More River

[TulsaWD]

This may have all been said but i have to say something.

1) I didn't see a good answer in the thread below so exactly where is the money to fix the streets going to come from?
2) How did voting yes on the river somehow prevent the street improvements from getting funded?
3) How in the world does BA have the sack to ask Tulsa businesses for money after their city officials denounced the river plan saying it wouldn't help them?
4) What percentage of the suburbs population work in Tulsa? How many of those big brand new houses in Jenks, BA, Owasso, Collinsville, Bixby, and elsewhere have people living in them who actually work in the suburb their house is in?
5) The plan wasn't the best but it was pretty good. Now, Tulsa has lost out on over $500M in private investments from $117M local and the Arkansas developer.
6) Please tell me how 3/4 of a billion investment in river developement would NOT help the suburbs? Do people really think the Jenks Riverwalk is sustained only by people that live in Jenks?
7) Why did the north Tulsa councelors use the Albertsons not reopening for their battlecry? Owasso's Albertson's didn't reopen either?
Does north Tulsa think they can oppose the county and city of Tulsa and then expect more help?
9) Why are Tulsa's citizens so against change when all the do is complain about the status quo?
10) Tuesday was sad

[sgrizzle]

1. They don't have one.
2. River Tax begets retail begets axes begets road $$$
3. Brass cojones
4. A lot
5. Everything shown is still possible, public funding will still be required and it will take longer, but hopefully 2008 will bring "nuestro río sí numero dos"
6. Riverwalk is sustained by people form all over but only Jenks gets the tax$$. That is good for Tulsa is good for BA, but not in an immediate direct economic sense.
7. They also used the new police chief as a battlecry. Apparently they thought we should pay someone to move into that spot.
8. See #3
9. It's a tried-and-true fact that most of them don't want change, they just want the result. Kinda like wanting a paycheck, but not really wanting a job.
10. True

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

This may have all been said but i have to say something.

1) I didn't see a good answer in the thread below so exactly where is the money to fix the streets going to come from?

Same place it would have come from if the river tax had passed -- some sort of city tax increase, either a general obligation bond (property tax) or sales tax or some combination.

Despite MAPS 1 and 2, Oklahoma City still has to vote on an $835 million bond issue for streets in December.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

2) How did voting yes on the river somehow prevent the street improvements from getting funded?

There's some limit to the sales tax rate people are willing to pay, and every tax increase takes us closer to that limit. When the county raises its sales tax rate to pay for non-essentials, it limits the options for cities who are looking for funding to pay for basic public services.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

3) How in the world does BA have the sack to ask Tulsa businesses for money after their city officials denounced the river plan saying it wouldn't help them?
4) What percentage of the suburbs population work in Tulsa? How many of those big brand new houses in Jenks, BA, Owasso, Collinsville, Bixby, and elsewhere have people living in them who actually work in the suburb their house is in?

Tulsa businesses should thank the suburbs, particularly Broken Arrow citizens and officials for demanding that our city and county officials use the means already at their disposal to promote river development without raising taxes.  

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

5) The plan wasn't the best but it was pretty good. Now, Tulsa has lost out on over $500M in private investments from $117M local and the Arkansas developer.

We haven't lost out on the "Tulsa Landing" development. Read yesterday's paper -- a spokesman for HCW has indicated  they're ready to move forward if Tulsa officials will work with them. I've heard that some city councilors are moving forward with a TIF proposal that would provide the financing needed for a west bank mixed use development to move forward. If Mayor Taylor will cooperate, this can happen.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

6) Please tell me how 3/4 of a billion investment in river developement would NOT help the suburbs? Do people really think the Jenks Riverwalk is sustained only by people that live in Jenks?

Again, the river developments weren't dependent on the tax. Jenks' River District and Bixby's South Village are moving forward regardless, using TIF districts as incentives. Those developers are paying up front for infrastructure, to be reimbursed for infrastructure spending if and when their projects begin generating revenue. Tulsa's west bank development can move forward as well, if Tulsa city officials act expeditiously to follow Jenks and Bixby's example.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

7) Why did the north Tulsa councelors use the Albertsons not reopening for their battlecry? Owasso's Albertson's didn't reopen either?

The closed Albertsons is a symbol of north Tulsa's priorities. They see the basic necessities that their community lacks as more important than recreational facilities in the affluent part of town.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

Does north Tulsa think they can oppose the county and city of Tulsa and then expect more help?

North Tulsa opposed a tax increase; they didn't oppose the county or the city. In fact, they voted along with the majority of the county's voters. East Tulsa and the older part of west Tulsa voted against the tax as well.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

9) Why are Tulsa's citizens so against change when all the do is complain about the status quo?

Tulsa County voters didn't vote against change. They voted against a tax increase for this particular package.

City and county officials could have given us a range of options on the ballot, the chance to vote separately for each independent component and to choose whether we want the standard or deluxe version of each. (I wrote something last week suggesting what that ballot might have looked like -- a county vote on the dams, and five City of Tulsa ballot items for the west bank, living river, 41st St. bridge, 61st St. bridge, and downtown connector.)

Given a range of choices, I believe voters would have voiced their approval for some form of river development.

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD

10) Tuesday was sad

I'm encouraged that Tulsa County voters were able to muster the sales resistance to buck $1.3 million in advertising.

You could choose to look at Tuesday's vote as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I choose to look at it as the opening round in negotiations. An initial offer was made. The voters rejected the initial offer. Opponents of the original offer have made a counter-offer. (In fact, they made those suggestions before this deal was put on the ballot.)

Back in July, if the county leaders, city leaders, and philanthropists had been willing, we could have put together an approach to river development that would have been supported by 75 or 80 percent of the public. Instead they chose to move forward with a flawed plan and to try to drown the voters' objections in a million dollars worth of TV ads and four-color mailers.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

I'm encouraged that Tulsa County voters were able to muster the sales resistance to buck $1.3 million in advertising.

You could choose to look at Tuesday's vote as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I choose to look at it as the opening round in negotiations. An initial offer was made. The voters rejected the initial offer. Opponents of the original offer have made a counter-offer. (In fact, they made those suggestions before this deal was put on the ballot.)

Back in July, if the county leaders, city leaders, and philanthropists had been willing, we could have put together an approach to river development that would have been supported by 75 or 80 percent of the public. Instead they chose to move forward with a flawed plan and to try to drown the voters' objections in a million dollars worth of TV ads and four-color mailers.

At the risk of sounding like your b!tch, I gotta say, you are spot on with those last few paragraphs, especially the part I put in bold face.

[brunoflipper]

mbates, unless i'm delusional (or drunk- its early but hell, its friday)) i thought one of the reasons to vote no was you said our dams were already paid for and we could get the money out of v2025... want to go back over that again for me?

[RecycleMichael]

The thread is titled "More River".

I am in favor of more river.

[Conan71]

Mo'h cowbell!

[cannon_fodder]

Bates, as one of the most outspoken NO supporters I was hoping to hear the new plans from you.  I agree that generally one can not tax their way to prosperity, but surely you agree that very few people see Tulsa as a vibrant community.  Aspects of it certainly are, but by and large it has been stuck with the status quo for 20 years - if not slowly in decline.

and as per the Tulsa Landing, they have so much invested of course they are going to keep looking at it.  I REALLY hope something comes to fruition, but certainly his rhetoric is not encouraging:

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.

And as for BA, they did not act of of some greater purpose.  They merely saw that Tulsa would have something they would not and voted it down.  The mayor even said as much - that it would give Tulsa an advantage in attracting new business while taking money away from BA.  While facially logical, it certainly is not noble.

I was hopeful that Kathy would be the "business leader" she made herself out to be.  Unfortunately, the couple of call centers that have relocated here have not really excited me too much.  And I'm not one of the notorious nay sayers.
- - -


Per North Tulsa;  frankly, you opposed spending money to help make my part of town nicer.  So I'll oppose any effort to make your part of town nicer.  Spiteful?  Petty?  Probably, and I would never actually do it.  Having North Tulsa tell Mid-Town what good development is or what should be a priority is a bit of a joke, but I will still favor any development that will make the CITY as a whole better.  

Enjoy your crime infested, run down, stagnant crap hole for another generation.  I'm sure you'll blame everyone else for it instead of realizing it's your kids running around shooting each other in parks and dilapidated properties that keep your community blighted.  Even if Tulsa built a new park on every block and paved the streets with gold, North Tulsa would remain blighted.  The community has to solve its problems before the government can do much to help out.

(and, FYI, no new grocery store came in because it was not profitable.  Not because the city hates minorities)

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

mbates, unless i'm delusional (or drunk- its early but hell, its friday)) i thought one of the reasons to vote no was you said our dams were already paid for and we could get the money out of v2025... want to go back over that again for me?

The dams were promised in Vision 2025, and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.

If we get the permits in three years and the county officials don't think they have the funds from Vision 2025 or federal sources, that would be the time to make their case to the voters that a tax increase is the only option to fund the dams.

Here's what the ballot should have looked like for a county vote on the dams.

quote:
1. TULSA COUNTY VOTE: The low-water dams -- two new, one old. (I'll take their word that the three dams work as a system.)

(A) Use the Vision 2025 money you already have to fix Zink Lake and to proceed with engineering and the permitting application on the other two dams. Once you get the permits (if you get them), you can come back and ask us for more money (assuming we don't have enough in Vision 2025 and haven't received that Federal $50 million).

(B) Raise our county sales taxes now by four-tenths of a cent for 18 months to fund the dams.

(C) Raise our county sales taxes now by that annoying 1/12th of a cent for seven years to fund the dams.

While we're proceeding with permitting, county officials need to get a handle on Vision 2025 finances, so it knows what its full range of options are for funding the completion of the dams. PMg does an admirable job of tracking expenditures, but my attempts to get answers to financial questions leaves me with the impression that no one on the County Commission seems to have the complete picture, at least not in a form that lets decision-makers know what their options are. What I'm talking about is really above PMg's level of responsibility.

The complete picture would include information that doesn't appear in the monthly Vision 2025 reports: how much money remains (if any) of the bond proceeds, how much money is in the sales tax reserve fund and any other trust fund holding Vision 2025 money. Those items, plus revenue projections, would address the income side. On the expense side, a "spend plan" is needed to lay out, at least on a year-by-year basis, but preferably by quarter or month, what expenditures are already committed, and whether there is any flexibility as to when the expenditure could be made. With this information in hand, county officials could decide to prioritize spending on the Vision 2025 dams, and move spending on other Vision 2025 projects later, while honoring any spending commitments that have already been made.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates


The dams were promised in Vision 2025

You sir, are a liar.

quote:and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.

Sure, priority over projects that literally ARE and always have been funded by Vision 2025.  Let's break Real promises, so we can run after your fictitious one.  You're not just a liar, you're also delusional.

[Conan71]

Asking where the funding for fixing streets is coming from as it relates to a failed river tax is illogical in the first place.

This was a promise stuck into the campaign after campaigners became aware they had to placate the "fix the streets first crowd."  

They had already seated a committee chaired by S.K. Davis and Dewey Bartlett, Jr. to study the street issue prior to the election.  Their report is due Dec. 1.  I suspect at that time the funding mechanism will become clear, as was intended seeing that this committee was put together before the vote.

Saying that additional tax revenue generated by commercial/retail development on the river was going to be sufficient to fix the streets is incredibly premature.  It's like the promises of the Oklahoma lottery being a huge bonanza to education.  School systems implemented additional benefits and raises based on these projected increases from a revenue stream which was not yet defined.  The result has been school systems struggling to come up with the promised funds because they have not materialized as promised.

Without any sort of track record to see whether or not sales tax collected on the river would have been cannibalistic nor whether it would have really generated 9000 new jobs to increase the tax base, nor knowing what this would have really meant to tourism/convention business, fixing the streets on the back of the river is nothing but conjecture and fantasy.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates


The dams were promised in Vision 2025

You sir, are a liar.

quote:and I believe that the county will be able to fund the dams with Vision 2025 money by the time the permits are in place, although it may require giving priority to the Vision 2025 dams over other Vision 2025 projects, just as they gave the arena priority over the Vision 2025 dams to fund its overage.

Sure, priority over projects that literally ARE and always have been funded by Vision 2025.  Let's break Real promises, so we can run after your fictitious one.  You're not just a liar, you're also delusional.

Yes they were.  Proposition IV of the V-2025 ballot.  He's not lying, your liar-meter is broken, or either you haven't bothered to look into what the man is saying.

[MichaelC]

Oh great, here we go again.  We must chase every stupid thing Bates says all over the place just because Conan loves him in a way that requires latex.

Bates says they were "promised", then Bates continuous to talk about how the hell we're going to fund them with or without Vision 2025.  You literally have to be an idiot to continue following this line.

[Conan71]

"Liar, idiot, liar, idiot, sleeping with Bates, needs latex..."

Glad to see you are back to your old self MC.

[cannon_fodder]

I love rehashing old things, it frees me from any real thought:

River development was over marketed in 2025.  The actual impact on the river promised was smaller than what it was sold as.  AND the ballot was poorly worded.

I agree with Bates in that it appeared to most people that river development was included in 2025 but can see a defensible position that it was not actually promised.