More River

[carltonplace]

Now we're talking, but I do think we want to include Sand Springs in some way because the best way to keep water in the river is either to regulate the flow from Keystone there or to build another lake creating dam at say 71st St (to serve a public gathering area) and I think the Corps is not keen on having a dam there. If Jenks builds their dam, we'd get some benefit up to about 71st anyway.

So if we leave the river dry, throw away the pedestrian crossings (sob), leave the Zink dam alone, all we're talking about is improvements to the existing pedestrian bridge and land acquisition for Tulsa Landing. No need to collect a tax for that.

I really think we need to come together with Sand Springs and Jenks and put together a slightly scaled down plan that gets the private donation back in play. Include the pedestrian crossing(s), include land acquisition, and include the river channel and some sort of support for the low water dams in the burbs that includes the $5M from V2025 going to those burbs with no improvements to Zink at this time.

[MichaelC]

I agree, it's probably a good thing to include Sand Springs.  What kind of bugs me about BA's resistance to this whole deal is that the master plan includes dams all the way through BA to the county line.  And if these expensive projects aren't paid for by county, separate towns will have to pick this up.  Meaning, they'll never get done except in Tulsa and Jenks.  

If we don't give an assist on Sand Springs, it may not happen.  And at least a couple of Sand Springs precincts were in favor of the River Tax.  And by far the biggest expense would be land acquisition anyway, trimming SS dam wouldn't trim much of the tax.

If there were a way for Tulsa to designate say 50 to 75% of the funding for Jenks Dam and Sand Springs Dam, for say 10 years, under the provision that if the towns don't complete funding after 10 years the money is dumped into the Gilcrease Expressway or excess 3rd Penny projects: I think that would be more than fair.  Jenks would come through, Sand Springs would likely complete their project.

I think this can be done.

[TheArtist]

I think we should just try to do something with Sand Springs and not Jenks for a couple of reasons.

One, Jenks can probably afford to do a dam and they likely would if we didnt help. So why help them, (especially with this bridge rowe, with which btw, they stand to get over a hundred million from the company if they stand by the company and help it go through, that pays for the dam and more right there)

Two, the Jenks dam does have the most problems associated with it, environmentally and potential smell wise. If you listened carefully to the environmental specialists who had reservations about this plan, the Jenks dam was the main stickler with the most potential problems and wildlife habitat concerns. Let Jenks quibble with the environmentalists and worry about sewage overflows, keep Tulsa out of that.

As for BA. I have a prediction, you heard it here first. The growth in BA is going to slow. Growth is going to continue going South of Jenks and start following 75 south. BA is going to start having problems with crime as more of its neighborhoods continue to get older and poorer. It was the first suburb to grow a lot and those first neighborhoods already are not that good and will continue to decline. They are going to start facing some of Tulsas problems with aging infrastructure, slowing tax base as well. Jenks with its river development and more attractive growth patterns will become a wealthier, and much better looking community in contrast. BA will not be able to compete with it as the "better" suburban market. BA will become more working class, Jenks middle and upper middle class.  The River District with its denser more attractive development and a completed Riverwalk will be a killer blow to BA's sparse, ugly, sprawl.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think we should just try to do something with Sand Springs and not Jenks for a couple of reasons.

One, Jenks can probably afford to do a dam and they likely would if we didnt help. So why help them, (especially with this bridge rowe, with which btw, they stand to get over a hundred million from the company if they stand by the company and help it go through, that pays for the dam and more right there)

Two, the Jenks dam does have the most problems associated with it, environmentally and potential smell wise. If you listened carefully to the environmental specialists who had reservations about this plan, the Jenks dam was the main stickler with the most potential problems and wildlife habitat concerns. Let Jenks quibble with the environmentalists and worry about sewage overflows, keep Tulsa out of that.

As for BA. I have a prediction, you heard it here first. The growth in BA is going to slow. Growth is going to continue going South of Jenks and start following 75 south. BA is going to start having problems with crime as more of its neighborhoods continue to get older and poorer. It was the first suburb to grow a lot and those first neighborhoods already are not that good and will continue to decline. They are going to start facing some of Tulsas problems with aging infrastructure, slowing tax base as well. Jenks with its river development and more attractive growth patterns will become a wealthier, and much better looking community in contrast. BA will not be able to compete with it as the "better" suburban market. BA will become more working class, Jenks middle and upper middle class.  The River District with its denser more attractive development and a completed Riverwalk will be a killer blow to BA's sparse, ugly, sprawl.

I think we need the Jenks dam to back up the river to (about) 71st St past the Creek Casino, plus they have the most skin in the game at this point (they would sell their most prized belonging for the dam at 91st). In order to get Kaiser back and to include casino money, we need the Jenks dam in the plan. Without it, water taxis, gathering areas, piers and the rest won't happen.

[TheArtist]

That may be true, I am not against the dam going in there,  but what I was getting at is that I think Jenks will likely do it themselves without Tulsa taxpayers chipping in. Plus if they do it, it wont leave Tulsa with the criticisms and problems that dam will have, yet we can get any benefit if Kaiser goes ahead with his the 71st plan. May not sound all that fair, but thats pretty much what Jenks is doing with the bridge deal. Someone else is footing the bill, they are getting some money out of it, while Tulsa is being left paying for widening roads and intersections to the bridge.

[waterboy]

I like your insight about BA vs. Jenks growth. Absolutely correct. I might note that BA is and always will be a bedroom community because of their leadership. The housing quality from the 70's-90's is suspect and there is no core. Jenks has more interest topographically and more inspired leadership.

But, listen. The dams at Jenks and S/S are the real problems to the development. Swake laid out a great plan on another thread which includes partnering with Tulsa on the bridge which frees up stuff. Regardless of the plan framework, the dams are going to be fought by interests unrelated to development. They will do so under the guise of environmentalism and will ultimately tie up any efforts. I'm not trying to throw cold water, I just think there should be a focus on how to negotiate with these interests for the good of the entire area much like the solution to the private toll bridge will be effected.

To that end, the Zink dam must be remodeled to include a stepped design that allows fish spawning and openings for small craft to pass.
Perhaps the living river section can be scaled back or done incrementally. At minimum a channel needs to be enhanced and maintained between the dams that can later be modified as per the living river concept.

[TheArtist]

I like the living river concept. But if we have to be careful about how much taxes we raise and need to be frugal about it, I would say that in the immediate future I would leave off the 90 million living river concept and go with the 55 million dollar Pearl District instead. The Pearl will do more for the economy, be a better quality of life improvement, do more for the city on many levels at a much lower cost than the Living River would. If we are going to propose a city tax in the future that focuses on: quality of life/water venue/ economic development potential... It likely would be wise to make that tax less than the last one that failed, since it will only be Tulsans paying for it, and have more to show impact wise dollar for dollar.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Mo'h cowbell!

Yowsa!

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Why don't all you cry babies have a fund raiser and ask all those who want river development to make a contribution to the fund. Maybe the donors who walked away from the table could be persuaded to matching what you raise. Hell, if you raise enough money maybe Inhofe and Sullivan will make good on the federal dollars they hinted at. Brad Henry endorsed it, maybe the state will match some cash. Could money be used from the newly created state opportunity fund? We need a State program for waterways like the Main Street program to encourage cities with water features to improve their recreational and commercial development along their waterfronts. Why don't you explore some other potential funding sources, before jumping on the bandwagon for another regressive sales tax.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaWD




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?

The voters out in the hinterlands we all Tulsa County did enough research to find out that they were being asked to pay for the City of Tulsa to get improvments.  Those same hinterlands discovered they would get no direct benefits for their investment.  They were educated enough to know they were getting a raw deal.

quote: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?

It will happen with a different, more logical financing option, or private industry will do it without a tax increase.

If you will go back and read the articles in the Tulsa World over the last week, you will see that these scenarios are already playing out.....without Randi Miller and Kathy Taylor, and without a tax increase.

All the county wanted to do with this plan was get their grubby little hands on that last .4 cents they think is theirs because we voted it in for Boeing in V2025.  They think they are entitled to our money.  The money can be available for these projects if we could get more people in local government to manage the budgets more responsibly, heck we can't even get them to mow the medians and fill the pools we currently have....why should we trust them to fill the river.  Leave it to private industry.

[chesty]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached?  I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.

If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead.  But why should Sperry pay for it?

I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by 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.

First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached?  I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.

If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead.  But why should Sperry pay for it?

I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.

Ever split a pizza with someone? Ever think the river projects were just a $400M pizza that Kaiser agreed to pay 1/3rd of.

Everyone calls it the Kaiser river tax and Kaiser is blackmailing us. Ever think he was just picking up part of the tab of a Randi Miller pie?

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by chesty

quote:Originally posted by 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.

First of all, what kind of a gift comes with strings attached?  I don't remember ever getting a Christmas present with conditions that I throw in more money than the "gift" is worth.

If Tulsa wants to tax itself without the county, go ahead.  But why should Sperry pay for it?

I do believe that more options are now being looked at...which is what should have happened in the first place.

The tax package was a litmus test to see if the county wanted river development. The county answered loud and clear that they did not want river development and that the "gift" was an ugly sweater they were going to throw in the back of the closet.

It's probably too late to change the donors' minds, but I'd sure like to try. Tulsa overall wants river development. Can we find other sources of income beyond a tax increase?..maybe. Will the west bank still get developed?...if we can find a way to acquire the MidContinent land, yes. Would a TIF pay off?..probably but we need to dole out TIF's carefully.

Chesty, I really don't know why you care. You don't like Tulsa, you hate its streets and you think it's crime ridden. It's not. Come out of Owasso and visit us again with an open mind. Tulsa is on its way to a new age. Drive through any old neighborhood and see all of the homes that are being restored. Notice the diversity of people living there. Enjoy the classic architecture, look at the improvements to downtown underway (BTW we have a downtown in Tulsa with buildings that are taller than the highway). Have a picnic in one of our great old parks, go to one of our world class museums. See a concert, go to the PAC for a show.

You won't do any of those things though.
I guess some people just like living in suburbs where everyone is just like they are.