The Drama Continues...Tulsa Mayor Sued by Jenks

[RecycleMichael]

Don't underestimate Mayor Vic.

He has an amazing success record and is one of the "straightest talking" politicians around.

I don't have much opinion on this bridge, but think that when cities sue each other, nobody wins.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

When the new Cherokee Casino opens on Riverside.

It's pretty obvious someone stands to profit at the expense of the citizens of the City of Tulsa.

Creek Nation Casino.

It's the privatization that Vreeland wants the worst. This bridge was needed to provide a precedent for privatized toll roads/bridges to facilitate the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway through Oklahoma. That's why he insists IVI must build it and that it can't be built through a revenue sharing public partnership with Tulsa. If the citizens of Jenks want this bridge, all they have to do is elect a Mayor willing to work with the city of Tulsa to do this publicly.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

Scr*w Jenks.

They are trying to force a bridge on Tulsa that isn't economically feasible at this time, which will incur road widening costs that haven't been budgeted for.

I'm sick of Jenks, Broken Arrow, and Owasso. They are just arm pit communities sucking the life out of Tulsa.

I'm glad Taylor has been dragging her feet, if that's what she's doing. That bridge would make much more sense over on Riverside.

Scr*w Jenks and its Mayor.

Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...

Oh, forgot.... suburbs = intrinsic evil.

Carry on (my wayward son)... [8D]

[T-Town Now]

quote: Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...

You can lump them all together as far as I'm concerned. None of those communities would exist in the manner they do today without the City of Tulsa, but they have conveniently forgotten that.

[T-TownMike]

For the RECORD...

Good advice
By Tulsa World's Editorial Writers
9/6/2007

Warren: Bridge sound investment
W. K. Warren Jr., the oilman and philanthropist who is one of Tulsa's chief benefactors, says he didn't invest in the now controversial Yale Avenue bridge project because the city of Tulsa was not getting any of the revenues.

But ". . . the city of Tulsa should be building the bridge. It's a very good investment for the city."

He said the bridge is more important to Tulsa than it is to Jenks, the city now trying to build the bridge through a contract with a group of private investors.

Warren says the city of Tulsa wasn't paying enough attention to the river when the private toll bridge was proposed.

"With recent interest in our river, they are taking a look at the whole picture," he added.

Warren was referring to the campaign to pass a small sales tax to finance the public part of a program to build low-water dams and beautify the river from Sand Springs to below Jenks.

Tulsa COULD HAVE made a deal to share the profits from the bridge, but bullied by a small group of homeowners, REFUSED. When Tulsa City Hall opposed the county proposal, the cities of Jenks and Bixby made a deal with the private bridge builders.

Warren's right. Tulsa should be involved. But now, after five years of fumbling, the best and fastest way to get the bridge built and revenue coming in is for all parties to agree to share profits. The private builders have invested $1.5 million or so and can start construction in months, whereas governments likely couldn't get the bridge built in five more years.

Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland says he is not against a deal that gives Tulsa a part of the hoped-for profits from the toll bridge, and Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor says she is ready to bargain on the bridge. But the mayors have not yet seriously tried to resolve the impasse.

There is agreement among all the parties that the bridge is needed, that it should be built at Yale Avenue as planned, and that it would benefit Tulsa as well as Jenks and Bixby.

The mayors, of course, are listening to some of their noisiest constituents. The hope here is that they will decide the issue in the way that benefits the most people by building the bridge. Politics — and egos — have so far stopped agreement.

It's time for our mayors to be leaders. Taylor and Vreeland should put aside politics and resolve the bridge issue.

It's called leadership.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by T-Town Now

quote: Just so ya know... Jenks, BA and Owasso are our friends... if you want enemies, the enemies these days should be Claremore and Pryor... or maybe they're just competitors...

You can lump them all together as far as I'm concerned. None of those communities would exist in the manner they do today without the City of Tulsa, but they have conveniently forgotten that.

Would YOU have voted for a county tax that would have directly benefitted Broken Arrow and Owasso with $282mil in tax $$$ in exchange for $117mil in private donations to sweeten the pot???

I'd like to point out that north Tulsa voted this down by more than 4-1, and east Tulsa voted this down, too...

from the Tulsa World...
14 -- Mount Zion Baptist Church, 419 N. Elgin Ave. Failed 94 to 290
21 -- Tulsa Urban League, 240 E. Apache Failed 81 to 220
28 -- UAW No. 952, 1414 N. Memorial Drive Failed 93 to 281
39 -- McClure Community Center, 7440 E. Seventh St. Failed 130 to 266
60 -- Cooper Elem. School, 1808 S. 123rd East Ave. Failed 161 to 458
99 -- Disney Elementary School, 11702 E. 25th St. Failed 80 to 203
101 -- Garnett Church of Christ, 12000 E. 31st St. Failed 110 to 267

If I'm not mistaken, the Broken Arrow mayor seemed to think his city would vote this down 4-1, but in reality Broken Arrow voters were MORE LIKELY to vote for the River Tax than Owasso, north Tulsa and probably east Tulsa voters.  

When you lump everybody together you don't like, there's no room to get anything done...

Vision2025 passed county-wide with 60% voting yes after two city-wide taxes failed... for those scoring at home, if the suburbs are allowed a place at the table, they will vote for a project that builds an arena downtown instead of in BA or Jenks...

And I don't understand why anybody thinks the Kaiser Foundation is going to say ANYTHING about investing in Tulsa at this time... especially less than two weeks after the initiative failed...

[T-Town Now]

quote: Would YOU have voted for a county tax that would have directly benefitted Broken Arrow and Owasso with $282mil in tax $$$ in exchange for $117mil in private donations to sweeten the pot???

Yes, I would have if those cities were the draw for the metro area.

Face it, Tulsa is the object of interest here. It's the financial center of the metro area. If Tulsa does well, its neighboring communities benefit as well. But that is mostly a one way street. A surge of development in Broken Arrow does little for the City of Tulsa.

In fact, development in outlying areas seems to do more harm to the City of Tulsa than anything else. People move to the burbs, do their shopping out there, etc., and are employed in Tulsa. The city gets very little, if any, of their tax dollars, yet their vehicles contribute to our road deterioration, etc.

Enough is enough.

[USRufnex]

Please get off your "Tulsa is sooooo much more important than its bedroom communities" high horse and explain to me why Broken Arrow voters were less likely to oppose the River Tax when compared to north Tulsans or east Tulsans...

Splain that one, please.

Besides, when companies look at a possible location in Tulsa, doesn't the option of offering their employees low-crime suburbs with good public schools come into the mix?

Or is it ALL about midtown? [}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Please get off your "Tulsa is sooooo much more important than its bedroom communities" high horse and explain to me why Broken Arrow voters were less likely to oppose the River Tax when compared to north Tulsans or east Tulsans...

Splain that one, please.

Besides, when companies look at a possible location in Tulsa, doesn't the option of offering their employees low-crime suburbs with good public schools come into the mix?

Or is it ALL about midtown? [}:)]

Question wasn't directed at me but I'll tackle it.  

Simple- I think the vote landed along income lines.  BA is a fairly affluent suburb.  I think lack of proximity and hog-tying funds which might impede city projects in BA, Owasso, Skiatook, Sperry, & Collinsville killed it in those 'burbs.  It also looks like it was more "old" Bixby which voted against the tax than the areas with new housing developments w/in the Bixby school district.

I think it was an overwhelming failure in Tulsa precincts which typically aren't inhabited by YP's and the wealthy.  The exact income break-point, I don't have a clue.

[USRufnex]

Sounds like we're both guessing... but my guess is this has less to do with income levels...

IMO, it has more to do with a deep mistrust many Tulsans have of any sales-tax financed city projects.  After all, it was only 4/10's of a cent... but for these people, it's the whole principle of a sales tax hike...

My guess is that the rent-paying young tenants in my apt complex were actually more likely to vote yes than the middle aged folks who live in reasonably nice homes around East Central HS... there's some bitter, disgruntled people there.  Not sure how you fix it...

Also not sure if my math is correct, but I'm reasonably sure that if 56% of the city of Tulsa voted in favor instead of 52%, this still could have passed at the county level...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Sounds like we're both guessing... but my guess is this has less to do with income levels...

IMO, it has more to do with a deep mistrust many Tulsans have of any sales-tax financed city projects.  After all, it was only 4/10's of a cent... but for these people, it's the whole principle of a sales tax hike...

My guess is that the rent-paying young tenants in my apt complex were actually more likely to vote yes than the middle aged folks who live in reasonably nice homes around East Central HS... there's some bitter, disgruntled people there.  Not sure how you fix it...

Also not sure if my math is correct, but I'm reasonably sure that if 56% of the city of Tulsa voted in favor instead of 52%, this still could have passed at the county level...

Dunno Ruf... education, income- why do people in mid-town have more trust of county management of a tax than those in east or north Tulsa?  Could be they are used to getting prompt attention when it comes to public works while east and north Tulsa seem to be afterthoughts.  Might be coincidental that the higher income section of the city gets more visible response like new widened intersections, bricked street medians, fresh asphalt.

Even people who otherwise questioned the contents of the plan and some of the players still didn't have trouble voting for it.

[USRufnex]

I don't think it's education either.

--- personally, I blame the Tulsa Beacon... why?.... because I said so, that's why.

[sgrizzle]

Lawsuit tossed:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071023_1__Theci13735

[spoonbill]

There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge.  Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.

At this point it's a control issue.  

If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).

If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.




www.cousinspark.com

Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

There are more threats to Taylor than just a revenue generating toll bridge.  Several South Tulsa intrests are willing to donate land, pay for improvements, and build parks and entertainment venues that I think she views as a threat to mid-town and down-town re-development and growth.

At this point it's a control issue.  

If she signs off on it, then she gives control to the private sector (A.K.A. The People).

If she fights it, she delays the inevitable until she leaves office and moves back to Florida.




www.cousinspark.com

Intresting to see the contrast between mayors and how it affects the growth of a city.

Then I think you have to give kudos to Taylor on this:  She is protecting the city of Tulsa's best interests by NOT making it easy to send tax dollars across that bridge.  She's doing as good a job protecting Tulsa's interests as the Jenks mayor is doing his.