quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Strange indeed.
Bell's: It's a parking lot. Go take a look.
I have. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm betting (yes, my guess is...) some of this has to do with expansion for expo square in general, quarter-horses and expanded racetrack facilities (casino?), not necessarily in that order.
quote:
Moving city hall may or may not turn out to be a good deal (I'm betting on not because that's what the operating expense numbers in the "study" actually showed). But the FACT is that the city government lied about their contract with the consultant. They told us it was a fixed-price contract (which any study worth looking at should be). But then it leaked out that there was actually a bonus payment if the consultant reach Kathy's preferred result.
More bull from you. You simply DON'T KNOW... you pretend to know... you side with the naysayers, pretending to be a whistle-blower when you're nothing more than a no-at-all-costs critic... you consistently stand in opposition to any and all decisions made at the city level.... you've been doing this for years now...
quote:
When the TDA went out to seek proposals for the TowerView block property, they crowed about how there was soooo much interest from developers and that they would get multiple great proposals. Well, we all know that they got ONE flakey proposal. No exaggeration here, pal.
I thought the number used was "several" but I'm just a guy who grew up here and chose to move back, not a subtle critic of all things Tulsa who never wanted to live here in the first place...
quote:
Yes, I know Greenwood Chamber is buying that property. They were the ONLY entity to submit a development proposal..........
I'd be interested in seeing examples of the "lies" put out by the opponents of the River Tax. If there were some, I'll happily condemn that too. But lies from elected leaders are a far more serious matter, as they destroy trust, as we have seen in abundance here in Tulsa.
Really? So why would the Greenwood Chamber buy the property if there were no interested parties?.... I think the interested parties based their decisions on a rejuvenated downtown/east village... and have hedged their bets these days, not unlike a certain guy from SF who bought half of downtown...
And how is exaggerating interest different from what happens in other cities. I've been watching the group that runs Major League Soccer for over a decade... they come up with a list of "interested" cities every year-- there's ALWAYS lots of interested parties... the joke in soccer circles is that there's going to be a very serious announcement about MLS expansion "in the next 60-90 days"...but the devils always in the details... if Tulsa's previous soccer proposals have anything in common with the way the city in general does business... everything's always hush-hush and behind closed doors...
So, it's entirely possible (dare I say, likely) that there are still multiple plans for that area... which would explain why that land was purchased by the chamber...
You want to know lies put out by the river tax opponents???... geez, where to start... So, I take it you didn't read ANY of Friendly Bear's posts?... you didn't read anything from Michael Bates's and the others who pushed out propaganda that there'd be these low water dams built by Vision2025 that we supposedly already paid for... and stretched that point to include fiscally irresponsible talk of spending "surplus funds" on river development... failing to say these are projected funds--
With the news the past few days on the economy, I wouldn't be counting those "projected surplus" chickens so quickly....
And to say that there are lying local pols in Tulsa and nowhere else, is well...... a lie.
Of course you'll counter that you never actually said that... and play the victim card again and post that you guess you'll have to become a "cheerleader." awww... that's just precious...
quote:
I did not say anything about a slush fund.
If you had better reading skills, you'd see I was responding to someone else.... also, if you read the entire TW article, it explicitly says that if the tax passes and the NBA doesn't come to OKC, the city will still get $97mil-- I see a double standard here... what if Vision2025 had that little caveat as part of the Boeing proposal ("If Boeing doesn't come here, the city will still get $97mil")... Bates and company would be all over it like flies on
XXXX... besides, it ain't always about you, punkin'... [
]
quote:
As to the Tulsa Landing, I also did not say it would not have affected Tulsa Landing one way or the other. It MIGHT have put a process in place to help Tulsa Landing. BUT, it was and is a complete lie to say that it would have assured the development of Tulsa Landing or that the failure of the River Tax would make Tulsa Landing impossible, both of which were at the very least strongly implied by the pro-tax folk.
"strongly implied"??? yeah, that street runs both ways. The "no" people took the naive view that voting against the River Tax would have little effect on Tulsa Landing.
It wasn't a matter of "whether or not" rejecting the river tax was going to affect the Tulsa Landing project; it was a matter of degree... last I heard from the guy, he compared the prospects of getting it done w/o the taxes to "taking the stairs" instead of riding the elevator... pretending that rejection of the tax for the river isn't going to deeply affect the possible success or failure or feasability of Tulsa Landing is a rejection of common sense...
quote:
I really don't have an opinion on the proposed tax in OKC. And I don't really care enough one way or the other. You see, I don't live in OKC. I live in Tulsa. That matter is for Oklahoma Citians to decide. I am naturally skeptical of all tax increase proposals and am generally skeptical of public subsidies for pro sports. But again. I don't live there or have any particular reason to have an opinion on their local tax issue.
Again, I don't regularly read or even open the website of the Daily Oklahoman. Its rather peculiar that the lack of criticism of another city's newspaper would be noteworthy to you. Strange indeed. I don't post criticisms of the Kansas City or Dallas papers here on the Tulsa forum either. Oooohhhh, it's a conspiracy!
Funny how you spare no effort to defend anyone from OKC posting on this site... funny how some of the details from your posts mirror previous articles from The Oklahoman... coincidence? perhaps.
quote:
The last thing this board needs is another Tulsa cheerleader, but it is just not true that I've had zero nice things to say about Tulsa. I'll try to post more happy talk, okay?
Oh, nice play of the "cheerleader" card. I have NEVER been a cheerleader for Tulsa. I have been critical of the city on a number of issues. Many of us have. YOU, on the other hand, have been predictably anti-EVERYTHING because you previously hated it here. Maybe you've had some sort of change-of-heart....
Of course, we'll never know... because now that I've called you on it, you'll turn into
"little miss sweetness and light" for awhile until going back to your "everything in tulsa is corrupt" nature...
quote:
Sorry, but to the extent I pay attention to OKC's government (and it's a whole lot less than I pay attention to Tulsa's because, again, I LIVE IN TULSA, NOT OKC...), I'm just not seeing anything to criticize the OKC government about, at least on this topic. As I said at the beginning of this conversation. OKC's government was where Tulsa's is about 20 years ago. But for whatever reason, and however they did it, they have managed to install and maintain a pretty good operation in their city and county governments down there. Somehow or another they've been able to make a lot of great things happen down there. One has to be pretty delusional not to see that. I hope Tulsa can get there some day soon.
Where did you get the opinion that Tulsa is where OKC was 20 years ago? It certainly implies that you lived there.... or maybe that you previously posted stuff on an OKC website?... or maybe you're just taking your opinions off what others say about OKC and have no experience living in OKC?.... if you chime in on this thread posting how Tulsa may eventually get where OKC was 20 years ago... are you telling me you come to this conclusion despite having never lived there???
Because I DID live in OKC 20 years ago and still visit a few times a year... so I can sympathize with what the occasionally trolling OKC poster may say on a Tulsa thread about the NBA...... you however, POUNCE on it, using any mis-step as a "gotcha" moment so you can accuse TulsaNow posters in general of not knowing the "facts" as
you see them...
for someone who calls himself "Oil Capital" and claims to not be from OKC, who may or may not still have the hots for Houston, this quote is very telling...
"For many many years, OKC was in the same position because their city leaders had routinely lied to them, had failed to complete promised projects, etc. At long last, with their promotion and passage of the original MAPS, they (with new accountable leadership) broke free of that.
Tulsa now finds itself in the exact position that OKC was in 20 years ago."What promised projects?!? What new accountable leadership?!? Mayor Norick, Mayor Humphries?
I lived in OKC for most of the decade of the 80s, which was pre-MAPS and still keep reasonably up to date on other OKC stuff, because I have friends in OKC... are you talking about the Myriad Gardens?... or the post-MAPS grumbling over the massive amounts of public money used to attract what my friends there termed "a glorified bait shop" (Bass Pro)... And how exactly would YOU know?...
Or are you just talking out your a$$?
