Taylor giving up on the river?

[dsjeffries]

quote:"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."

I'd support a TIF, definitely, and the City needs to pursue this development if nothing else.

[lsimmons]

quote: 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.

Waterboy, I understand your frustration with the opposition and because you seem to be close to the campaign. I think however that your reasoning for the failure and the reasoning of others shared here is far too complicated.

I agree this was a divisive and volatile vote but I sincerely doubt that most rural residents (north Tulsa included) looked at this vote the same way you or I or most others on this board did.  We're a bit of a bubble and tend to overanalyze, myself included.

(5 minute phone call to see if I'm crazy) For instance, I just made a call and asked my mother who is retired and living in Owasso how she voted and what she thought of the issue. Her response? She didn't really know much about it but she voted no because she didn't want more tax. She thought the money was going to be used to "clean up" the river because it stinks. Furthermore, she felt that the companies that made it stink should be the ones that had to clean it up.

This vote was a long shot from the beginning.  We need the development desperately but we also need to be given the time to educate the voters on the merits if the measure passes.

Don't let your passion for the issue wane. Redirect it to coming up with other ideas and ways that we can make things like this work. I give a lot of proposals to people. Do I always get the sale, no. But I don't give up on other angles either.

Remember how long it took to get a measure like 2025 passed? That plan wasn't (isn't) perfect either.

The vote DID pass in the city, ya know.

[Breadburner]

Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've GOT to be kidding me.  If that happens, I WILL move to Jenks.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've GOT to be kidding me.  If that happens, I WILL move to Jenks.

What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste?  He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste?  He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.

I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.

This is a man who's not just against this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.

This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.

This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.

He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste?  He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.

I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.

This is a man who's not just against this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.

This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.

This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.

He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended

Okay, he did lose me on the tax base collapsing.  I'm still not sure I get the point of 4/10's doing that.  I see how it could apply with higher amounts or higher rates of corporate or personal taxes, not a small hike in sales tax.

I've talked to John a couple of times in the last few weeks and I've had the ear of another councilor as well.  There is a problem we have in this city and county of not managing the tax dollars we already have in a smart or efficient manner.  

I totally agree with the comment that as time goes on in Tulsa, we are getting more government administration and less essential services expected of a municipality.  We need to figure out how to take less money out of the pot before we look at new ways to add to it.

Your comment on the faux hawk- priceless.[]

[Tony]

Swake I believe the environmental side posted no false information -- in fact we were STEADFAST in pointing out the fallacies in INCOG's plan for the river -- ODWC biologists are on RECORD concerning the effects low water dams (as proposed) would have on fish and wildlife already existant in the river. For Waterboy I saw no posts which indicated Blue Cat would disappear  -- what Zink has done is impede migration of highly migratory fish, lowered water quality AND affected the QUALITY of a once premier state fishery below Keystone dam. This was due to the impediment to fish migration -- as ODWC biologists stated , just having water does not mean you have fish -- further dams will disrupt the fish which have adapted to current conditions, creating an environment that is not good for lake dwelling fish nor river adapted fish -- so the net effect is NEGATIVE for BOTH environments.

On the allegation of other "unfounded" concerns , there were just TOO MANY studies incomplete and a LOT of conjecture by proponents with no basis in STUDY. I include the COE in that proponents group. This is the same COE which permitted ZINK a monumental design FAILURE.

But we can agree to disagree - for the moment status quo.

Quotation From US Fish And Wildlife BEFORE the vote


"US FISH AND WILDLIFE STATES":


"We support an organized plan for the Arkansas River that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife resources, but the proposed plan is largely conceptual and does not include details about how impacts would be addressed, minimized and mitigated.

For example, the potential impact on the river's habitat and wildlife has not been studied extensively. The only existing fisheries study, conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, indicates that the effects of low water dams (LWD) on fish could be substantial. Building new tern nesting islands (to replace the four to six tern nesting areas that would be flooded or affected) in the created lakes would not be effective, if the terns don't have adequate forage fish to eat. Similar questions exist concerning effects on nesting and foraging bald eagles.


The controlled releases from the Sand Springs LWD would provide water quality benefits by providing low flows during a portion of the time that hydropower generation releases are not being made from Keystone Lake. However, these low flows (400 to 1,000 cubic feet per second)could not be provided during extreme droughts or anytime there is no significant hydropower generation from Keystone for more than three days, according to a draft Tennessee Valley Authority report.


During significant droughts, such as occurred in 2006, no substantial hydropower releases from Keystone may be made for weeks or months on end, resulting in extremely low or no flow in the river channel. We estimate that at least 5,000 cfs is required to make the river appear to be mostly full of water given the current configuration of the river channel; none of the LWDs has the capacity to provide that level of sustained flow.


In addition, to maintain water quality in the impounded pools, especially the pool upstream of the Creek Turnpike bridge, the lakes would need to be drained frequently and for extended periods of time.


Any natural resource benefits should not be exaggerated and the potential ecological impacts should not be overlooked."


But YOU proponents shot yourselves in the foot, obviously many of you wish the wildlife issue would go away but it won't, neither will those of us who feel it is as important as development.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by lsimmons

quote: 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.

Waterboy, I understand your frustration with the opposition and because you seem to be close to the campaign. I think however that your reasoning for the failure and the reasoning of others shared here is far too complicated.

I agree this was a divisive and volatile vote but I sincerely doubt that most rural residents (north Tulsa included) looked at this vote the same way you or I or most others on this board did.  We're a bit of a bubble and tend to overanalyze, myself included.

(5 minute phone call to see if I'm crazy) For instance, I just made a call and asked my mother who is retired and living in Owasso how she voted and what she thought of the issue. Her response? She didn't really know much about it but she voted no because she didn't want more tax. She thought the money was going to be used to "clean up" the river because it stinks. Furthermore, she felt that the companies that made it stink should be the ones that had to clean it up.

This vote was a long shot from the beginning.  We need the development desperately but we also need to be given the time to educate the voters on the merits if the measure passes.

Don't let your passion for the issue wane. Redirect it to coming up with other ideas and ways that we can make things like this work. I give a lot of proposals to people. Do I always get the sale, no. But I don't give up on other angles either.

Remember how long it took to get a measure like 2025 passed? That plan wasn't (isn't) perfect either.

The vote DID pass in the city, ya know.

I like your positive attitude. You have to have that if your making alot of presentations.[]

Here's the rub. Maybe trying to educate and convince voters in the burbs that a project will have a multiplier effect on the whole region won't work under any leadership or time frame. Maybe throwing enough meat on the table that all the dogs are fat and happy, like v2025 did, empties the cubboards and doesn't make them any less dissatisfied. That "maybe" is stuck in the heads of entrenched anti's all over the county. I heard a few minutes of idiot radio where it was not only the general consensus but damn near a religious vision that regionalism is failed policy. (I'm sorry Lord...give me another chance..I won't listen again).

I have come full circle once again. In fact, other than friendly agreements between adjoining cities to keep each other from dehydrating or burning up, regionalism may just be dead. Sales tax is as high as most can tolerate. TIF's are like credit cards with too high a limit and too easy to use. Add all the ingredients, add a little enlightened self interest and ....you get temporary city income tax country stew. Enough for everyone. Of course it works better if you lower the city sales tax a little to make it more palatable. A progressive tax that's good...and good for you.

[Sangria]

Here is what I think went wrong:

Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.

Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.

The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.

The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.

Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.

Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.

Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.

I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.

I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Here is what I think went wrong:

Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.

Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.

The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.

The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.

Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.

Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.

Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.

I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.

I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.

Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Eagleton for Mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Word.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
What's wrong with having a hawk who is watching out for taxpayers and trying to eliminate waste?  He's very abrasive (what do you expect, he's a courtroom brawler) but quite well-intentioned and motivated for the proper reasons.

I agree with you that he is very abrasive, but this is the man who said that 4/10ths of a penny sales tax increase would cause the entire Tulsa economy to COLLAPSE in on itself, basically dooming the entire city.

This is a man who's not just against this tax, but who considers ANY form of a tax immoral.

This is a man who thinks ANY quote from Winston Churchill can and should be applied to ANY situation.

This is a man who thinks that anyone with more authority than him is corrupt.

He's not a hawk--he's an egocentric faux hawk... pun intended

You've been following him pretty well. I swear, the man even looks like Churchill.

My opinion. I admire his dogged, passionate, insightful character. And he's smart. But he is blunt, abrasive, unyielding and dogmatic. Not the description of a good Mayor who must deal diplomatically with a variety of interests. Maybe a rogue congressman but he needs polishing to lead. He at first impressed me with his sensitivity re the Greenwood memoriam, but now I suspect it was the same pandering that Taylor used with Kaiser's money. Smarter, but the same. He is certainly maneuvering to build a northside, midtown coalition that could elect him but Mr. E. beware. Churchill was a war time leader. England never accepted his style in peacetime.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Here is what I think went wrong:

Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.

Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.

The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.

The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.

Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.

Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.

Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.

I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.

I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.

Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.

I don't think he's wrong here.  He's just listing a set of things that got under the "No" voters' skin.  Now - I think most of these things are silly, but like I said in another thread, these are hard lessons that must be learned about placating the "agin'ers" in the Tulsa electorate.  The "Yes" side needs to figure out how to keep the children from throwing a tantrum, and get development going.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

Here is what I think went wrong:

Kathy Taylor had no money to fix the streets or hire more officers... but she had $70 million to relocate the city offices.

Randi Miller got rid of Bells and made the voters mad.

The private donors threatened the voters. No one likes that.

The Vote Yes Campaigne were not so good at answering questions.

Offering money so people would steal the vote no signs.

Burning the Vote No signs in peoples yards.

Making silly promises to communities in an obvious attempt to buy votes.

I think they could have handled it better, been more open and honest.

I also think the only way it will pass is if they make it a city tax instead of county wide.

Honestly, you are the worst winner I have ever seen. Lets just round them all up Sangria and throw 'em in the poky.

I don't think he's wrong here.  He's just listing a set of things that got under the "No" voters' skin.  Now - I think most of these things are silly, but like I said in another thread, these are hard lessons that must be learned about placating the "agin'ers" in the Tulsa electorate.  The "Yes" side needs to figure out how to keep the children from throwing a tantrum, and get development going.

You can't discount silly when it comes to winning or losing elections.  Even silly people vote and need to be placated.[]