale. We either move to Jenks, the countryside or out of state. Yeah, I know, good riddance, but there is no future for politically moderate people with progressive attitudes here.

So its cocoon yourself into a prosperous, growth oriented city and grow with them or catch a passing freighter. In the end you have to look at the vote no watch party and ask yourself if you want to be lead in the next decade by them.

[TheArtist]

If that big development really does happen in Jenks. I may just move there instead lol. I can still be close to family, though most of my friends have already moved to other cities, and live in a better environment. Plus less of my taxes will be going to prop up Tulsas north side.

Tulsa is starting to look more and more like its following the Detroit model.

[T-Town Now]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

I wonder who the author is related too......

I know Ted personally, and he was not affiliated with the development in any way. He lives in Oklahoma City, but his wife is from Tulsa.

The point is, Tulsa continues to allow other cities to suck the life out of it. Hopefully this disturbing trend will stop before the city dies.

[pfox]

To illustrate, it appears that the vast majority of the CITY of Tulsa wanted this.

Blue is for, the other color against.



If I am not mistaken, a portion of Jenks right on the River near 91st voted against it...

[tim huntzinger]

That is such bullcrap.  Good for Jenks if they move forward with that development, still in the County, a rising tide lifts all boats.

OKC is an immense cowpie, Ted, you live in a nasty backwater and know nothing about T-Town.  Take your sour grapes and roll on out of here.

I am so sure that podunk TX's waterfront is a suitable analogy for an aging town like Tulsa.  That dude gets paid for writing BS like that?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

That is such bullcrap.  Good for Jenks if they move forward with that development, still in the County, a rising tide lifts all boats.

OKC is an immense cowpie, Ted, you live in a nasty backwater and know nothing about T-Town.  Take your sour grapes and roll on out of here.

I am so sure that podunk TX's waterfront is a suitable analogy for an aging town like Tulsa.  That dude gets paid for writing BS like that?

You need to get out more, Tim.  Go spend some time and money in the center of any other regional town.  You'll find that we land somewhere between Little Rock and Wichita on the spectrum of enjoyable places to visit and to live.  OKC is getting really nice, and frankly has a vibrant energy Tulsa lacks.  All namecalling does is show that you're in denial.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

That is such bullcrap.  Good for Jenks if they move forward with that development, still in the County, a rising tide lifts all boats.

OKC is an immense cowpie, Ted, you live in a nasty backwater and know nothing about T-Town.  Take your sour grapes and roll on out of here.

I am so sure that podunk TX's waterfront is a suitable analogy for an aging town like Tulsa.  That dude gets paid for writing BS like that?

You need to get out more, Tim.  Go spend some time and money in the center of any other regional town.  You'll find that we land somewhere between Little Rock and Wichita on the spectrum of enjoyable places to visit and to live.  OKC is getting really nice, and frankly has a vibrant energy Tulsa lacks.  All namecalling does is show that you're in denial.

as much as it pains me to do so, i agree completely...
maybe we should rename our section of the arkansas...