No River Tax people: Where will the $$$ come from?

[T-Town Now]

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

And the good folks in Broken Arrow can pretty much forget support from the City of Tulsa on future endeavors - they made their priorities perfectly clear: They want Tulsa to be as mediocre as Broken Arrow, a community of strip malls and concrete.

[Conan71]

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

[cannon_fodder]

Conan, while I agree that it was over sold and have always disparaged the "jobs creation" aspect of the pitch - it would have created a spark in this community.  Something that industry, young people, and visitors could claim and desire.

Honestly, Tulsa is an aging city that has lost her shine.  And the world is vane.  Glossy new industry generally does not move to towns that are falling behind.  Wichita, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Omaha... what does Tulsa have to offer that they do not?  All are cleaner towns, all have nicer amenities, all have some spark going for them.  I'm trying not to be negative, but I REALLY want to see something happen in Tulsa.

2025 was nice... but it really didnt even get us to par with those other cities.  We are just so damn far behind.  (No I dont think taxes solve everything blah blah blah...)

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Wichita, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Omaha... what does Tulsa have to offer that they do not?  All are cleaner towns, all have nicer amenities, all have some spark going for them.  

Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

[T-Town Now]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

I would expect those who didn't support this to minimize any impact of potential new taxes from the development, but the fact is it would have been an improvement over what we have now, and it's my understanding that there was at least one potential anchor tenant that could have had a big impact on the area. (Nothing official was announced, but I have it on good authority that there were in fact a couple ready to sign on.)

And that doesn't really answer my question. Now that the No River Tax people have killed this deal, how are any of us better off?

Are our roads going to miraculously repair themselves?

Will our tax collections somehow now manage to cover a few more cops on the streets?

Other than keeping a few bucks a month in their wallets, I think what we've lost is much greater than what we've retained. Tulsa needs something new - and desperately.

The status quo in Tulsa is not working, as can be evidenced by the lack of police on the streets, the crumbling roads, and the general neglect of the city.

Again, I ask, where is the money going to come from to address these issues?

[Conan71]

T-Town, if you really want prosperity on the river, quit placing all the blame on the people who voted no.  Take a look at the parody of a political campaign that the yes campaign became.

Sometimes we need to consider our own failures before we can fault someone else.

The yes campaign failed to address REAL issues which concerned REAL people.

I WANTED them to convince me to vote for this.  I want river development, but I want to see something which looks like it was put together by engineers and planners, not a high school civics project.  It's unfortunate they were pressed to make this vote happen so soon by a handful of private donors, that is truly what doomed this.

If the MTCC will change their mind-set that call center jobs are the only new business worthy to attract to Tulsa, that would go a long way in increasing the tax base.  There are two ways you can increase your tax base, have a unique tourist appeal or attract companies who will bring 500 to 1000 jobs at a time which pay high end union or professional wages.  They can attract these companies with or without this river proposal.  I'll agree eventual development on the river won't hurt, but by itself is no panacea for more cops and better roads.

Now question back to you: I want to know who is going to reimburse the taxpayers for the election expense for a half-baked proposal.  Got any ideas on that TTN?

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

How about a TIF district.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

How about a TIF district.

World's largest TIF

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

How about a TIF district.

Part of the plan was to increase the area's tax base. Since a TIFF is funded from that increase, there is no improvement in the city's budgetary situation and in fact can be harmed by the TIFF since there are now new maintenance, police and other costs for the TIFF area.

[Rowdy]

I think Wichita has more bullet casings lying around that city than we do.

[chesty]

Or, one for Jenks.  They already have one.
One for West Tulsa. One for Bixby. One for Sand Springs.  The whole 41 mile corridor does not have to fall under the same TIF.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

Your bonkers. No those low paying river jobs and construction jobs were not what the ultimate goal was about. Though even those new jobs wouldnt hurt. If the city becomes more attractive to YPs then they grow and attract jobs. Many can work anywhere, they take their" jobs" or careers with them. Wherever they are, high paying tech and industries are able to hire them and grow.

Its the oddest thing, I dont know how people dont get it that we need to attract more young professionals and they will enable companies to grow, have their own companies, etc. I know so many young people that HAVE jobs and careers here........ but MOVE. Like I and others are considering doing. Its not about the jobs, its about quality of life.

I HAVE a career. I EMPLOY people. I and other people like me HAVE careers and work, but we also live in a city that lacks in things to do and places to go and lots of other people like ourselves to hang out with. There are companies that are already here that have a hard time recruiting young higher wage, highly educated workers. I have heard many stories of businesses, flying someone in, wining and dining them, offering them a good wage, only to have them look around the city and say no thanks. Nothing here for me. Yet our company is supposed to compete in a global market with the same company in another city that has no problem attracting YPs? That company is going to feel pressure to move.

We need to do something to jump start a hip urban lifestyle, have nice amenities, fun busy gathering areas with street life. Just have some signs of growth and hope. We need areas that cater to YP people. Brookside, Cherry streets are starts, but tiny in comparison to what other cities have to offer.  

We need someting to give Tulsa a leg up to retain and attract more YP and creative class people. People like me can live anywhere in the world we want to. Those river "jobs" werent the point, thats stupid. It was about having some place interesting and nice to go, a place to LIVE not work. We have the work.

Your viewing the world from some working class mindset. You may focus on "finding a job" and that may be your concern, your way of seeing things. But many of us have careers. Wherever we are, thats where the work is. If we dont want to live here then the companies cant hire us. If we go someplace else, companies prosper there, we create companies and jobs. etc.

If you want to only grow low wage jobs and compete with third world countries on that level, well good luck being prosperous with that.


It boils down to this...

 If I can get a job anywhere. Why would I choose Tulsa?  

Why would I choose Tulsa over Austin, or Denver, or Dallas?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

You didn't want higher taxes for development, which would grow the tax base and provide new funds to fix the streets, repair infrastructure, and hire more police.

Now that that isn't an option, where's the money going to come from to do all these things? If it wasn't available before, it certainly won't be available now.

How about answering that?

How about a TIF district.

Nothing wrong with that.  But the revenue generated by the businesses within that district would not be available to the rest of the city (places outside the TIF) for many years.  Yes, you do grow the tax base, but that money is used first to pay off the TIF bonds.  As long as people realize that the new development won't effect the bottom line for cities and schools for a number of years, then that's okay.  Think people are that patient?  Plus, the TIFs are negotiated between the developer and the city and other taxing authorities...the voters don't get a say.  Think people are that trusting?

UPDATE: Swake is saying the same thing...only clearer.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

Or, one for Jenks.  They already have one.
One for West Tulsa. One for Bixby. One for Sand Springs.  The whole 41 mile corridor does not have to fall under the same TIF.

You really are under the impression that TIFF fixes everything, aren't you?

Where do you think the money from a TIFF comes from? It's still mostly all the same tax money. Jenks can do a TIFF because all the spending that increases the tax base is new to Jenks, most of it USED to be in Tulsa.

But Tulsa has to be really careful. Writing a TIFF on a project's increase in tax revenue to an area is great, but a lot of that spending that drives that increase used to be spent in other parts of Tulsa. You will kill the city's budget really fast by writing too many TIFFs that are too large.

But understanding that a TIFF isn't free money takes the kind of thoughtful consideration that the "no" people just didn't want to take the time for. Stupid zingers and blasting public figures is more fun.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Without an influx of quality jobs, nor the ability to become a major regional tourist destination, our tax base wasn't going to grow from this development.  4,500 temporary construction jobs would have helped because we would likely be needing an influx of new workers for construction.  But, 4,500 is an insane high number for these projects since they would not be done simultaneously.  The yes side had said likely these projects would have essentially been done on a "pay-as-we-go" basis.

4,500 new retail/service level jobs won't offer attractive wages which would bring new job seekers to Tulsa.  The 4,500 number on that sounds incredibly speculative as well.  Just gauging by the size for the proposed mixed-use at the concrete plant and comparing that footprint to a mall, it just won't employ that many people.

Mainly what would have happened without any serious quality jobs (i.e. high tech or professional) being attracted by the new river development would have been a shift in where people work and sales tax collection points.  The sales tax bonanza promised to fix streets was a pipe dream.

It was the general nature of over-selling this plan which turned myself and a lot of other people off on voting for it.

Not disagreeing with you or your take on this, Conan, but the question was "Where will the $$$ come from?".  What will work?  That's a far more interesting question in light of yesterday's vote.