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

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

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.

Yeah Swake, like the Houston Chronicle really has their finger on the pulse of Tulsa.  You make it sound like HCW is the only company capable of putting in an MUD on the west bank.

You notice the developers in Jenks will forge ahead without this package.  Don't bet on it not happening a few miles up-stream.

The no people didn't blow it for everyone else.  The county was cocky and thought they could grease this a lot easier than SS, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby going it alone.  Combined with throwing out a bunch of outlandish facts and figures in the media campaign and they lost a lot of people very quickly.

I've mentioned it on another thread, why don't you take an honest appraisal of what was done wrong by the yes campaign and bust them in the chops as well before you seek fault soley in the people who voted against it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I'm not quite following you CL.  Re-read my post.  As a personal principle, no I don't like it.  So quit beating on me. []

I'm just saying that other municipalities do this all the time to lure high paying jobs which expand the tax base.  It's a necessary evil to compete with other municipalities and states which do exactly that to lure more jobs to fund the tax base and provide better quality of life as an off-shoot.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

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.

We did get our snouts in the Dreamliner.  It's called Spirit Aerosystems.  It didn't cost the taxpayers a dime.  I'm happy that we landed this, but the three card monte shuffle that created Spirit Aero also cost many former Tulsa Boeing employees their bennies, some of them their livelihoods.  Why is throwing money at a private corporation, who has no mission other than profit, a better choice than investing in something that benefits all of us?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by 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.

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.

Yeah Swake, like the Houston Chronicle really has their finger on the pulse of Tulsa.  You make it sound like HCW is the only company capable of putting in an MUD on the west bank.

You notice the developers in Jenks will forge ahead without this package.  Don't bet on it not happening a few miles up-stream.

The no people didn't blow it for everyone else.  The county was cocky and thought they could grease this a lot easier than SS, Tulsa, Jenks, and Bixby going it alone.  Combined with throwing out a bunch of outlandish facts and figures in the media campaign and they lost a lot of people very quickly.

I've mentioned it on another thread, why don't you take an honest appraisal of what was done wrong by the yes campaign and bust them in the chops as well before you seek fault soley in the people who voted against it.

Again, land cost is 10x higher in Tulsa and Tulsa cannot float the same size TIF that Jenks can without breaking the budget. So, while Tulsa can't use the same size TIF, they need MORE money.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

har!! one of the upcoming candidates who was "considering" a position with us is from houston..
but he has some "reservations" about the town...
i wonder they'll read the article... yeehaw!!!!



we'll show him the new river plan... the one we're willing to pay for...

[Chicken Little]

One reason I'm beating on you, Conan, is because paying cash to lure a company here is just as indirect as making "liveability improvements".

First off, it's likely to be a fleeting investment.  Most of the companies that play that game play it much better than us.  They will take the money and run to the next town at the first opportunity.  Second, just because others are doing it, doesn't mean we have to.  "Monkey see, monkey do." is not the way to do business if you want to win.  Your words, friend.

But spending money on making Tulsa more livable is a lure too.  And it's something that corporations can't take with them when they leave.  Nobody can take it from us.  We can make this town more livable and enjoyable for ourselves and leave an optimistic future for our children and grandchildren.  And if we do it right, private companies will want to be here, too.  Just like Soylent Green, they're made of people.  That's what I mean by public good.

But why would you hang your faith and future on the whims of a private company?  They are in it for profit, they'll be the first to tell you that.  If they can't make it in Tulsa, they'll either close up shop or move on to cheaper labor markets. For some things, it seems less risky to trust a dimwitted government that is dedicated to the public good in Tulsa, than it does trust a well-run private company that does not acknowlege that the public good even exists and couldn't find Tulsa with a map.

[TheArtist]

I do think there are a lot of positive things going on in Tulsa, but nothing yet that will create that extra bit of "attraction". Its like we are constantly just doing the basics, like any other city can do, but never doing that extra. Even 2025 was trying to catch us up to where other places are by building an arena, getting a few more buildings converted to living downtown, adding a bit more to our little "starter colleges" etc. Still nothing above and beyond average. Good, yes, of course. But if we are trying to compete with other cities, doing something extra to give us some advantage would be very nice.


I remember someone on here mentioning that Jenks wouldnt pass the river tax because they already have river development. I remember thinking, thats not the point, its the "adding to quality of life" point that will make it pass in Jenks. People arent moving to Jenks over Tulsa because there are jobs in Jenks.  Families are moving there, to be in a new neighborhood which automatically means they will be around others like themselves, new businesses will follow, (yes they have a good school district but thats not the only reason, there are comparitively good schools in Tulsa and even Glenpool is growing and will continue to grow and its schools are not very good at all, they will get better as better students continue to enroll and tax collections go up just like any school in Tulsa would if its population were growing with middle and upper middle class students). All of those are things that new families like. Where their job is is not as important as the quality of life, its the lifestyle they want and are willing to pay for.  

Tulsa will have a hard time competing with the suburbs for that demographic. It would be nice if Tulsa were to try and compete for the YPs and kids, who will be young adults looking to go to college and live in a cool urban environment, that those people in the suburbs are having. Those young people and YPs like certain things as well. They want a certain quality of life and lifestyle, being around lots of others like themselves, etc. just like the people in the Suburbs do and will move to those places that offer them. Can Tulsa compete with those other places by being average?

Its one thing to say you can grow jobs and incentivise a business, get better politicians in office etc. But are those solutions any more likely to happen and have more certainty of results as that river plan would have had? It was something tangible, that could have actually happened. Sure, try and do those other things if you want, its not as though we havent had the time before. Small business incubators? Absolutely, but again, doesnt every city do that as a matter of course? Whats exceptional or different about that?

I actually dont mind the idea of a TIFF.

Again the emphasis should not be on the jobs it immediately brings, but the quality of life and impression it brings to the city. If its a great project, THEN, that improvement will encourage growth and act as an attractor. Its not what the river plan or a tiff would immediately do, its what effects it would have later. The spillover brought about by the improved perception and quality of life.

[Tony]

Where will the money come from? The river is NOT Tulsa's best asset- and all the bets that it will be made into a blue water paradise are just silly dreams. The city is located within a green river bottom and trees parks and open space are some of Tulsa's greatest assets -- face it the river in its present state or altered into a series of lakes will not attract all those users of the resource - CLEANING up the banks, planting trees, creating pedestrian use trails, making the actual river accessible are viable proposals -- Vision 2025 monies are ALREADY approved for such beautification -- there are just no matching federal funds for low water dam construction. Take the current Vision allocation for dams and make Zink dam an environmentally friendly structure with a SAFE downstream design. Rock the banks with tiered ledges and make access to the river easier, other than that spend the money above bank level. Do something about Storm Water point source pollution, ask for tax to remediate the sludge pond odors at 21st street, clean up the concrete plant and west bank superfund areas - Kaiser would be the town HERO were he to donate his money for those purposes !!!

Tulsa will continue to grow in spite of all the doom sayers -- projects along the river will continue to grow, people who live and work in Tulsa will come and go just like they do all over our mobile society. There IS water in the river except during extreme drought and the dams won't change that.

Taxing one citizen to give to another citizen who stands to make profit off that tax is not FAIR taxation. Private enterprise make a city grow not taxing the citizens for uber interests.

[waterboy]

Anybody who thinks there is another plan being readied, or who thinks Kaiser will bestow more money on the river...needs to read Tony's post closely. They are not going to yield. Truth is a luxury to them (what superfund site for God's sake). It wasn't the plan, it wasn't the personnel. They want things spruced up a bit but they think nothing will or should...change.

Swake is right.

[Conan71]

CL- It's not really a chicken v. egg issue.  In order for a community to build and sustain quality of life assets there has to be a means to pay for it.  Those means in our community come from property taxes and consumption taxes.  Without employment, there is no money to collect for new development and on-going maintenance.  Unless a city is primarily a retirement destination, bringing retirees from other parts of the country, then you need to lure new jobs to expand your base.

Corporate incentives, whether it's free land, a corporate tax break, property tax break, an industrial district like Mid-Am industrial park in Pryor, etc. are considered an investment in bringing in additional sales, income, and property tax base via new payroll.  

FWIW, we didn't get near the amount of 787 work in Tulsa as we would have if Boeing had decided to bring more operations here.  FAIK, there's 737 and 777 work which was already being done and some 747 bulkhead work and some defense projects.  At least that's what was going on when I was a contractor there with their environmental engineering dept.

Would $350mm have been a worthy investment for the county?  If other cities are offering such incentives and Tulsa really wants to compete on equal footing, that's the cold hard reality of what it takes to lure a corporate giant with quality jobs.  Personally, I think it sucks that profitable companies look for hand-outs like this.  Either way, to help a company  maintain profitability, we wind up paying for it, whether it is via tax payer funds or in purchase prices, or fares charged on the finished product.

There's a risk in public investment in any large business.  Look how dependent we were on McDonnell Douglas, the oil companies, and Wil-Tel, but those people eventually assimilated out into other jobs elsewhere and yes some left the city.  But while those jobs were here, they added to our tax base.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I do think there are a lot of positive things going on in Tulsa, but nothing yet that will create that extra bit of "attraction". Its like we are constantly just doing the basics, like any other city can do, but never doing that extra. Even 2025 was trying to catch us up to where other places are by building an arena, getting a few more buildings converted to living downtown, adding a bit more to our little "starter colleges" etc. Still nothing above and beyond average. Good, yes, of course. But if we are trying to compete with other cities, doing something extra to give us some advantage would be very nice.


I remember someone on here mentioning that Jenks wouldnt pass the river tax because they already have river development. I remember thinking, thats not the point, its the "adding to quality of life" point that will make it pass in Jenks. People arent moving to Jenks over Tulsa because there are jobs in Jenks.  Families are moving there, to be in a new neighborhood which automatically means they will be around others like themselves, new businesses will follow, (yes they have a good school district but thats not the only reason, there are comparitively good schools in Tulsa and even Glenpool is growing and will continue to grow and its schools are not very good at all, they will get better as better students continue to enroll and tax collections go up just like any school in Tulsa would if its population were growing with middle and upper middle class students). All of those are things that new families like. Where their job is is not as important as the quality of life, its the lifestyle they want and are willing to pay for.  

Tulsa will have a hard time competing with the suburbs for that demographic. It would be nice if Tulsa were to try and compete for the YPs and kids, who will be young adults looking to go to college and live in a cool urban environment, that those people in the suburbs are having. Those young people and YPs like certain things as well. They want a certain quality of life and lifestyle, being around lots of others like themselves, etc. just like the people in the Suburbs do and will move to those places that offer them. Can Tulsa compete with those other places by being average?

Its one thing to say you can grow jobs and incentivise a business, get better politicians in office etc. But are those solutions any more likely to happen and have more certainty of results as that river plan would have had? It was something tangible, that could have actually happened. Sure, try and do those other things if you want, its not as though we havent had the time before. Small business incubators? Absolutely, but again, doesnt every city do that as a matter of course? Whats exceptional or different about that?

I actually dont mind the idea of a TIFF.

Again the emphasis should not be on the jobs it immediately brings, but the quality of life and impression it brings to the city. If its a great project, THEN, that improvement will encourage growth and act as an attractor. Its not what the river plan or a tiff would immediately do, its what effects it would have later. The spillover brought about by the improved perception and quality of life.

Overhauling the TPS school system, or at least it's image, would help alleviate some of the flight to the 'burbs and to be able to retain YP's in the central part of Tulsa.  There is a certain trend of YP's buying their first home in mid-town and then migrating to Union, Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby when the kids reach school age unless they put them in private school.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
[br
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).

I agree. Its clear that the burbs are not interested in Tulsa or its future. Let's come up with a plan to develop our section of the river, support Sand Springs to build a regulating dam, plan for our streets and schools, and promote Tulsa. Let's drop the Metro from our Chamber of Commerce. Let's find ways to collect money that is not sales tax based. Let's seriously look at the impacts of commuter tolls  or local income taxes for better or worse.

I've never been an isolationist, but I am now. I doubt I'll ever support another county initative. The burbanites can worry about their bland little bedroom communities and keep dreaming of recreating Plano. Let's focus on Tulsa and make it better and more unique.

[T-Town Now]

quote:

I agree. Its clear that the burbs are not interested in Tulsa or its future. Let's come up with a plan to develop our section of the river, support Sand Springs to build a regulating dam, plan for our streets and schools, and promote Tulsa. Let's drop the Metro from our Chamber of Commerce. Let's find ways to collect money that is not sales tax based. Let's seriously look at the impacts of commuter tolls  or local income taxes for better or worse.

I've never been an isolationist, but I am now. I doubt I'll ever support another county initative. The burbanites can worry about their bland little bedroom communities and keep dreaming of recreating Plano. Let's focus on Tulsa and make it better and more unique.

I agree that Tulsa should do something without the burbs. And I will remember this next time one of the burbs wants something from Tulsa. There is no reason for Broken Arrow, Owasso, or Jenks to exist without Tulsa, and I see nothing special about any of those little towns. Broken Arrow is nothing but strip shopping centers, concrete, and bland boring suburbia.

Owasso has more natural beauty, but there's really no special reason to live there from what I've seen.

Jenks has the new river development, which is nice but other than a few blocks of quaint antique shops, there ain't much there.

I'm sick of these little towns sucking the life out of Tulsa. They fight to take things from us, but they won't give back. Why are the taxes so high in Broken Arrow? Residents there should look at that. I know someone who lives just off of Main Street near the new PAC they're building. His street has no curbs, open gutters, and most houses have gravel driveways. Nice. Where's all that tax money going in BA?

[Tiny]

why do you think that if tulsa wants to build a park along the river and dam it up that the little towns all over the county should have to pay for it ... if tulsa wants something they should pay for it themselves ... if I want something should I expect my neighbors to pay for it?... sell them on the idea that I want to beautify my lawn but they're going to have to pitch in and help pay for the landscaping ... I don't think they'd go for it either.

[carltonplace]

^ Fine with me, next time you need a county road improvement, county park improvement or something for the Sherrif or want to put your county jail in Tulsa, I'll remember that neighbors should not help neighbors and vote no.

While we're at it, get your own Chamber of Commerce and work where you live. Build your own water supply and your own landfills. Don't send your kids to take their senior pictures in Woodward Park because I pay for that not you. Might as well shut off your roads when they reach the Tulsa City limits and stop looking at my downtown skyline.

The way the burbs think is so retarded. We're all in this together.