Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Lawyer down, Cappy.  There is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city.  Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County.  Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.

Whoah, there.  Can't let you get away with that one.  I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).  

While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely.  The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.

If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.

Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.

Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess.  But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.

Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million  Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025?   Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.

Do I expect Tulsa to capture 8,000+ new households out of a possible 8.3 million? Sure lets try and get 0.14% of all people seeking TOD neighbourhoods. How about going wild and trying to capture more than that maybe there is space in America for 1% of those people to move to Tulsa.

I do better analysis when paid, I may have made a slip between household and people, but that's because I slip a little posting into my busy day and make sure I give value to those who pay my wages.

quote: oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

Thanks, and as I always say 'se a vida É'. I don't take this too seriously.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

You are missing the point entirely, which we in the lawyerly domain sometimes call obtuse (when we want to be nice about it).  

I have never said rail transit would not complement other growth efforts; I think it might.  I believe and have said that I believe rail transit, when reasonably feasible, will help a city's core. (I don't think we are at that point and very much doubt the ridership projections the subject study have set out, but that's a slightly different topic.)

I completely agree that the renaissance we see in the Dallas and Denver cores and their commitment to rail transit are "both the result of a hidden third cause".  It's rather odd that you are attacking me and then proceed to agree with my basic premise.  Rail does NOT cause the growth.  But in point of fact, I have not even gone as far as you just did.  I agree and have stated several times that a rail line (especially a light rail line, not necessarily a commuter line) can cause more dense growth and can redirect growth from one part of a city/metro to another.  

What I have been arguing in the most recent set of posts is merely that there is very little if any evidence that a rail investment, OR an investment in TOD, will cause a metro area to grow MORE than it would without that rail line or TOD (especially a metro like Tulsa which is not constrained by massive congestion or geographical obstructions.)  

Nothing in your post even disagrees with that premise, let alone disproves it.  

And once again, let me reiterate, none of this in any way implies that rail is inherently a bad idea, or that the denser growth in the core is not desirable.  It surely is.  But believing that rail will CAUSE any additional growth for the Tulsa metro despite an apparent complete lack of evidence that rail has ever had such an effect anywhere, is, to use your words "horse****."

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Lawyer down, Cappy.  There is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city.  Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County.  Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.

I'm not entirely sure about that.  Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)?  I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line.  Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.

Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.

Whoah, there.  Can't let you get away with that one.  I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).  

While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely.  The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.

If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.

Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.

Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess.  But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.

Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million  Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025?   Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.

Do I expect Tulsa to capture 8,000+ new households out of a possible 8.3 million? Sure lets try and get 0.14% of all people seeking TOD neighbourhoods. How about going wild and trying to capture more than that maybe there is space in America for 1% of those people to move to Tulsa.

Here's what I think you may be missing.  Is there any reason to think that a proportionate number of those 8.3 million households that supposedly "desire to live in TODs" don't already live in the Tulsa metro?  Those people might be very pleased indeed to move into a TOD and, as I have said repeatedly, TODs would likely cause some changes in the arrangement of Tulsa housing.  But those Tulsa people who desire to live in TODs will not be "growth" for the Tulsa metro.

Further, there is nothing in that statement of 8.3 million additional households desiring to live in TODs that suggests that any of those people would relocate to another metro because of TODs or choose one metro over another because one has TODs and the other does not.  

I'll grant that there probably are a few such people.  But significant?  Very doubtful.  8,000 households of them who would choose Tulsa if only Tulsa had TODs?  Remember, this is 8,000 households full of people (above and beyond Tulsa's natural proportion of the 8.3 million) who would choose to move to Tulsa because of TODs.  Not happenin'  ;-)

I apologize if I've gotten "snarky" with you.  I only intend to have a good solid factual discussion.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

There is so much incredibly lawyeristic bs coming from you, I don't even know where to start...

Spamtastic.  []

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

That is such incredible lawyeristic bs coming from you, I don't even know where to start...

Spamtastic.

ROFL   Don't start.  just keep me on your ignore list.  It's really quite lovely having a discussion without your incoherent ranting.

[USRufnex]

Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.

Jerk.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.

Jerk.

Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.

Jerk.

Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?

Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.

Jerk.

Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?

Yes.  As an honest Tulsan, unlike yourself...
I'd rather have you on ignore... but sometimes you have to respond and make sure the good people on this site understand your dishonest dog-and-pony show...
gotta go to dinner.... news at 11.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)

It is STILL my opinion you should be banned from this site... but you're too subtle for people to catch on...