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

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by swake

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.

Perhaps another way of saying that is that right now Jenks is booming.  Every year there are new households, new stores, and new streets, and new revenue.  They can invest with TIFs easily because they don't need the revenue right this minute.  In 10 or 20 years, when they really need it, the TIFs will expire and they can use this burst of revenue to fix aging streets, etc.

Tulsa isn't booming and already has aging streets to fix.  They needed the revenue like, yesterday.  So, while a TIF might help land a new shopping center on the River, it won't fill the coffers anytime soon.  It's an option, and maybe a really good one, depending on the circumstances.  But it probably isn't the solution.

And it's probably worth mentioning again.  We don't get to vote on TIFs.

[T-Town Now]

quote: 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?

Not everyone thought this proposal was half baked. Was it perfect? No, but it was better than nothing, and that's what we have now.

I think this would have been a good base to start something with. We have the new arena, downtown is getting a badly needed face lift, there's the Botanical Gardens to the north, possibly the American statue (if it ever gets off the ground), and we're getting new river trails as we speak.

In and of itself, not the perfect development, but it would have complimented everything else quite nicely, and it would have been located perfectly to link everything together, and spur new development, renovation, and attractions in an area of town that is sorely lacking all those things now.

And since when do we expect someone to pick up the tab for election expense just because they lost? Has Steve Largent paid us back yet?

I don't see how we're better off now than we would have been. For a few extra cents, folks in the suburbs have ensured that Tulsa will not grow in the near future. And that is death to a city today.

We are not competing, we are not attracting new residents, businesses, or tourists. And it's been that way for a long time. The streets are a mess, our infrastructure is decaying, and Tulsa is not on most people's "must see" list.

Again, where do the No River Tax people think the money is going to come from to fix the streets? That was the big objection, so with no new development to spur new jobs and create a new tax base, where is it going to come from now?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

That must make two of us bonkers, Artist.

If the 9,000 job growth claim by the chamber is for YP jobs, I'm laughing hysterically now.  Our chamber still thinks $9-$11 an hour jobs represent quality employment and a lot of their job growth claims on this campaign were centered around the service level and construction jobs this was supposed to create.  

I'm all for more YP level jobs, I don't know where you get the idea I have a working class mentality.  I have a career as well, and what I do is considered "YP".  Personally, I could move from the Tulsa area and make more money at what I do.  That option is always open.  

However, I think Tulsa is a very liveable city with many things to do and far more things on the horizon.  I feel it takes a great deal of myopia to crap on the city to say there is nothing to do here.  The only time I'm bored is when I choose to sit around the house instead of getting out.

Tulsa, with or without more river development will NEVER be able to compete with the natural assets of Denver, Colorado Springs, Miami, Seattle, New England, San Diego etc.  A prairie river full of water is not as compelling as the majesty of the rocky mountains, national forests, rich national history and architecture, and beaches you can swim at.

We will never compete with NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc. for people who prefer over-crowded areas to live in.  If Tulsa ever became that large, I'd move elsewhere.

Austin has a leg up due to a nationally-prominent four year university, high-tech oriented YP jobs due in large part to that four year university and a nightlife scene with credibility falling only behind Nashville for live music.  There's only so much room to make a living in the arts and so many areas that can happen in.  If you don't think we have a good music scene, it's an insult to a lot of hard-working very good local musicians.

Tulsa has hamstrung itself for years by having to play b!tch to the university regents at OU and OSU.  Tulsa is the largest metro area in the country which still does not have a full four year, public university.  We have starter schools and finishing schools.

Brain-trust will bring jobs, major transportation hubs will lure jobs, government incentives will bring jobs.  Everything else is gravy.

Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year.  All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be.  We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

I think your relative anger is mis-placed being directed at me and people who share my view.  I think there's a minimum of another 10% who can be brought on board for river development next time around if it is presented correctly and not within the constraints of a philanthropic gift.

[Chicken Little]

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

[Townsend]

"Tulsa City Councilman Roscoe Turner, who opposed the tax because he wanted the city's aging infrastructure to be fixed first, called the argument that it might take years to bring a similar project back to the area ``rhetoric.'' "

I'd love to know what he knows

[T-Town Now]

quote: Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year. All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be. We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

Unfortunately, there aren't all that many people who feel the same as you do. The people who live here may love it, but given other options, most potential new residents select "other."

It's going to take a development like this to bring on additional development, which attracts even more development. Developers want to go where there is development activity that will compliment and enhance what they want to build.

YPs want cool restaurants to go to, trendy clubs, hot shopping spots, a vibrant night life. Some of those things can be found in Tulsa, but they are few and far between.

I've lived in Tulsa, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, and Denver, and each has its own unique feel. I think Tulsa could be a contender for a destination city, but we have to lose the "what's in it for me" attitude to get there.

If the folks in Owasso, Broken Arrow, and other cities that voted this down think they've done something good for their communities, they are wrong. How many other developers were watching this to see the outcome? What other developments might have been waiting in the wings to be announced? Which employers were considering Tulsa for expansion, but now will not because we're viewed as an area that doesn't have the attractions their employees will want? The truth might make some people regret their no votes.

I can assure you other developers, faced with high construction and land acquisition costs in other parts of the country, are looking for new untapped opportunities. The selfish No River Tax folks have likely ensured that Tulsa metro has now been crossed off their lists. If the citizens of an area don't think it's worth spending money to live there, why would outsiders?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now


I think this would have been a good base to start something with. We have the new arena, downtown is getting a badly needed face lift, there's the Botanical Gardens to the north, possibly the American statue (if it ever gets off the ground), and we're getting new river trails as we speak.

And since when do we expect someone to pick up the tab for election expense just because they lost? Has Steve Largent paid us back yet?

I don't see how we're better off now than we would have been. For a few extra cents, folks in the suburbs have ensured that Tulsa will not grow in the near future. And that is death to a city today.

Again, where do the No River Tax people think the money is going to come from to fix the streets? That was the big objection, so with no new development to spur new jobs and create a new tax base, where is it going to come from now?

I edited your post for brevity of points I want to address:

This IS a good base to start with!  There is enough interest that this has not died.  I truly believe this would have eventually been brought to vote without the private donations to the project.

It may boil down to private development needing to happen first to spur approval of a tax, it may be as simple as cutting out dissenting municipalities (read: don't make it a county vote next time).

Eh, I was just making a sophomoric come-back about who pays back the campaign.  FWIW, Largent didn't spur a referendum vote to my knowledge.  I'm assuming you are talking about the special campaign for his un-fulfilled house term.  Can't say I disagree that a politician following his political aspirations shouldn't be required to pay back the election costs when they abandon their job.  Along those lines, looking at voter turn out at the precincts, we could cut the number of polling places in half, especially on referendum-only elections.

It's not death to a city.  Look around you, there's lots of ambitious plans on the table.  This is a plan, that IMO, would have been led out in two years or less if not for the deadline imposed from a large donor to get the money out of a charitable trust.

The streets will be addressed by Dec. 1, that's already happening.  Unless there's something incredibly stupid in that plan or it's open for malfeasance, I don't know why what ever the solution is for that won't pass.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

As a personal opinion, no.  

As far as competing with what other cities do to lure good jobs, what's the alternative to being competitive?  It's a good argument that an investment like $350mm to lure more Boeing work to town adds the most to a tax base.  It also has the ability to spur relocation of key suppliers and provides opportunity for locals to start their own business in support of those jobs and to become direct suppliers.

I might get whipped on this by someone like CF who is a more schooled economist, but IMO, the best way to build a "micro-economy" within a city is to lure a large anchor which will directly (not indirectly via liveability improvements) provide new high-paying jobs to a market and which will demand suppliers and vendors re-locate in close proximity.

[cannon_fodder]

1st off, Conan, that is a train of thought.  However, to do so the city must give the perspective giant HUGE incentives to move here.  Tulsa is not willing to do that, that's why Citgo left.  In general, Tulsans seem opposed to such acts as "corporate charity."  

Again, not to disparage the idea.  That is the M.O. of many metro areas.  I just do not think Tulsans have the stomach for it, and am of the opinion that in such a deal the company makes sure they win more than anyone.  Not too mention you hit the dangerous zone of subsidizing a competitor of a long standing Tulsa company (ie. Delta, move your Maintenance here and we'll give you money.  Which is directly to the detriment of AA).

What I would suggest, is making Tulsa a business friendly atmosphere.  Have "The Metro Chamber," the city, County, ORU or Tulsa create top notch small business workshops to help start or grow businesses.  Have the city inspection process as easy as possible.  Encourage the State to make registration, incorporation, and taxation as business friendly as possible.  Let Tulsans make Tulsa great, and if you want to join us all the better.

Look around.  QT, OneOK, HP, ORU, The University of Tulsa, Williams, SEM Group... most of the great companies in Tulsa were born here and grew up here.  THATs the best long term solution.  

Any company that is bribed into moving to Tulsa, while good, may just as easily be bribed elsewhere on down the road.  Not to mention, like any auction, it proves Tulsa was willing to pay more than anyone else.

- - - -

quote:
Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

Having been to both of those cities in the last 6 months - yes.  Easily yes.  Admitedly, I was only in select areas of Wichita (Eastern Business park and downtown area) but it was nice.  And Albuquerque I saw extensively.  I'm sure it has some ghetto, but most of that city is very nice.  ESPECIALLY for a desert city.
- - - -

And I am not BLAMING the "no" people for anything.  I am merely turning to you for alternatives.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

"Tulsa City Councilman Roscoe Turner, who opposed the tax because he wanted the city's aging infrastructure to be fixed first, called the argument that it might take years to bring a similar project back to the area ``rhetoric.'' "

I'd love to know what he knows

They're going to divert the river through North Tulsa... []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

quote: Tulsa IS a great place to live and it gets better each year. All it took for me was living in Kansas City for six months to realize Tulsa isn't just a good place to be from, it's a good place to be. We can't be everything to everyone and we need to quit comparing ourselves to other areas which have the real assets that attract real YP jobs.

quote:
Unfortunately, there aren't all that many people who feel the same as you do. The people who live here may love it, but given other options, most potential new residents select "other."

The Tulsa MSA approaching 1mm people pretty much scotches the idea that I'm in a minority.  If the Tulsa area sucked that bad, it would be shrinking not growing.

quote:

It's going to take a development like this to bring on additional development, which attracts even more development. Developers want to go where there is development activity that will compliment and enhance what they want to build.

They will go as long as the local economy can support it.  The river was no guarantee that we would be able to attract a satellite branch of Microsoft with 3000 jobs paying $80K and up.  More retail development begatting more retail development is cannibalistic in nature if other incentives aren't in place to provide the kinds of jobs which can make those developments feasible.  At some point, developers are going to realize Tulsa is saturated with restaurants and retail.

quote:

YPs want cool restaurants to go to, trendy clubs, hot shopping spots, a vibrant night life. Some of those things can be found in Tulsa, but they are few and far between.

Blue Dome, Brookside, Cherry St, Riverwalk Crossing, Brady Dist., proposed East Village, The Pearl...

quote:
I've lived in Tulsa, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, and Denver, and each has its own unique feel. I think Tulsa could be a contender for a destination city, but we have to lose the "what's in it for me" attitude to get there.

You just mentioned four very "it" cities.  Ft. Lauderdale is one of my favorite places.  There's a lot of private development money which is spurring the face-lift on FLL.  I love their "New River" district.  One distinct difference there which spoke to me was a narrow waterway not unlike San Antonio or OKC on which their river front development is taking place.

You can't compete with the asset of having one of the nation's best natural resources, the Rocky Mountains, in plain view of Denver.  LA is two hours or less driving distance from beaches, hip beach-side towns, and the mountains.

You also mentioned three out of four places which are major transportation and commerce hubs and have been for well over 100 years.  Combine FLL's Port Everglades with Miami's port and you've got one of the major sea ports on the east coast.

FLL has also become a haven for the wealthy.  Much of that wealth has been earned in other parts of the country and imported there.  How many people want to move to the prairie to retire if they can afford to live in FLL or Miami?  Muddy river water just doesn't have the same attraction as the ICW and the Atlantic Ocean where people can navigate in their mega yachts.

It's hard to draw direct comparisons, but consider that we lack a lot of the resources which must be in place first in order for ancillary quality of life development to become more of an attraction.

quote:
If the folks in Owasso, Broken Arrow, and other cities that voted this down think they've done something good for their communities, they are wrong. How many other developers were watching this to see the outcome? What other developments might have been waiting in the wings to be announced? Which employers were considering Tulsa for expansion, but now will not because we're viewed as an area that doesn't have the attractions their employees will want? The truth might make some people regret their no votes.

BA and Owasso are getting a lot of brick and mortar development via private development with some incentives thrown in by their cities.  They also got direct benefit from V-2025.  A lot can be learned from this tax package failing.  The outlying communities will not support it unless it builds something in their community.  I'm not saying that's the right attitude, but that's what their attitude is and this needs to be considered and heeded on future county-wide referendums.

I can assure you other developers, faced with high construction and land acquisition costs in other parts of the country, are looking for new untapped opportunities. The selfish No River Tax folks have likely ensured that Tulsa metro has now been crossed off their lists. If the citizens of an area don't think it's worth spending money to live there, why would outsiders?

Not true.  Tulsa is still a bargain for development.  Private development can and will happen without this package.  One reason is, Jerry Gordon took the risk and proved it's viable even with sand in the river.  Monkey-see, monkey-do.  If it can do that well for Jenks, just think what it will do at mid-town where we already have the benefit of a LWD.  The Creek Tribe will take advantage of it too eventually.

Hardly selfish in voting no.  What you are failing to grasp is there was not one bit of wording in the ballot resolution which would bind the county to provide the projects as promised.  There's also been no formal committment from the Corps of Engineers that the low water dams can, in fact, be built.  That was a cornerstone of this plan.

We have a very nice River Parks system as-is.  Kaiser's $12mm gift will go a long ways in improving it.  I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Conan,

"Government incentives"?  You want to give money to private companies?

As a personal opinion, no.  

As far as competing with what other cities do to lure good jobs, what's the alternative to being competitive?  It's a good argument that an investment like $350mm to lure more Boeing work to town adds the most to a tax base.  It also has the ability to spur relocation of key suppliers and provides opportunity for locals to start their own business in support of those jobs and to become direct suppliers.

I might get whipped on this by someone like CF who is a more schooled economist, but IMO, the best way to build a "micro-economy" within a city is to lure a large anchor which will directly (not indirectly via liveability improvements) provide new high-paying jobs to a market and which will demand suppliers and vendors re-locate in close proximity.

So, it's okay for government to pad the profits of a private company, but it's not okay for them to serve the public good?  You really think that?  Why have government at all?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1st off, Conan, that is a train of thought.  However, to do so the city must give the perspective giant HUGE incentives to move here.  Tulsa is not willing to do that, that's why Citgo left.  In general, Tulsans seem opposed to such acts as "corporate charity."  

Again, not to disparage the idea.  That is the M.O. of many metro areas.  I just do not think Tulsans have the stomach for it, and am of the opinion that in such a deal the company makes sure they win more than anyone.  Not too mention you hit the dangerous zone of subsidizing a competitor of a long standing Tulsa company (ie. Delta, move your Maintenance here and we'll give you money.  Which is directly to the detriment of AA).

What I would suggest, is making Tulsa a business friendly atmosphere.  Have "The Metro Chamber," the city, County, ORU or Tulsa create top notch small business workshops to help start or grow businesses.  Have the city inspection process as easy as possible.  Encourage the State to make registration, incorporation, and taxation as business friendly as possible.  Let Tulsans make Tulsa great, and if you want to join us all the better.

Look around.  QT, OneOK, HP, ORU, The University of Tulsa, Williams, SEM Group... most of the great companies in Tulsa were born here and grew up here.  THATs the best long term solution.  

Any company that is bribed into moving to Tulsa, while good, may just as easily be bribed elsewhere on down the road.  Not to mention, like any auction, it proves Tulsa was willing to pay more than anyone else.

- - - -

quote:
Wichita? Albuquerque? Cleaner?

Having been to both of those cities in the last 6 months - yes.  Easily yes.  Admitedly, I was only in select areas of Wichita (Eastern Business park and downtown area) but it was nice.  And Albuquerque I saw extensively.  I'm sure it has some ghetto, but most of that city is very nice.  ESPECIALLY for a desert city.
- - - -

And I am not BLAMING the "no" people for anything.  I am merely turning to you for alternatives.

We voted for $350mm in V-2025 to give an incentive to an exisiting Tulsa employer, Boeing, to expand jobs here.  Hardly a rival of American Airlines, but rather AA is one of Boeing's larger customers.  Not that this base would be directly related to customer support for AA, but we would have gotten our snout in the 787 Dreamliner trough.

Citgo would have left regardless.  The oil industry in the U.S. is centralized in Houston, that's just the way it is.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
I'd guess there will be a mixed use development up and running in three years or less where the concrete plant is now.  That seems to be the major attraction a lot of people would like to see.

No, it won't be. You all blew it. This is from an article in the Houston Chronicle  and it includes a telling quote from the Rick Huffman of Branson Landing:

quote: With a "no" vote, the city also lost a chance at landing a major development on the river's west bank and at least $117 million pledged by the private sector for river improvements, such as fountains and better public restrooms.

Both were contingent on the passage of the 0.4-cent tax increase that would have paid for low-water dams, land acquisition, pedestrian bridges and habitat improvements along 42 miles of the river from Keystone Dam to the city of Jenks.
"A lot of towns would kill for that amenity," said Rick Huffman, chief executive officer of HCW Development Co., which announced plans for a 700,000-square-foot project on the west bank of the Arkansas River contingent on a "yes" vote.
"To just let it sit there and be undeveloped and give it back to the next generation of citizens _ people need to think not about themselves, but about their kids, and their kids' kids."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5203605.html

The whole article is very bad for Tulsa. You all just refused to believe what anyone was saying, everyone was lying or on the take. This is the press we are getting, from Houston and from Oklahoma City. It's pathetic.
Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by swake Well, the gift money is gone, the development is gone. We have a concrete plant to look at instead. Great job morons, you saved yourselves fifty cents a week.

We're going to be staring at a closed concrete plant aren't we?