More River

[MichaelC]

You got called out defending a bald-faced lie, and that's the best you got?

What was the River Tax for, if full funding for dams was promised as Bates claims in Vision 2025?  Why would we need to alter Vision 2025 to fund the dams, as Bates suggests, if full funding is already promised?  Why the hell would we need anything else?  Do we or do we sure as hell not need more funding for the dams?  Which one is it?

It can not possibly be:  Let's break promises that we know are true to chase fiction.  It can not be:   The funding is already there, so we need more.

If you continue on this line, calling you an idiot would be mild.  And if you don't like the stink, stop defending this crap.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

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

I don't like it at all.  This is plain stupid.  Bates says promises abound, yet, Bates say we have to alter Vision 2025 to make the "promises" true, or we have to have some other funding.  What kind of logic is that?

quote: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.

Who is most people?  How do you know that?  On this thread, this very thread, Bates has already admitted there has to be some alternate funding for the projects.  How do you know who was and who was not aware of what?  How do you know who was aware of this three years ago?

As far as I'm concerned, Bates is intentionally running a scam.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

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

I don't like it at all.  This is plain stupid.  Bates says promises abound, yet, Bates say we have to alter Vision 2025 to make the "promises" true, or we have to have some other funding.  What kind of logic is that?

quote: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.

Who is most people?  How do you know that?  On this thread, this very thread, Bates has already admitted there has to be some alternate funding for the projects.  How do you know who was and who was not aware of what?  How do you know who was aware of this three years ago?

As far as I'm concerned, Bates is intentionally running a scam.

Time to move forward, bro.  We are where we are.  Bates is who he is, and there are many like him.  About 52.5% of the county, to be approximate.  The only way forward is to see the terrain clearly and navigate it in the proper manner to get to the goal.  Go around the mountain, not through it.  

All your vitriol does is harden their positions.  Just sayin' . . .

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Go around the mountain, not through it.  

All your vitriol does is harden their positions.  Just sayin' . . .

Done.

Thank you.

[TulsaWD]

Thanks for some of the replies.

Bates had some good points and not so good points.
In the TW article that you linked were these quotes and items that talk about more than $125M not being spent due the failure of the tax initiative.

quote: Randy Miller, "There's no Plan B. River development is over."  

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.

quote: 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.  

quote: 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," Levit said. "The voters reached their conclusion."

quote: 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.  

I do agree on your tax point in terms of county taxes limiting what individual towns could tax lcoally for their necessaties. Probably the only 100% valid point of any river tax opponent I have heard from or spoken too.

It also concerns me on how uneducated some of the vote no crowd was. IIRC, about 70% of surveyed county voters loved The Channels idea but thought it was too much. Which was likely true but you have to impressed with their vision. Back to topic, KOTV/TW poll showed %30 of voters thought they were voting for The Channels. %30 is a BIG, BIG number of people who can't read or chose not to read the ballot. %30 more thought they were voting for downtown improvements. Those are a ton of votes that, IMO, likely would have swayed the vote the %3 needed to win. How did SO many people NOT know what they were voting for?


As for, "Asking where the funding for fixing streets is coming from as it relates to a failed river tax is illogical in the first place."
If that is the case, then why in the world did the "fix the streets" arguement come up in every No River Tax speech?
Why do the people in Owasso, BA, Skiatook, Bixby, Sperry, etc want to pay to fix Tulsa streets? How does the vote no crowd see this panning out? A city tax? That wasn't on the ballor and I can promise you each of these suburbs are going to want a few courtesy mil out of the whatever funding is established for the roads to repair a bridge, paint new lines, or four lane 3 miles of road that hass 2K a day traffic(see Coweta for reference).

The river developement isn't over because of Jenks arguement is very poor. Jenks voted for this and probably had the most to lose. Now they are rolling in the developement and tax money.

Like I said, your county/local tax limit point is great. By far the best I have heard.

Some of the vote no crowd says Tulsa river development isn't over. Cool.

How and when will it happen with the biggest push of private funding every being cut so dramatically?

[carltonplace]

Mr Bates, How do we get Mr Kaiser and Mr QTrip back in a happy place with their hands on their wallets? How do we get these people to build and donate piers that stretch out over sand?

Forget the county; Tulsans want river development and the majority of Tulsans (and Jenks Americans) that voted Tuesday are willing to pay for it.

I think we need a Coalition of Arkansas River Towns (CART) and get back to the table as soon as possible. I believe that without Broken Arrow, Bixby and Owasso the rest of us have a better chance of passing a much smaller tax.

We should also explore/search for as many types of additional funds as possible, including federal and state money, private donation, fund raising (anyone for a glass of Arkansas River Lemonade?) We should ask groups that stand to benefit from river development (Creek Nation) or are on the river (Sunoco, Sinclair) to donate to public spots in their proximity. We should also thank Mr Kaiser and ask him to get back on board to help us with a scaled down plan.

I dont want to wait several more years, I want action now.

[MichaelC]

TulsaWD:

It's all about information and disinformation.  If 30% believed they were voting on the "Channels", there's likely two issues.  1) Odds are, someone was purposefully spreading that falsehood as true.  And 2), quite frankly, and most importantly, the gov't and the Yes side did a pathetic job of explaining what exactly the River tax would do, and why the River Tax should be passed.  Sure there were plenty of advertisements, there were a few public meetings, but they didn't take much time to really explain the details to the bulk of the citizens.  

I believe our window to do this "county-wide" will close within a few years if we don't get on the ball.  At some point, we're going to lose  Jenks.  Jenks will eventually build the dam themselves.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

TulsaWD:

It's all about information and disinformation.  If 30% believed they were voting on the "Channels", there's likely two issues.  1) Odds are, someone was purposefully spreading that falsehood as true.  And 2), quite frankly, and most importantly, the gov't and the Yes side did a pathetic job of explaining what exactly the River tax would do, and why the River Tax should be passed.  Sure there were plenty of advertisements, there were a few public meetings, but they didn't take much time to really explain the details to the bulk of the citizens.  

I believe our window to do this "county-wide" will close within a few years if we don't get on the ball.  At some point, we're going to lose  Jenks.  Jenks will eventually build the dam themselves.

Here's the point Michael:  The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place.  If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%.  We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.

Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it.  I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.

What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow??

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Here's the point Michael:  The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place.  If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%.  We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.

Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it.  I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.

What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow??

Ummmmmm, nothing?  *shrug*

There are benefits to doing this on the county level, but it's perfectly fine with me to throw this out there as a city tax, if it's doable.  I think it is.  We should go after land acquisition, and maybe the Tulsa Wave, only.  Possibly add more partial funding for the dam at Jenks (under the prerequisite that Jenks kicks some cash in), make no spectacular upgrades to the current dam.

I don't see any argument there.  Unless you're trying to argue that you hate the county, in which case be my guest.  Hate away.  You're not the only one.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Here's the point Michael:  The county getting involved in this effed the whole thing up in the first place.  If this had been city-wide it would have passed 52% to 48%.  We don't need the county to get involved because it takes brick and mortar in surrounding communities which raises the over-all cost to get them to vote yes.

Secondly, the least trusted public servant in Tulsa County was the one spear-heading it.  I hope the counties turn is over and there won't be a repeat.

What's wrong with Jenks and Sand Springs building their own dams anyhow??

Ummmmmm, nothing?  *shrug*

There are benefits to doing this on the county level, but it's perfectly fine with me to throw this out there as a city tax, if it's doable.  I think it is.  We should go after land acquisition, and maybe the Tulsa Wave, only.  Possibly add more partial funding for the dam at Jenks (under the prerequisite that Jenks kicks some cash in), make no spectacular upgrades to the current dam.

I don't see any argument there.  Unless you're trying to argue that you hate the county, in which case be my guest.  Hate away.  You're not the only one.

Nope no argument.  Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Nope no argument.  Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.

Oh, I think you'd be on the receiving end of that exchange.  []

Where the hell is the exit to this gutter?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Nope no argument.  Far as my opinion of the county, let's just say though that I won't be needing any latex w/ Randi Miller.

Oh, I think you'd be on the receiving end of that exchange.  []

Where the hell is the exit to this gutter?

You tell me you dug the trench in the first place! [}:)]

[waterboy]

Slow down now, I'm just a country boy with a limited range of focus. One thread around here wants to do the Pearl. One group will fight any effort to change the river other than blowing up the Zink dam. One group says we can't do anything unless every single corner of the county gets something. One group says fine as long as its private money. One group says its no tax, no way...check with us in three years and if you still want it we'll talk. There are as many groups as there are threads!

This thread seems to be pretty reasonable and accomodating. The mortars should be arriving pretty quickly.

It seems many new posters are late in arriving but have a real clear view of what just happened and frustration about it. One wishes there were some sort of movement afoot to make something happen. You know like a forum group, a web page, a concentration of enlightened, persuasive folks who could make contact with the wealthy and politically connected. Kind of like a neighborhood of people who saw through all the bs on both sides and were determined to do better....Hmmm. Wonder how that would work....

[YoungTulsan]

Some sort of forum for present day Tulsa matters?  What would it be called?

[MichaelC]

The City can do this by itself, I think.  Not 100% certain, but as far as I know, we still have a little room between us and burbs as far as sales tax rates.  The key is to keep Tulsa's rates slightly under the burbs if possible.  That's where going county instead of city pays off.

The bulk of the county tax would have been paid for by the city of Tulsa anyway.  A City replacement might have to be less than 0.4% to stay under the burbs, but if you drop the Sand Springs Dam and any other shoreline projects you'll get the total cost down some.  The tax increase may or may not be smaller than 0.4%, and it may or may not have to be stretched over an extra couple of years.  But, it can probably be done.