Taylor giving up on the river?

[wenwilwa]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by wenwilwa

A KOTV news clip indicates that, now that the river tax vote has failed, Mayor Taylor will spend no more time on river development. Taylor says, "I think it's clear people do not think the river is a priority. It's time to move on. We've spent a lot of staff time on it. It's time to move on to other projects."

Is this really the message that Tulsans sent to our elected officials? My interpretation from all of the debate leading up to the election is that in fact Tulsans *do* want river development. Clearly the 48% who voted yes want river development, and nearly everyone I know who voted no said they were in favor of river development but wanted to find other funding sources for it.

Do city officials now have no obligation to entice private developers to our west bank? What about the dams? Are county officials now off the hook for those?

I'm intrigued.  Please, tell us more about these "other sources".  What, exactly, is the city supposed to "entice" developers with?

The majority spoke; they said no to the river.  There is no money, and so, the Mayor is doing exactly the right thing.  She's moving on because you told her to move on. She's moving on because you left her nothing to work with.  She's moving on because you even turned down $117 million in private funding.

Go ask one of the no tax advocates if they still think we can do something on the river without raising taxes.  If they were honest, they'd say, "Lower your expectations...a LOT."  

You may be feeling a little buyer's remorse.  I suggest you savor it for a while.  Next time somebody tells you that you can get something for nothing, maybe you'll remember this.  There is no free lunch.

Chicken Little, I'm not sure if you're speaking directly to me or not, but since you quoted my original post and used the word "you," I'll assume you are.

I happen to be part of the 48% who voted yes. I did so with reservations, but because I live close to the river near 61st and Peoria (an area that desperately needs revitalization in order to off-set the oversaturation of multi-family, low income housing and ensuing crime), I felt that I needed to accept any plan offered up by our elected officials in hopes that it might raise property values near my home. Additionally, I enjoy using the Riverwalk in Jenks and would be very happy to see similar pedestrian-friendly, family-friendly options along Tulsa's portion of the river.

Now, back to your question. Even though I stood to gain from this tax package -- and I voted yes -- I was not entirely disappointed that it failed. My reaction was, "Well, now our City officials will go back to the drawing board and start working on a city-driven plan for developing Tulsa's portion of the river." After all,  the yes votes won by narrow margin within the city.

How can it be done you ask? How can we "entice" developers to our west bank? What are the "other sources" of funding? I don't know. I'm not an expert in economic development, but I do expect our elected officials (or their hired assistants) to be. I expect Mayor Taylor to be in touch with the true sentiments of her constituents and to set Don Himmelfarb on a mission to give the city of Tulsa what, in my opinion, they did say they wanted: yes to incremental river development, no to a county-wide tax increase. Start with Michael Bates' suggestion if you like. Call me naive, but I do believe that with political will this could be done.

Right now, I don't see political will. I see sour grapes.

[waterboy]

What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?

Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.

[sgrizzle]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071011_1_A1_hBoth58247

quote:
River plans docked for now
Mayor Kathy Taylor
 


By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
10/11/2007

Both sides of the proposal seem ready to move on to other public priorities.


Don't expect to see another publicly funded Arkansas River development proposal floated anytime soon.

The day after Tulsa County residents rejected a $282 million initiative, proponents and opponents alike said the issue is dead for now.

"I can't see a proposal similar to this having any traction at all," said state Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, who opposed the plan.

County Commissioner Randi Miller was instrumental in getting the county involved in a river development proposal. Don't expect her to do so again in the near future.

"There's no Plan B," she said. "River development is over."

And it will likely be a long time before the county steps up to back another river development plan.

"The citizens have spoken, and we will move on," Miller said.

Tuesday's results seem to indicate that that's a good idea: Only two Tulsa County communities, Tulsa and Jenks, approved the plan.

It died in the other suburbs.

For Tulsa City Councilor Roscoe Turner, that was just fine.

"Each individual entity is supposed to take care of themselves," he said. "The county needs to stay in county business."

Mayor Kathy Taylor said Wednesday that the city, too, is moving on.

"We've got a lot of things on our plate," she said. "We're going to move on to other priorities."

At least one major developer, however, still likes what he sees in Tulsa.

"We believe in Tulsa; we're just ready for Tulsa to believe in Tulsa," said Patrick Cox, an associate with HCW Development Co. of Branson, Mo.

Last week, officials from the company visited Tulsa to once again say they were interested in building a mixed-use development along the west bank of the river between 11th and 21st streets.

Cox said that's still the goal, but the company will need some type of public funding mechanism or tax increment finance district to help provide infrastructure.

He said that if Tulsa still has an interest in HCW's project, "we'll hear from their leaders and we'll get back in the race."

Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed.

The same goes for the $5 million pledged for maintenance and repair of city parks and pools.

"We're basically going to refocus on other priorities," he said. "The voters reached their conclusion."

One exception is the gathering area planned for 41st Street and Riverside Drive.

QuikTrip spokesman Mike Thornbrugh said the company will build a modest version of the proposed gathering area by September 2008 to mark its 50th year of business.

"QuikTrip is still going to do something very attractive that people can utilize and appreciate," he said.

Tuesday's vote made one thing clear: Talk of river development draws a crowd.

Thirty-nine percent -- 127,794 of the county's 328,314 registered voters -- cast a ballot.

In the end, however, proponents of the plan could persuade only 47.5 percent of voters to say "yes," while 52.5 screamed "no."

Mike Neal, chief executive officer of the Tulsa Metro Chamber, said he looks forward to the day those numbers are reversed.

"I think that if this community ever wants to fully develop its river, it's going to require a public investment," he said.

[Chicken Little]

I apologize.  I presumed you voted no.  There are several "no" voters who, like you, are expecting the Mayor to deliver River development even though there is no majority support and no money.  That's an unrealistic position sold to you by people like Michael who told you that you can have your cake and eat it, too.  You can't.  Michael says:

quote: It's likely, though, that after trying to convince voters that the false dilemma set up by the County Commissioners was a true dilemma, that their way was the only way to make our river happen, that they've convinced themselves as well.

Hogwash.  That's just Michael trying to deflect criticism that he has rightfully earned for himself by over-promising.  Everybody is moving on because the voters, led by people like Michael, told them to.

Speaking of over-promising, I'm happy to talk about Michael's west bank TIF.  It's a limited tool.  It could be used in a small area like the concrete plant, to do very basic public improvements, i.e. streets.  If there are still developers who will build, sure, do a TIF.  But, as I mentioned...lower your expectations...a LOT.  The voters are cheap, so, don't expect developers to be any better.

A couple of other things about the TIF.  Not one dime of the revenue generated within the TIF will be available for streets, schools, police or other non-TIF related costs for decades.  And, the taxpayers will not get to vote on that.    A TIF is just a tool, it ain't no magic money tree.  You don't have to be an expert on economic development to understand this, there is no money for river development, the voters said no.

[TheArtist]

I see no problem with a tiff in this instance. If its paying for infrastructure in this part of town instead of that part of town, its still paying for basic infrastructure. (if our only real option is to go to Jenks, well my tax money wont be going to ANYTHING in Tulsa that way)  

The hope is that a Tulsa Landing development will do several things.



Provide one more amenity and quality of life attraction for Tulsa. Its yet one more thing to help make Tulsa more desirable place to move to, attract and retain young people, workers, etc. Be one more interesting place to go, "something to do".

Spur development in the area around it. Usually when someting like this goes in there is a spillover effect. Property values increase around it (tax collections go up that way) More businesses, condos, etc. develop in the area to coattail off the traffic.

It will give downtown, convention, arena, business,, visitors another option thats more "family friendly" than the club scene, and also improve our cities image as a lively place with several things to do in the core of the city.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Well if she had just made it a city tax and not a county tax, it probably would have passed.
She seems to forget that she is the mayor of Tulsa and not the mayor of Tulsa County. (LaFortune was the same)

ENOUGH REGIONALISM!

You're right Cubs. I think its time the cities squared off against each other. Teams are way over rated. You ready for the battle between the heathen liberal city folk versus the humble spiritual salt of the earth? It starts when we turn off the water spigot.

[sgrizzle]

Some view Vision2025 as "pushing forward" but I think of it as "catching up." since while we may be building a lot of nice things, once it's done the main effects is that we won't be behind OKC, Wichita, etc. anymore. Keep in mind that Vision2025 was scaled back to make room for the boeing tax. The River Tax, in my mind, was adding back some of the lost luster and things that really would've helped create a Tulsa we want to be in in 2025.

Probably no-one would support it but I would support a revision to Vision2025 that would address the perceived future overage AND fund the river. Revise Vision2025 that is will end when they have received $800M in revenue, not on a certain date. No sooner, no later. According to Eagleton's theory, that will actually make the tax end sooner than it will now. That will assure another $200M in funding for river projects, etc.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?

Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.

Hopefully, our elected leaders are a tad bit more mature than you and don't take the "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude."  If, on the other hand, they are as childish as you, they really should just resign their offices.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

What you see are people bone tired of fighting an entrenched attitude that with very little funding managed to KO $117million in donations. What leaders are willing to sacrifice their remaining time in office and their re-election prospects to present another plan that would still be unacceptable to the 40%?

Its not sour grapes so much as sadness that a group of people who alleged conspiracy, incompetence and employed personal character assasination and untruths were able to stop what on retrospect was a good starting point for development. Perhaps I am naive, but it looks like the next plan should come from their ranks. They are the ones MIA.

Hopefully, our elected leaders are a tad bit more mature than you and don't take the "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude."  If, on the other hand, they are as childish as you, they really should just resign their offices.

Right back at 'ya oil hog. I guess its easier for you to make a personal attack rather than address my assertions. You prove my point though, thanks.

[lsimmons]

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons

She's so out of touch with why this failed.

Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.

I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...

SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.

So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.

Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?

Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by lsimmons

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons

She's so out of touch with why this failed.

Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.

I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...

SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.

So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.

Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?

Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.

The endless stream of ugly, idiotic, shamelessly and wildly false accusations from the "no" side are what confused the issue.

One of my favorites was Friendly Bear's accusation Chet Cadieux had lowered gas prices to help fix the vote and that the day after the vote Quik Trip was going to jack prices back up, you know, "the Tulsa Premium"

It is good to know that there won't be illegal immigrant, gay, criminal, drug dealers hanging out at the river with all the dead fish and birds now that the vote failed. We would not want them getting sick from the polluted water or have to eat a burger in the awful smell.

FYI, the price of gas went down 3 cents yesterday.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by lsimmons

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons

She's so out of touch with why this failed.

Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.

I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...

SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.

So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.

Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?

Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.

I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.

Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics.  My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.

My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.

They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?

But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by lsimmons

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons

She's so out of touch with why this failed.

Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.

I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...

SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.

So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.

Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?

Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.

The endless stream of ugly, idiotic, shamelessly and wildly false accusations from the "no" side are what confused the issue.

One of my favorites was Friendly Bear's accusation Chet Cadieux had lowered gas prices to help fix the vote and that the day after the vote Quik Trip was going to jack prices back up, you know, "the Tulsa Premium"

It is good to know that there won't be illegal immigrant, gay, criminal, drug dealers hanging out at the river with all the dead fish and birds now that the vote failed. We would not want them getting sick from the polluted water or have to eat a burger in the awful smell.

FYI, the price of gas went down 3 cents yesterday.

Sheesh Swake, how about showing some dignity.

I bet you were a lot of fun when you'd lose a game of "Hi-Ho Cheerio" when you were a kid. [xx(]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by lsimmons

quote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lsimmons

She's so out of touch with why this failed.

Sounds to me like she's just pissed that she won't get to redecorate the River Parks just yet.

I'm really quite disgusted with the "yes" reaction to this defeat. Come on we need solutions not a lot of whining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait a minute. You guys Swiftboated the plan...and we have to come up with a replacement? To h*ll with that! Your turn smarty pants, and do it without a tax and by pleasing all the suburban whiners. Sheesh...

SIGH......Nobody "swiftboated" anything. What happened was the result of a poorly polished proposal that was rushed to a vote far quicker that it should have been. If you'll step back and look at how all of this transpired, I think you would have to agree. Hmmm, according to KOTV, 30% of voters thought this was for the Channel project. Lack of educating the public? You tell me.

So, thank you Waterboy for validating my previous post on the "Yes" whiners.

Oh ya, did I mention I am very much for River development, I live in BA, and I voted yes?

Relax and regroup. Quit the whining.

I agree with Swake, though I'm not as vitriolic.

Go back Simmons and look at how this was fought. Lots of spin, half truths and outright lies. When that became tedious they went for allegations of incompetent planning. Then lastly resorted to criticizing Kaiser, Taylor and Miller for their appearance. Trashy political tactics.  My particular area of knowledge was the river. My favorite conspiracy? No water in the river prior to the vote. A close second was seeing kayaks on that same low level river.

My favorite lie? There are no catfish in the river anymore since the Zink lowater dam was built. Nonsense. You can look off the river bridges and see them schooling. Many of my acquaintenances were very concerned about the environmental impact because of such distortions.

They took the strength of the development argument which was our proximity to a natural blessing and turned it into a stinky, polluted, mismanaged, environmental disaster that insiders hoped to profit from. One even called it a superfund site! If that is not Swiftboating then what is?

But you want them to regroup, spend more money and political capital to be blindsided once again? I want them to also, but I wouldn't be surprised or let down if they don't.

I'll agree there were some un-educated comments and un-founded conspiracy theories coming out of the No side, just not from me [].  

However, a case can be made for the Yes campaign stretching the truth as well in many instances and playing on emotions in lieu of substantive facts attractive to more voters.

I think the worst thing the Yes side can do right now is alienate people who voted no by calling them idiots and saying they lack vision, and plying accusations.  I'm of the personal opinion that there's a minimum of another 10% which can be brought on board from the No side with more time.  

Also, had this been a plan with more comprehensive benefits for each community in Tulsa County, with a ten year collection term, I think it would have passed county-wide just like V-2025.  And no I wouldn't be throwing a temper-tantrum right now had it passed.

A better use of time would be to figure out where they failed instead of complaining about how the No contingent failed them.  It really will never come to fruition if some people won't swallow their pride long enough to look realistically at where they came up short.

[patric]

If the Oklahoma Poll figures are credible, only 2% of people in Tulsa County were actually against developing the river, leaving 50% of voters with the impression the plan itself was flawed, bogus, misleading or just too confusing.  98% want development, but half weren't sold on the plan.

For those in power to look at Tuesdays election results and proclaim that Tulsans just dont want river development is disconnected, irresponsible and just plain bad leadership.