Turner: BOK to punish North Tulsans tax stand

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project.  That's why he's pissed.  He gave his support, now they've jerked him around.  The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.

These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.

I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week.  I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.

You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.

I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.

What was one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?

Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of.  Anonymous giving, if you will.

Zink didn't make his contribution to the river  contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere.  That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.

and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions.  before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.

You are so full of bs. At least Conan makes some sense and tries to communicate like a reasonable person would. Take your obsession with balls and go play pocket billiards somewhere.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Uh, there was a tit-for-tat in Roscoe's support of a southie project.  That's why he's pissed.  He gave his support, now they've jerked him around.  The south Tulsa project wasn't related to the river.

These conditional philanthropists are really starting to piss me and a lot of other people off.

I'm curious how many north Tulsan's are closing accounts at BOK after this week.  I'm not advocating a boycot, but I can see how they would be developing a serious ire for the BOKF.

You're starting to concern me with all the conditional philanthropy talk. You seem to think Zink's help on the river was unconditional too. Any evidence of that? He ended up chairman of the RPA board at least.

I assert there is no such thing as unconditional. You expect way too much from hard nosed businesspeople.

What was one more board appointment to Mr. Zink?

Jack Zink and his father did a lot more things quietly for a many good causes over the years that a lot of people are not aware of.  Anonymous giving, if you will.

Zink didn't make his contribution to the river  contingent on a tax package financed by all citizens of the county, and he didn't back up and move his money elsewhere.  That was one of the best examples of a public/private partnership in city history.

A couple things come to mind Conan. First, I'm not sure you want to call that the best example of public/private partnership in city history. The public voted down that plan for a dam. As they had many times before. Inhofe maneuvered the parties into position and pretty well slammed it down the city's throat. It all happened rather fast and the public input was nil. I met Jack Zink on several occasions and I liked him very much but he wasn't a slow witted businessman. Do you know for sure that there were no conditions to his contribution? None? Chairman of the RPA was a plum spot and he deserved it.

Second, many people do anonymous giving but that doesn't preclude that it has no conditions.

Third, try to understand why the government matches funding for such things as a dam. They want to make sure there is a strong committment by a community before just passing along sums of money that may be squandered. It is more likely to be a successful venture if the community has a stake in it. Well, foundations and philanthropists are the same way. Put some money down and we'll finish it off for you. You make it sound like he's a scrooge.

Lastly, what would happen with the money should he have just donated it and said you folks use it to do the river however you want. No leverage that's what. It would have been eaten up in studies, lawsuits, etc. and the taxpayers would not have passed any money to go with it. Why should they? Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.

I think he did the right thing.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

and he is only one of MANY generous rich men with BALLS that donated without conditions.  before the current crop of cronies Tulsa had good philanthropists.

Inteller,  

If you acted like this on the street, you'd be arrested for aggressive panhandling.  Your last statement is ignorant, and I feel like educating you on this point.  

Every foundation has "conditions"; they all have missions.  They don't just hand out money to anybody that calls them up, "Hello, is the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Where can I get my free Camaro?"

Asking for matching money is normal business practice with grants.  It's akin to forming a business partnership. It's even like a bank asking you to put up equity funds in order to get a loan. It gets rid of the bullsh*tters.

You are trashing a guy for being a smart businessman.  I thought you conservatives appreciated that sort of thing?  Anyways, good luck with that free Trans Am or whatever.

[Wrinkle]

Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.

The same is becoming true for philantropy.

It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.

Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.

Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.

Like they never thought of it before.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

They talked about that F&M thing, too, but the conversation on the northside thing was in reference to BOK.

Also.  Artist.  Do you want to a) retract your statement b) explain how it is not racist c) change your handle here and try again?

In order to explain "how it is not racist". I would be interested to hear how you thought it was?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

That's where competition comes in.  If those people are qualified for better loans, surely someone will offer them a better rate to get their business.  God bless capitalism.

What's more, predatory lending is a two part game.  The lender who knows he is not delivering the best product and the borrower who knows he can not afford the mortgage he is getting.  Neither aspect is illegal, though both are unfortunate.  

A law require the best product for situation is worthless.  It will result in lenders have yet another piece of paper signed in the mortgage folder and nothing more.  OR... it will ban certain types of loans and the "working poor" will simply go without home ownership.  

Is there no responsibility for the people taking these mortgages?  Or are all of the "working poor" so stupid that they need the government to protect them from buying more than they can afford?  At what income level do people become intelligent?

You know, I'm a firm believer that "stupidity should never be rewarded," but why do you insist the "working poor" be as intelligent as you are?  I don't assume they're as intelligent as I am... yet I've made my fair share of financial mistakes over a few decades, mostly back when I was first in Chicago being a "young bohemian" and too busy working to realize I was getting price gouged for every small mistake or error in judgement...

A single mother works for 40+ hours per week while at the same time trying to raise her kid/kids... who has the time/patience to read all the indiscernable, lawyeristic fine print in the "Terms & Conditions?"  What happens if this person finally gets a lease/purchase on a home but then the toilet breaks... or the plumbing in the shower screws up and there's hundreds of dollars in damage... god forbid any of her kids get sick and she has to be at home taking care of them... or find out she's "underinsured."

Enter, "Check-into-cash."  It gives the hand-to-mouth, desperate working poor a really bad deal compared to what most other folks would get.  Glorified loan shark... with the government there to protect the industry over the consumer...  

A couple who BOTH work and are trying to raise kids start looking for loans on a new home... they're told that they qualify for a "special" loan... a few years later, after failing to completely understand the mounds of paperwork only an MBA could make heads-or-tails of... documents composed to confuse the masses.... then the couple watches as the thousands of dollars they saved up to close, the downpayment, $$$ to move, etc... all goes up in smoke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17929461/

Of course, these people should show more restraint or more responsibility.  But does the "punishment fit the crime?"  In my opinion, it doesn't.  If our CEO of Tulsa fails at her day job as mayor, will she be forced to work night shifts at McDonald's?  I think not.

If you're late on your cable or cell phone bill, maybe you'll see a $5 late fee.  Late on a utility bill?... well that is well regulated by the government... But try being late on a predatory credit card...  It'll only cost you $30-plus if you're lucky... but add another $29 fee for being over your credit limit that was caused by the first $30 fee... then, you've dug yourself a hole...

And god forbid you try to get a "free credit score."  Because they'll ask for your credit card number and tell you that this is for your "free month" of membership, but ask them if you could cancel that right now?   Er, uh... then the slick salesmanship comes into play--no outsourcing of jobs at this point in the process... and they assure you that you can call back and cancel before the end of the month... then you call back and someone who goes by the name "Susan" from Bangladesh has no clue what you are talking about, transfers your call three times, and by the end of it, your work break is over, so you'll have to try it again in a few days... then, an unexpected 29.95 shows up on your credit card bill, causing a $30 late fee, causing another $29 over the limit fee......... then you forget that this is the month you get hit for that 89.95 "annual membership fee."  But wait, there's more, now how much would you pay?... turns out you also failed to notice the $7 per month that will show on your bill as an $84 "annual statement fee"???.... but at least you have the nice 9.9 APR offered on that card, right?... "We're sorry, your late payments have forced us to bump the interest rate to 19.9 percent... have a nice day!" ...and now you've learned to no longer trust any credit card offer with your name on it, the one specially pre-screened just for you, SUCKER!... yeah, that's really swell...

There was a time when a $20 payment towards a high bill was a "sign of goodwill" to convince the billing people you were trying to pay... these days, credit card companies LOVE to see $20 per month and hate it when you pay your balance in full.  

I think the high schools should be teaching their seniors some financial skills in what to look for, how to budget their money in modern world, and hands-on training at what to look for when tempted by predatory credit card companies... nobody's perfect... I remember lots of otherwise-intelligent college students running up high credit card bills... but they were never treated with the utter contempt the modern lending industry treats the working poor...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.

The same is becoming true for philantropy.

It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.

Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.

Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.

Like they never thought of it before.

So, in your book a $117 million dollar donation is no longer a philonthropic act?[}:)]

Pardon me for laughing in your face.  You "conservatives" don't believe in government, taxes, or the public good.  You worship at the alter of the free market.  And, when one of your idols offers to give something back, you find fault in him for employing the same business practices that made him a billionaire in the first place?  Oh, the irony.

It must be tearing you apart, huh?  On the outside you tell yourself that you are self-made, but on the inside you can't help but feel you are entitled to a handout.  Your inner "Welfare Queen" is trying to get out.  Shameless, yes, but not surprising.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Banks don't loan money, they collateralize it.

The same is becoming true for philantropy.

It's the same mentality which thinks development can no longer occur unless the public kicks in.

Business people aren't stupid, but the public hasn't convinced me yet. Business at least thinks that if it can be done that way, why not? It only improves the return on investment, when it really isn't needed.

Just watch, we've already had three of the the three major proposed river developments suggest they may have a way to proceed without public money.

Like they never thought of it before.

So, in your book a $117 million dollar donation is no longer a philonthropic act?[}:)]

Pardon me for laughing in your face.  You "conservatives" don't believe in government, taxes, or the public good.  You worship at the alter of the free market.  And, when one of your idols offers to give something back, you find fault in him for employing the same business practices that made him a billionaire in the first place?  Oh, the irony.

It must be tearing you apart, huh?  On the outside you tell yourself that you are self-made, but on the inside you can't help but feel you are entitled to a handout.  Your inner "Welfare Queen" is trying to get out.  Shameless, yes, but not surprising.

I'm thinking I could write an entire book on that statement alone.

When did I suggest a $117 (or, $10,000) was not philontropic? I said they attach strings, because they can.

If I gave $100 for a trash can on 5th street downtown, I'd expect it to be spent on a trash can and placed on 5th street downtown. (I might even add the expectation that it be emptied once a week or so, and perhaps re-painted every five years)

If some politician decided my $100 bucks would be better spent on a new light fixture at the entrance to the Mayor's office, I be upset and probably not donate again.

Mr. Kaiser & Company gifts were isolated to shoreline improvements to a project contingent on public funding of river improvements. Fine.
While, personally, I feel it misplaced and acted as a leverage upon voters to pass a [questionable] tax increase, it's fine if that's what the donors wanted. It is their right.

But, your contention that in order to take advantage of it, voters were stupid because they didn't pass a poorly conceived tax upon themselves to obtain it is not valid. Wishful thinking, like today's World editorial on the BOK Arena missing out on Garth concerts.

They are what they are. A handout it is not.

[Chicken Little]

^Wrinkle, perhaps you and I are talking past each other.  I'm not talking about the deal itself...I had problems with that, too.

I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing.  No public investment and no private philanthropy.  Bupkis.  And they are looking for someone to blame:  Taylor's a "quitter" in spite of the fact that you left her with no resources to make something happen; Kaiser has no "balls" because he's not giving over his money unconditionally.

Conservatives have created this landscape.  You guys are the ones that made "welfare" a dirty word.  There is no "common good" that you are willing to pay for; what little faith you have is blindly placed in the hands of private interests with private motives.  And then you are galled to discover that the private sector makes deals?  That they manage their risk? That they leverage their investments?  That they operate behind a veil?

Wow.  Banks aren't altruistic. (Well, duh.[}:)])  I'd like to think that you guys are smart enough to know better.  But threads like this seem to indicate otherwise.  You guys made this bed and you refuse to lay in it.  That's what I find indecent.

[Breadburner]

I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis


You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....

There you go again, placing all of your faith in the free market.  To answer your question, no, I do not know what will happen next on the River.  Neither do you.

We chose not to form a social contract to do something.  Granted, it probably would have been sloppy, but there would have been a guarantee that something would happen.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....

There you go again, placing all of your faith in the free market.  To answer your question, no, I do not know what will happen next on the River.  Neither do you.

We chose not to form a social contract to do something.  Granted, it probably would have been sloppy, but there would have been a guarantee that something would happen.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis


You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....

We know that the donations, or the vast majority of them are not coming, that the development plan is "off the table" and that the public money will not be collected or spent. So what exactly do we not know at this point?

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

I am talking about people who are just now realizing that their "NO" vote delivers exactly that...nothing. No public investment and no private philanthropy. Bupkis


You do not know that as a fact in the slightest.....

We know that the donations, or the vast majority of them are not coming, that the development plan is "off the table" and that the public money will not be collected or spent. So what exactly do we not know at this point?

That's not true.....

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner


That's not true.....

Yes, it is.  

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...

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."

And who, other than a few pretend conservatives, can blame them?