Is INCOG still a necessary evil?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Again your facts are wrong. Do you not realize that people on this forum will call you on it?

She has appointed four people to the board so far and at least one of them doesn't fit your description.

Stop and do your homework before you call out the word "putz".

Oh yes you are right, I forgot about her very first appointee to TMAPC, one of KKs mid town buddies.  Cronyism at its best.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

She has appointed hundreds of people to various boards and you picked one?

I went back to the list of contributors printed in the Tulsa World in 2006 and his name was not on it.

I am guessing either you are lying or just assuming that a past county democrat leader gave money to a democrat candidate for Mayor.

Most of the other posters are willing to add positively to the forum or are willing to back it up. You do neither.

Your lies and constant negativity hurt us all.

I'm only speaking of the TMAPC which is at the center of debate on this thread.  She has only had the opportunity to appoint 3 people to that board.  Of those 3, one is the former local Dem leader, one is a developer (homebuilder) and the other is an architect that serves many of the developers around here.  Conflicts of interest all over the place.  

There aren't enough hours in the day to discuss the back scratching appointing that has been done for other boards.  I never said anything about MONETARY contributions twit.

Inteller,
It is advantageous to have members who understand planning, development and architecture at a very high degree.  It is also advantageous for these people to be successful in their communities.  Successful people usually have political ties and opinions.  This is simply part of doing business.  

I have no problem with the members of the planning commission, in fact I think the current staff is an excellent mix with some great intellectual gifts and experience.

If appointments were made to those who have no development, architecture, or engineering experience, the commission would be clown parade.  I would have to spend half my time trying to explain things to them using finger puppets.

I just think the underpinning of INCOG needs to be rethought.

No, you CAN have smart people who understand planning AND have no ties to local developers and the mayor's office.  But that is not the case here.

AFAIK Bixby has their own planning commission, INCOG doesn't really mess with them.  Now, I'm not sure its makeup is any better than Incog's TMAPC (probably not considering the rampant cronyism around these parts) but they do seem to work autonomously from INCOG.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't think it is possible for you to be more insulting.  

You forgot?...please Inteller. You didn't know until you were questioned...either tell the truth or go away.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I don't think it is possible for you to be more insulting.  

You forgot?...please Inteller. You didn't know until you were questioned...either tell the truth or go away.

no, I was concentrating more on pure conflicts of interest, not the ever present cronyism.

you know, I sit around and chuckle when you sit there defending KK like she was the second coming.  But if getting you fired up burns a few calories then consider it free exercise.[}:)]

[cannon_fodder]

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

She has appointed hundreds of people to various boards and you picked one?

I went back to the list of contributors printed in the Tulsa World in 2006 and his name was not on it.

I am guessing either you are lying or just assuming that a past county democrat leader gave money to a democrat candidate for Mayor.

Most of the other posters are willing to add positively to the forum or are willing to back it up. You do neither.

Your lies and constant negativity hurt us all.

I'm only speaking of the TMAPC which is at the center of debate on this thread.  She has only had the opportunity to appoint 3 people to that board.  Of those 3, one is the former local Dem leader, one is a developer (homebuilder) and the other is an architect that serves many of the developers around here.  Conflicts of interest all over the place.  

There aren't enough hours in the day to discuss the back scratching appointing that has been done for other boards.  I never said anything about MONETARY contributions twit.

Inteller,
It is advantageous to have members who understand planning, development and architecture at a very high degree.  It is also advantageous for these people to be successful in their communities.  Successful people usually have political ties and opinions.  This is simply part of doing business.  

I have no problem with the members of the planning commission, in fact I think the current staff is an excellent mix with some great intellectual gifts and experience.

If appointments were made to those who have no development, architecture, or engineering experience, the commission would be clown parade.  I would have to spend half my time trying to explain things to them using finger puppets.

I just think the underpinning of INCOG needs to be rethought.

No, you CAN have smart people who understand planning AND have no ties to local developers and the mayor's office.  But that is not the case here.

AFAIK Bixby has their own planning commission, INCOG doesn't really mess with them.  Now, I'm not sure its makeup is any better than Incog's TMAPC (probably not considering the rampant cronyism around these parts) but they do seem to work autonomously from INCOG.

To have people who understand planning and have no ties to development means, to appoint strictly academics (you know, those that can't do).

I would love to see this, just for the entertainment value.

Let me restate that, I've seen it attempted before, in other jurisdictions, and it is hilarious.  They constantly attempt to validate themselves and make their marks on each development with absolutely no experience in the matter.  Ultimately they all return to the safety of the academic environment.

It's fun to watch them bog down in the menushia and spend all of their time making new formats for submittal, new forms, and stationary.  On a California project I even saw an 8 page document on how to fold the plans for submittal in accordion format.

It would be good for a laugh though.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

Come on Canon!  I love this guy!  He makes us all look smart!

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

I've already said, there are plenty of level headed people who understand planning and development issues who don't have a connection to developers or the mayor's office around here.  Hell, I bet some of them have probably even submitted their applications to be on that board.  I think Bates did, or had at least expressed an interest in the past.

And really, at the end of the day this committee largely just rubber stamps the methodical examination that the REAL planners back at INCOG do.  It is only when overt overruling of a logical conclusion by the planners brings to light the conflict of interest issues.

And then one will say "well those people can just abstain from voting on a conflicting issue"  Fine, but if they are having to abstain all the time because they have their fingers in everything around Tulsa, how can you have a fully impartial vote on the TMAPC?  Every time someone with a conflict of interest abstains, someone else's vote just got that much more powerful.

So bottom line, take the mayor out of the appointment process, and screen the backgrounds of all applications for development ties.

[RecycleMichael]

So your answer is to appoint people who actively campaign against you?

Please Inteller.

If you don't know what you are saying, it is hard to know when to stop. Now is that time.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

So your answer is to appoint people who actively campaign against you?

Please Inteller.

If you don't know what you are saying, it is hard to know when to stop. Now is that time.

no, read above.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

I've already said, there are plenty of level headed people who understand planning and development issues who don't have a connection to developers or the mayor's office around here.  Hell, I bet some of them have probably even submitted their applications to be on that board.  I think Bates did, or had at least expressed an interest in the past.

And really, at the end of the day this committee largely just rubber stamps the methodical examination that the REAL planners back at INCOG do.  It is only when overt overruling of a logical conclusion by the planners brings to light the conflict of interest issues.

And then one will say "well those people can just abstain from voting on a conflicting issue"  Fine, but if they are having to abstain all the time because they have their fingers in everything around Tulsa, how can you have a fully impartial vote on the TMAPC?  Every time someone with a conflict of interest abstains, someone else's vote just got that much more powerful.

So bottom line, take the mayor out of the appointment process, and screen the backgrounds of all applications for development ties.

Rubber stamps?  You obviously have no experience with them.

I was going to continue, but it's pointless.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

I've already said, there are plenty of level headed people who understand planning and development issues who don't have a connection to developers or the mayor's office around here.  Hell, I bet some of them have probably even submitted their applications to be on that board.  I think Bates did, or had at least expressed an interest in the past.

And really, at the end of the day this committee largely just rubber stamps the methodical examination that the REAL planners back at INCOG do.  It is only when overt overruling of a logical conclusion by the planners brings to light the conflict of interest issues.

And then one will say "well those people can just abstain from voting on a conflicting issue"  Fine, but if they are having to abstain all the time because they have their fingers in everything around Tulsa, how can you have a fully impartial vote on the TMAPC?  Every time someone with a conflict of interest abstains, someone else's vote just got that much more powerful.

So bottom line, take the mayor out of the appointment process, and screen the backgrounds of all applications for development ties.

Rubber stamps?  You obviously have no experience with them.

I was going to continue, but it's pointless.

have you ever been to a technical committee meeting?  That is where the nuts and bolts of development are taken care of.  What comes out of those meetings is largely what is acted upon by TMAPC.  As well as TMAPC meetings are held to allow the public a feeble voice against the development juggernaut.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Who would you have on the "Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission?"  It seems developers and architects should be well represented on the board.  Who would you want on it - people that are stoutly anti-development?  That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

What qualified individual is not either a democrat, involved with development/construction/design, living in midtown, or a supporter of the mayor?  Seems like you removed about 65% of the city in one swoop - then try looking for a qualified candidate and I'm confident your search would be a long and difficult one.

Maybe you are not familiar with the makeup of professional boards - they are usually made up of people related to the area they are governing.  That way, they know what they are talking about.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to staff the board with account managers from SemGroup (or wherever) who know nothing about development.  

Not too mention, if she staffed the board with a bunch of people not related to the industry you'd be *****ing about that.  Do everyone a favor and try to limit yourself to complaining about things you actually have justification for.  I too grow tired of your constant negative fluff.

I've already said, there are plenty of level headed people who understand planning and development issues who don't have a connection to developers or the mayor's office around here.  Hell, I bet some of them have probably even submitted their applications to be on that board.  I think Bates did, or had at least expressed an interest in the past.

And really, at the end of the day this committee largely just rubber stamps the methodical examination that the REAL planners back at INCOG do.  It is only when overt overruling of a logical conclusion by the planners brings to light the conflict of interest issues.

And then one will say "well those people can just abstain from voting on a conflicting issue"  Fine, but if they are having to abstain all the time because they have their fingers in everything around Tulsa, how can you have a fully impartial vote on the TMAPC?  Every time someone with a conflict of interest abstains, someone else's vote just got that much more powerful.

So bottom line, take the mayor out of the appointment process, and screen the backgrounds of all applications for development ties.

Rubber stamps?  You obviously have no experience with them.

I was going to continue, but it's pointless.

have you ever been to a technical committee meeting?  That is where the nuts and bolts of development are taken care of.  What comes out of those meetings is largely what is acted upon by TMAPC.  As well as TMAPC meetings are held to allow the public a feeble voice against the development juggernaut.

Please check the front of your computer for the following sticker.

[spoonbill]

Sorry, that was inappropriate.  I have attended several TEC ADV meetings.  It is part of the process, and it is imparitive that the members of the Planning Commission understand what is being debated.