Toll Bridge: Access Denied

[sgrizzle]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080123_1_A1_hJenk50257

quote:
Court zaps toll-bridge plan

by: SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
1/23/2008  12:00 AM

Jenks and Bixby reached too far, the state's high court rules.


Jenks and Bixby have no authority to allow a private company to build and operate a toll bridge connecting Jenks to Tulsa without Tulsa being part of the plan, the Okla- homa Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

All nine justices agreed that Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority -- comprised of Jenks and Bixby -- overstepped their rights in contracting with a private company to connect the bridge outside the cities' corporate boundaries onto Tulsa's bank.

Justice Yvonne Kauger said in her ruling that "because toll roads and bridges by their nature connect various municipalities, towns and counties, such sovereigns must consolidate their authority to construct toll roads and bridges."

Tulsa objected to the bridge on several grounds, including inadequate streets in the area that would be accommodating incoming traffic from the bridge at a time when street dollars are stretched thin.

Homeowners in south Tulsa began a grass-roots effort to stop construction of the bridge; the group later organized to become the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.

Coalition spokesman Michael Covey said he was elated to have some finality on the bridge question.

"I think it's obvious that the two parties you have to have are the city of Jenks and the city of Tulsa. That's their major failure from a legal standpoint," he said.

Covey doesn't believe that there are other legal avenues for Jenks, the bridge authority and private contractor Infrastructure Ventures Inc.

Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland asked for more time to digest the findings with attorneys before commenting. Infrastructure Ventures President Bill Bacon could not immediately be reached.

The coalition pulled together more than $100,000 for their legal fight that started in district court about two years ago.

"The whole spectrum of emotions comes to mind when you continue to fight something well over three years and spend over $100,000 of citizens' money," Covey said. "This is nine of Oklahoma's most brilliant legal minds saying, 'You, the citizens, win.' To me, that's good. I'm certainly glad this wasn't a split decision."

Covey does believe that a bridge will be built someday.

"I don't know who or when, but the city of Tulsa has a lot of other problems to deal with right now than a bridge in south Tulsa. A lot of those other issues need to be addressed first like dilapidated infrastructure," he said.

Jenks and Bixby officials have stressed the need for a bridge in the Yale location from a public safety standpoint as more homes are built south of the river.

The Supreme Court ruling reverses a Tulsa County District Court ruling by Judge Gordon McAllister in January 2007 in favor of Jenks and the bridge authority.

The high court also remands the case back to district court with directions to grant a judgment in favor of the coalition.

Jenks approved a bridge agreement with Infrastructure Ventures in February 2006. In August 2006, Jenks and Bixby created the Arkansas River Bridge Authority, and the deal between Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures was shifted to Jenks, the bridge authority and Infrastructure Ventures.

The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition and homeowner Tom Snider filed a lawsuit in Tulsa County District Court in February 2006 to try to over turn the decision on the grounds that:

   * Jenks has granted a franchise to Infrastructure Ventures without a public vote.


   * Jenks assumed financial responsibility without voter approval.


   * Jenks' exercising the power of eminent domain outside its limits was unlawful.


   * Jenks failed to competitively bid the project.


   * Jenks lacks authority to build a toll bridge.


   * Taking of property to construct a bridge for private use is unlawful.


   * The bridge authority failed to comply with requirements for a public trust.


   * The bridge authority was trying to exercise authority outside the Jenks and Bixby boundaries.



According to a footnote in the Supreme Court ruling, the coalition's other claims were not addressed because the order of the trial court was reversed.



Susan Hylton 581-8381
susan.hylton@tulsaworld.com

[restored2x]

Who the heck are the legal consultants for the City of Jenks? Somebody definitely dropped the ball on this one.

[waterboy]

They didn't need legal advice. They needed someone with common sense and an understanding of the communities involved. This was good news for both cities. Now they can put their efforts into solving the problem together instead of for Jenks and some privateers.

[Conan71]

I bet there is one pissed off former county commissioner.  There went his retirement plan.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I bet there is one pissed off former county commissioner.  There went his retirement plan.

Agreed.
In fact, the whole crowd could've retired on that one.

I think Vic should reimburse the homeowners for their legal fees.

[South County]

Forget about the toll aspects for a minute, are there any other viable locations for the bridge or does it have to be Yale pl, Yale and / or river road? I know it been on Incog's maps at that location for many years, but does it have to be?

[sgrizzle]

Seems like Yale or Riverside/Riverroad are the only options.

[RecycleMichael]

The river is too wide north of the Yale/121st area.

But the mile to the south is about the same width of river. By looking at the arial, 131st street looks reasonable.

Of course, some surveying and engineering are needed to verify that statement.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The river is too wide north of the Yale/121st area.

But the mile to the south is about the same width of river. By looking at the arial, 131st street looks reasonable.

Of course, some surveying and engineering are needed to verify that statement.

I think they want to a avoid getting too close to the memorial bridge.

[Rico]

One item being overlooked in the proposed location of the "bridge"..

There was quite a bit of "speculative real estate" purchased along the path they desire.

At least that was the buzz back when the whole plan first was unraveled.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

 There went his her retirement plan.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

 There went his her retirement plan.

I thought it Dick's retirement plan too?

[Wrinkle]

The correct siting for a bridge is 41st Street.

Until that one, which is a real need, is done, there's no reason to waste public funding on one which is needed only to inflat property values outside the city for speculative developers.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

The correct siting for a bridge is 41st Street.

Until that one, which is a real need, is done, there's no reason to waste public funding on one which is needed only to inflat property values outside the city for speculative developers.

Word. Good thing the river tax failed or the 41st St bridge would never be built.

[Chicken Little]

41st!  Down with that.