Downtown Revitalization = Socialism

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Tulsa is a unique place, and one of its unique little quirks is that it is built on an easy to understand grid, and people do not like navigating through one-way streets and searching for parking, or taking multiple expressway ramps and turns to get somewhere.

Downtown, too, was built on a grid.  Sure, there are one-way streets.  If you drive past your destination, just take the next turns to go back.  Just like ANY other destination anywhere else.  If "multiple turns" discourage people from coming downtown, it in turn should also discourage them from leaving their home.  Turning left onto Harvard, right onto 71st St., Left on Memorial and right into the Mall's parking lot... That's just wayyy too confusing for me to handle.

quote:Even IF downtown Tulsa loses its 'run down' image, its still not going to become the favored destination of the city's consumer.

Says you.  And it's not IF, as you say, but When.  Downtown Tulsa will retake its rightful place as a center of activity, shopping, nightlife and will indeed become a desired place to live.  It's already heading in that direction, but it's slow-going, just like everything else in this town.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

It's already heading in that direction, but it's slow-going, just like everything else in this town.

God ain't that the truth....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

If you don't like socialism, then you'd better not drive on tax-supported roads, shut off your tax-supported water, decline the use of your tax-supported sewer system, decline to call the tax-supported police department when you have a break-in, or refused to alert the tax-supported fire department when your attic fan wiring goes on the fritz.

A lot of people complain about socialism, but would be loathe to not have admittedly socialist services such as these.

There is a very clear difference between "socialism" and a society providing social services.    Socialism is an attempt to put the control of most aspects the economy under government control.  The things you describe are classic examples of appropriate rolls of government in a free market system as described by Adam Smith.

Do you really not know the difference or are you trying to be clever?

[waterboy]

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

[TheTed]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

Business in South Tulsa loses out on the benefits of this new stadium. Although they have hotels, restaurants and other establishments ready to capitalize on a nearby stadium, much of the buck gets passed to a poorer neighborhood, to 'help it out.'

Businesses don't benefit from a ballpark surrounded by surface parking. You drive to the park, go to the game, get in your car and leave.

Downtown will benefit because people will have to walk by restaurants/bars.

If businesses benefitted from a ballpark surrounded by parking then 15th and Yale would be booming with bars and restaurants.

[FOTD]

Who will step up to the batters box to build a stadium? The city can only be a facilitator.

[Hawkins]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

Bite your tongue! I've never come out against river development. I was saddened by the loss of the River Tax vote.

There was a provision in there for a low-water dam near the Riverwalk. I was all for it.


--

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Hawkins has expressed disgust with downtown and river development many times. He prefers the burbs. Calling this socialism is a thin veil over that antagonism and you all are encouraging his ploy. I'm surprised he didn't call it Hillaryism so it would really catch fire.

There was a lot of talk about socialism during the depression era of the 30's and some say we dabbled in it (NRA, CCC,). If so it worked pretty well till the pre-war economy really made it all uneccessary.

Bite your tongue! I've never come out against river development. I was saddened by the loss of the River Tax vote.

There was a provision in there for a low-water dam near the Riverwalk. I was all for it.


--

Then my apology for that. Nonetheless, your arguments against downtown don't cut the mustard. I have no problem with suburban expansion being subsidized by my inner city taxes, even though I believe most of it to be gaudy, poorly planned and wasteful. Still, if that's what people want then the government facilitating it is no problem.  Why is improving my area so anathema to the 'burbans (improvements other than buying our homes and replacing them with replicas of their 'burban dreams)? Swake lives in 'burbia and still understands the need for saving our core.

[TheArtist]

Like I have said before. I believe that by 2012 downtown Tulsa will have enough stuff going for it again that it will then take off and grow healthily on its own, without so much "socialist intervention" lol. It will soon be something that will become a money maker and positive draw for all of Tulsa. The trend around the country is for downtowns and urban living. Tulsas downtown just needs a bit of a jump start to get it going and to also help it compete with other cities. Once we get her going, she will take off quite nicely.

 Even the growth of our suburbs is something that will help. Lots of those young families will have kids that will want to live in the "big city". Believe it or not, a lot of empty nesters like living in dense, urban, walkable communities as well. Having downtown and mid-town Tulsa helps give Tulsa the complete offering of living and lifestyle choice.

Hawkins, not everyone likes to live the suburban lifestyle. In order for Tulsa to compete as a city or just plain offer the urban lifestyle that a lot of people insist on... well, where better than downtown? If we dont offer an urban lifestyle, other cities will.  

Just as we should have a good urban environment to offer people, we should have good suburban offerings as well. Those cities that have lots of young people, aka the kids of those families that are now flocking to our suburbs, will do well because they will have the workforce needed once the baby boomers start retiring. We are lucky to have booming suburbs so close in to Tulsa. We should encourage good growth in those suburbs. The River District in Jenks is a perfect example of the kind of suburban growth that will make our suburbs desirable for a long time. Broken Arrow has some problems in this respect, but I think they are realizing this and taking steps to change their development habits. Including "socialist, downtown, revitalization" efforts of their own. lol

Tulsa would do well to be a full fledged city, a real city, that offers both great surburban and great urban lifestyle choices.

[we vs us]

I don't know, Hawk, I tend to see it in an entirely different light.  

The city's trying to use the levers it controls to create a market for development downtown.  In other words, create desirability for private enterprise to invest and improve it.  If this were  a planned socialist economy, the city would mandate improvement and investment and the developers wouldn't have a choice about it. They would be forced to make the investment, whether it was a good risk or a bad one. As it is, the city's just trying to keep its hand in the game by making downtown a competitive investment vs. southern hills, or Riverside Dr, or Jenks, or BA, etc.  

------

And if we go by your expansive definition of what constitutes socialism, any group of individuals -- governmental or not -- which comes together to advance an economic cause is "socialist."  That includes the Chamber of Commerce (lobbying for better business environment!), The Girl Scouts (selling cookies!), and the Shriners (soliciting me for charitable donations with silly hats and tiny cars!)  That's why I tried to post a better definition back upthread aways.  It's a very specific thing, socialism is, and not really at all how you defined it.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

It does really annoy me the way that inaccurate labels are attached to ideas in a way to hamper debate.

'This isn’t socialism, but hey lets call it socialism so if you stand up for it you are a socialist.'

I think we should talk about things on their own merits rather than the petty labels people inaccurately and purposefully assign to things.

[Gaspar]

I think the city offering incentives is fine, in fact it is good business for a city that wants to have a surviving core.  

I don't believe this can be labeled socialism until the city starts imposing penalties on business that choose to go against the establishment.  Then we have Berkley and a number of other West coast cities that have very clearly embraced a socialist system.

I think that Tulsa's biggest problem is the difficulty in embracing reality.  We have a great, growing metropolitan area, and most of it is not down town.  Rather than talking about how Tulsa's core is shriveling, we need to talk about all of the diverse living communities and "cores" that Tulsa is growing.  

Wake up!  All of your talk about "revitalizing downtown" or "Tulsa's crumbling core"  or the "dilapidated buildings," don't serve as attractive language to companies that want to develop in Tulsa!

We have a lot to offer, and not all of it is downtown.  If we can focus on those positive issues and continue to incentivize downtown development at the same time, we stand a far better chance of a developer seeing downtown as a new frontier rather than a crumbling dinosaur.

Just my two cents.  I think so much conversation here is fueled by a jealous hatred of the successes we should be celebrating!

[USRufnex]

Interstate highways = socialism

Discuss.  []

/sarcasm

[PonderInc]

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

If socialism is "bad" and capitalism is "good;"
And if capitalism is an American value;
And if our great American Values are good;
And baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet represent our great American Values;
And if you plan to drive your Chevy downtown to watch the Drillers and eat a hotdog, followed by a slice of apple pie at a local dining establishment...
Then building the stadium reinforces our great American Values;
Ergo: Building the stadium is not socialism.
Ergo: Building the stadium is good.

Socrates says: "If you build it, they will come!  Let's do it Tulsa!"

That is an awe-inspiring theorem right there.