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

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Yeah, I'm still strugging to get my next door neighbor to trim my tree. []

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

TIF is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. When a public project such as a road, school, or hazardous waste cleanup is carried out, there is an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and often new investment (new or rehabilitated buildings, for example). This increased site value and investment creates more taxable property, which increases tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the "tax increment." Tax Increment Financing dedicates that increased revenue to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for public projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities.

A TIF is not perfect, but it is a much better financing vehicle than a sales tax increase.

Ironic that Jenks is looking at continuing with the plans for the low water dams by using existing V2025 funds and the option of a TIF.

[cannon_fodder]

Official Word

KOTV talked to the parties in question...

QT has said they are out, it doesnt make sense for them to pour money into river projects if the corridor as a whole remains under utilized.  And Kaiser's stipulated additional money on a match of public money - if we don't support it, he will not either.  ~$125,000,000.00 of private funds gone.

They also called Huffman on Tulsa Landing:

quote:From our perspective right now, it's probably dead.

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=137657

to fox he said:

quote:right now all plans, at least for now, are off the table.

The guy wasn't asking for a handout, just help consolidating the property in exchange for MASSIVE development.  Don't most cities do that as standard operating procedure?

Meanwhile, in a radio interview the BA mayor said that defeating this proposal will allow Broken Arrow to compete for the development that would have been given to Tulsa.  Jenks is pushing forward to develop their river themselves.  And Tulsa sits with its *&%$*@ dangling in the wind.

This is why I voted YES.  Because I thought a NO vote would send a message to everyone else that Tulsans are not interested in improving our community any more.  We passed 2025, all is well in the world.  Now go to Jenks or Broken Arrow.

$200,000,000 public money for $700,000,000 private money.  The more I read, the more pissed I get.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Well put Carlton. Its time for Tulsa to realize that we should drop this semblance of "family" and work for the good of our city. They will benefit from our inward looking attitude. A temporary city income tax looks better each day.

Chesty, I am a doubter of the TIF concept. It simply sounds like a credit card deal to me. We're borrowing against "potential" increases in tax revenue, not guaranteed increases. Meanwhile the debt still needs to be repaid whether the project succeeds or not. I like to think of the TIF as a tool for liquidity, somewhat like I do my credit card. Once you see it as a solution to a long term lack of financial stability, you risk too much.

[Srogue]

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?

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.

First off, why is it that whenever something needs to be paid for, the first F'ing thing that is thought of to do is a tax?  If I have a need in my life that I need to pay for, i.e. new doors, a new grill, some non-emergency repairs to my house etc, do I go to my boss and say I need a raise each time?  No.  That would be nice indeed, but no, I don't think that would work out too well.  Instead, I do somethign totally wierd, its called budgeting.  Yeah, I know most of you pro-tax people haven't heard of that concept but here is how it goes.  You basically live off of as much or less than you make.  If you have a need, you spend less in other areas of your budget and direct money towards that new need until it is paid for.  If it is a large neeed, and I have friends or family who are willing to help, they can give me some assitance.

Why doesnt' government learn this concept.  Instead of everytime a new little rich person's pet project comes up, esepcially a NON-Emergency such as this pet project, they don't propose yet again a new tax, that they budget for it, cut spendign in some areas, accept donatiosn from private persons and enterprises, and spend some time saving for it.  The answer?  They aren't fiscally resposnible.  If they saved any moderate amount of money the morons in charge would blow it.

The problem isn't the citizens, we are already highly taxed, the problem is the governments inability to budget, and are fiscally irresponsible.  Especially on a pet-project non-emergency issue like this, they want to tax the entire county.  Thank God there are some people with sense left in Tulsa (Majority of people in tulsa voted no) and in the suburbs.

Additionally, I love these pro-river peopel who keep puttign out this pie in the sky stuff about massive growth and jobs, which is so much bs it's halarious.  Most of the jobs would be temporary, and the permentant jobs would be oh so wonderful service level jobs, of which there are a glut already around Tulsa.  So please, give us some real, good paying jobs, and I might get excited.  

As for how are they going to pay for it?  Private enterprise, and if the city wants in on the action, they can do a city tax.  I'm sorry, i'm not going to pay for a disguised "Channels" project of Mr. Warren's, and if those private philanthrpists who were goign to donate money to the first plan, will not do so now, it just proves they don't really care about developing the river for the benefit of the city, but just wanted the city to foot the bill for their little pet project.

Sorry, the "channels" in all its glory is sailing down the river.  Oh, and why the hate for BA?  Vindictive much?  And it may be good to know that Owasso voted No by a higher margin than BA did, 75% compared to 65%, so uhm yeah.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Official Word

KOTV talked to the parties in question...

QT has said they are out, it doesnt make sense for them to pour money into river projects if the corridor as a whole remains under utilized.  And Kaiser's stipulated additional money on a match of public money - if we don't support it, he will not either.  ~$125,000,000.00 of private funds gone.

They also called Huffman on Tulsa Landing:

quote:From our perspective right now, it's probably dead.

http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=137657

to fox he said:

quote:right now all plans, at least for now, are off the table.

The guy wasn't asking for a handout, just help consolidating the property in exchange for MASSIVE development.  Don't most cities do that as standard operating procedure?

Meanwhile, in a radio interview the BA mayor said that defeating this proposal will allow Broken Arrow to compete for the development that would have been given to Tulsa.  Jenks is pushing forward to develop their river themselves.  And Tulsa sits with its *&%$*@ dangling in the wind.

This is why I voted YES.  Because I thought a NO vote would send a message to everyone else that Tulsans are not interested in improving our community any more.  We passed 2025, all is well in the world.  Now go to Jenks or Broken Arrow.

$200,000,000 public money for $700,000,000 private money.  The more I read, the more pissed I get.

That's an inaccurate analysis.  Mike Thornbrugh from QT was on KOTV last night saying their 41st St. gathering space project will be scaled back, they are not out.

Kaiser's foundation has the funds to help some in the future if they want to for the right reasons, right now is not likely the best time to talk to them about it.  I'm also miffed that they wouldn't go ahead and give the parks and pools their $5mm gift regardless of the vote outcome.  That might go a long way in smoothing some ruffled feathers and would be a nice gift to neglected areas of the city.  They could have made an unconditional donation to the river unless there's something tax-wise which would not have allowed them to do so.  If there's anything you can think of, let me know.

I'm becoming more irked by the nature of the conditional philanthropy the more I think about it.  

I'm totally mystified how the Warren Foundation, whose leader spearheaded The Channels (because we needed to develop the river) was absent in weighing in with PR or with substantial funds.  

Consolidate what property???  It's all in one parcel at the concrete plant.  I'm becoming more convinced there had already been an agreement with HCW for a "Tulsa Landing".  We owe it to ourselves to shop around so we don't wind up with Branson tacky.

[Srogue]

Just to emphasise also, those private donors who were putting money up for this project, if they are now takign their ball and going home, pretty much shows their true motivation about the project and what they wanted out of it.

If they truely want to see the city grow and benefit, they will still be behind a project to do just that, but if they were in it for personal and selfish reasons, then... proof is in the pudding.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Srogue

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?

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.

First off, why is it that whenever something needs to be paid for, the first F'ing thing that is thought of to do is a tax?  If I have a need in my life that I need to pay for, i.e. new doors, a new grill, some non-emergency repairs to my house etc, do I go to my boss and say I need a raise each time?  No.  That would be nice indeed, but no, I don't think that would work out too well.  Instead, I do somethign totally wierd, its called budgeting.  Yeah, I know most of you pro-tax people haven't heard of that concept but here is how it goes.  You basically live off of as much or less than you make.  If you have a need, you spend less in other areas of your budget and direct money towards that new need until it is paid for.  If it is a large neeed, and I have friends or family who are willing to help, they can give me some assitance.

Why doesnt' government learn this concept.  Instead of everytime a new little rich person's pet project comes up, esepcially a NON-Emergency such as this pet project, they don't propose yet again a new tax, that they budget for it, cut spendign in some areas, accept donatiosn from private persons and enterprises, and spend some time saving for it.  The answer?  They aren't fiscally resposnible.  If they saved any moderate amount of money the morons in charge would blow it.

The problem isn't the citizens, we are already highly taxed, the problem is the governments inability to budget, and are fiscally irresponsible.  Especially on a pet-project non-emergency issue like this, they want to tax the entire county.  Thank God there are some people with sense left in Tulsa (Majority of people in tulsa voted no) and in the suburbs.

Additionally, I love these pro-river peopel who keep puttign out this pie in the sky stuff about massive growth and jobs, which is so much bs it's halarious.  Most of the jobs would be temporary, and the permentant jobs would be oh so wonderful service level jobs, of which there are a glut already around Tulsa.  So please, give us some real, good paying jobs, and I might get excited.  

As for how are they going to pay for it?  Private enterprise, and if the city wants in on the action, they can do a city tax.  I'm sorry, i'm not going to pay for a disguised "Channels" project of Mr. Warren's, and if those private philanthrpists who were goign to donate money to the first plan, will not do so now, it just proves they don't really care about developing the river for the benefit of the city, but just wanted the city to foot the bill for their little pet project.

Sorry, the "channels" in all its glory is sailing down the river.  Oh, and why the hate for BA?  Vindictive much?  And it may be good to know that Owasso voted No by a higher margin than BA did, 75% compared to 65%, so uhm yeah.

Wrong analogy of going to your boss and asking for a raise. The city is more like a business competing for jobs and people with other cities. Sometimes a business takes some of its profits or does without in one are in order to "increase sales". You want the company to make more money in the long run. It takes money to make money.  Whenever I need more money, I dont budget, I make more money. Remember going to college and surviving on Ramen Noodles and living in a tiny dump? (well some of us may have) It was hard work and sacrifice so that later in life that investment would pay off. I could have focused on a job and eaten and lived better during that time, but I knew if I sacrificed in the short term and made an investment, the rest of my life would be better. I do agree that taxes shouldnt be the first and only notion, that all other options should be put in the mix.

As for the citizens already being highly taxed. We have been through this argument before. All taxes, local, sales, state, federal, city income, state income, utilities, property, fees, gasoline, tags, etc. added together. Oklahomans have the lowest tax burden in the nation. Could we do better with our efficiencies and waste, I am sure every state could. If you find any waste, corruption etc. let someone know. Could we arrange our collection of taxes differently, less city tax more of something else? Nobody is stopping anyone from trying.

[Steve]

I emailed a letter to the Tulsa World today, in response to their "Muddy Water" editorial that was in today's paper.  Here is what I said.

Tulsa World,
Regarding your October 11, 2007 editorial "Muddy Water":

I am one of the "naysayer and anti-progress" citizens that you bitterly refer to and I want to state exactly why I voted "No" on the river tax.  Yesterday I went to the grocery store to only buy a ½ gallon of milk, and had to pay 19 cents sales tax.  19 cents sales tax for just one ½ gallon of milk!  You want Tulsa County citizens to add insult to injury and vote in MORE sales taxes?  I vowed many years ago that as long as the state and local governments in Oklahoma continue to charge regressive sales taxes on basic food and clothing, necessities of life, that I would vote "NO" on any further sales tax proposal, whatever the issue.  The only exception I have made to that vow in the past 30 years was to vote "Yes" on the portion of Vision 2025 that is building our new arena.

River development is already happening, and will continue without public funding.  If proposed recreation and entertainment projects for the river are sound and good economic propositions, they will happen as they should with private money and without any additional regressive taxes.

You speak of ingratitude towards the private donors and their $117 million.  If they were doing this for public accolades and ego, then I don't want their money.  If they think their projects worthy, then they should donate the money, no strings attached, and not try to coerce the public into passing more taxes.

Thank you Tulsa County Citizens for seeing to reason on this one, and I suggest the Tulsa World and Commissioner Randi Miller just swallow their "sour grapes" and move on.

Steve E., Tulsa resident since 1957.

[Rico]

I like it when a plan comes together.........

Originally posted by the Artist.

quote:
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

I was kinda curious as to why Swake is quoting the "Houston" newspaper and sounding more and more like Davazz .... But reading this made it all so clear...

They all have been Stepfordized..





Beware the Stepford's shall inherit the Burbs....!

[}:)]

[TheArtist]

As for the donors. QT is going to do something along the river and Kaiser already is. QT will do a scaled down version. No need for the piers and some other things, piers traditionally go over water not sand lol. Plus with no pedestrian bridge that will change some things including "traffic flow". I would like to hope that Kaiser would do some of his 71st concept. Again, the piers with restaurants or things on it may not be realistic at this point, but the rest of the stuff could still be done and enjoyed.

I can understand to an extent the desire to have "conditional philanthropy". If you have x amount of dollars to give and several things vying for that money, you try and figure out which one will get the most bang for the buck and try to get others to chip in to make your project have as much impact as possible. If one project can only be done half way its better not to do that and use your money on another project that will see more results. Why not use your money for leverage and shop around to get the most impact? Cant hurt. Be stupid not to do that especially if you see other philanthropists doing more with their money by getting others to chip in.


I remember people telling me I was too cheap on my prices for my artwork. I said I was trying to make my prices affordable for more people and get lots of work. People pointed out to me that my work wasnt valued by those who got it because it was so cheap. Some wouldnt even hire me because I was cheap lol. The more something costs the more its valued and appreciated.

If you were to give something it would be better to give it to someone who would really valued it versus not appreciate it at all.

If you are going to give, give where it is most appreciated and or will do the most good.

As with everything, I think there should be a balance and limits with what you give unconditionally and conditionally. Each circumstance is different.

Isnt mr Kaiser giving 12 million to the river as it is? And I bet the city put conditions on what he wanted to do and we wanted conditions put on what he was going to give with this river tax.

Nothing in life is free.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Srogue

Just to emphasise also, those private donors who were putting money up for this project, if they are now takign their ball and going home, pretty much shows their true motivation about the project and what they wanted out of it.

If they truely want to see the city grow and benefit, they will still be behind a project to do just that, but if they were in it for personal and selfish reasons, then... proof is in the pudding.

What would that say their motivation was wiseguy? Did you miss the part where he said going in that if we didn't match the funds they would be moved somewhere else? He personally made the analogy on TV if you watched. "Its like watching someone cross the street who needs help. You offer to help them, but if they don't want the help you leave them alone". Pretty clear to me. So again, what would be their true motivation and how would you know that?