Tulsa River Tax

[Boomer.....]

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3258/voteyeswidebugxo0.gif

Tomorrow is the day to vote yes to turn a dry riverbed into a developed attraction. There is only good that can come out of it, see OKC, San Antonio, etc...

Discuss.

:pop:

[IB4OU2]

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3258/voteyeswidebugxo0.gif

Tomorrow is the day to vote yes to turn a dry riverbed into a developed attraction. There is only good that can come out of it, see OKC, San Antonio, etc...

Discuss.

:pop:

But what about the Least Tern...They're endangered you know.

and my vote is Yes!

[frankensooner]

I won't be voting on that issue, of course I live in Edmond. Good luck Tulsa. I hope it happens.

[M]

I would vote "yes" if I still lived in Tulsa. Of course you have a bunch of people in Tulsa who argue that 1) this won't revitalize the city; 2) the city needs to spend money on police/roads, not the river; 3) I live in [insert Tulsa suburb here], why should I pay for something I won't even use/isn't in my town?

It will be close, but I hope it passes.

[JohnnyMack]

I'll say yes. But just barely.

[Boomer.....]

For those road improvement people, by not passing this does not mean that there is going to be a roadway bill or any more money set aside for roadway improvements.

[OklahomaTuba]

I will vote yes, just because it would be FREAKING STUPID to turn down all that private money being donated if this thing passes.

However, this is the 2nd time we are being taxed to raise money for low-water damns. How many F'kn increases in the salestax do we need just for some stupid *** low water damns????

Also getting a little sick of all these tax increases as well. It will really start hurting once the donks start imposing drastic tax increases on our incomes again.

[Fraggle145]

As a scientist and a naturalist this disgusts me. The net cost of the loss of water is exponentially worse when you damn a system due to increased evaporation. Not to mention the negative impact that this is going to have on the river system and the fish community especially the striper spawning runs. The way dams wreak havoc on the river environment is well documented in scientific research going back into the 70s and 80s. What will happen when the next flood comes and its impacts are increased exponentially due to excess water in the system that shouldnt be there? Just a bunch of stuff that hasnt been thought through, and a sad day for the system up there, all so the casino's can make a few more bucks. Not to mention the fact that it includes the outside suburban communities that will have to pay but dont get any direct benefit and often have there own bond issues to pay. meh. :mad:

[OklahomaTuba]

For those road improvement people, by not passing this does not mean that there is going to be a roadway bill or any more money set aside for roadway improvements.

No, it just means we are taxing ourselves for Wants before Needs.

Tulsa isn't stagnant cause the river looks like a ditch & smells like ****, Tulsa is stagnant cause the roads are falling apart, the crime is out of control, the schools suck, and the City is more interested in moving the city hall into the nicest building in town rather than trying to move a big new employer into it.

[Okla-homey]

As a scientist and a naturalist this disgusts me. The net cost of the loss of water is exponentially worse when you damn a system due to increased evaporation. Not to mention the negative impact that this is going to have on the river system and the fish community especially the striper spawning runs. The way dams wreak havoc on the river environment is well documented in scientific research going back into the 70s and 80s. What will happen when the next flood comes and its impacts are increased exponentially due to excess water in the system that shouldnt be there? Just a bunch of stuff that hasnt been thought through, and a sad day for the system up there, all so the casino's can make a few more bucks. Not to mention the fact that it includes the outside suburban communities that will have to pay but dont get any direct benefit and often have there own bond issues to pay. meh. :mad:

worrywart enviromentalists. meh.;)

[OUDoc]

Tulsa. meh.

:)

[JohnnyMack]

No, it just means we are taxing ourselves for Wants before Needs.

Tulsa isn't stagnant cause the river looks like a ditch & smells like ****, Tulsa is stagnant cause the roads are falling apart, the crime is out of control, the schools suck, and the City is more interested in moving the city hall into the nicest building in town rather than trying to move a big new employer into it.

Every once in a while Tuba says something worth listening to. This is one of those months. Enjoy.

[Boomer.....]

No, it just means we are taxing ourselves for Wants before Needs.

Tulsa isn't stagnant cause the river looks like a ditch & smells like ****, Tulsa is stagnant cause the roads are falling apart, the crime is out of control, the schools suck, and the City is more interested in moving the city hall into the nicest building in town rather than trying to move a big new employer into it.
The move might have been unnecessary, but is supposed to save money in the long run. It will be nice having most of the City employees working out of the same building instead of scattered.

It is crucial that a hotel be built next to the new arena, which the move is allowing to happen.

[Fraggle145]

No, it just means we are taxing ourselves for Wants before Needs.

Tulsa isn't stagnant cause the river looks like a ditch & smells like ****, Tulsa is stagnant cause the roads are falling apart, the crime is out of control, the schools suck, and the City is more interested in moving the city hall into the nicest building in town rather than trying to move a big new employer into it.

Exactly, which is another reason why this tax is even more stupid.

[OklahomaTuba]

It is crucial that a hotel be built next to the new arena, which the move is allowing to happen.

Then the arena should have been built near the EXISTING hotels, or maybe in an area of town with some better places to build, rather then across the street from a post office, a federal court house, and a bus station, and within eyeshot of the jail!!!

Oh wait, that would've taken some PLANNING. Something the City of Tulsa just doesn't get I guess.

[JohnnyMack]

Then the arena should have been built near the EXISTING hotels, or maybe in an area of town with some better places to build, rather then across the street from a post office, a federal court house, and a bus station, and within eyeshot of the jail!!!

Oh wait, that would've taken some PLANNING. Something the City of Tulsa just doesn't get I guess.

Didn't you hear? That's the ONLY place it would fit. Like on the whole planet, that spot was the only one. Weird, I know.

[OklahomaTuba]

Every once in a while Tuba says something worth listening to. This is one of those months. Enjoy.

Its my new scripts. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

Didn't you hear? That's the ONLY place it would fit. Like on the whole planet, that spot was the only one. Weird, I know.

Well, nothing says "Welcome To Tulsa!" more than a bum chasing you down asking for some change.

It will be fun to watch the soup kitchen lines and the ticket office lines being so close to each other once our "Original" arena is opened!

[Scott D]

I'm all for taxing Tulsa for having a river. ;)

[picasso]

It sounds great but so did 2025, and umm all of the recent tax issues that have been passed have not been eliminated as promised.
Please tell me what we're reaping thus far from 2025? ;)

Tulsa county is the highest taxed in the state.

I want to vote for a tax that will enable wealthy types in Tulsa and redneck business peoples to learn to appreciate art.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well Tulsa screwed Gilcrease up so bad, they are trying to make it TU's problem.

[JohnnyMack]

It sounds great but so did 2025, and umm all of the recent tax issues that have been passed have not been eliminated as promised.
Please tell me what we're reaping thus far from 2025? ;)

Tulsa county is the highest taxed in the state.

I want to vote for a tax that will enable wealthy types in Tulsa and redneck business peoples to have enough discretionary income to be able to buy my art.

Fixed.

[Scott D]

Tulsa should also be taxed for having two vowels in a 5 letter name. :D

[Hamhock]

I will vote yes, just because it would be FREAKING STUPID to turn down all that private money being donated if this thing passes.

.


i understand your point, but i still don't think that is worth a yes vote. It just perpetuates the mentality that collecting more taxes is easier than managing the tax money we already collect.

boo, river tax.

[Boomer.....]

Well, nothing says "Welcome To Tulsa!" more than a bum chasing you down asking for some change.

It will be fun to watch the soup kitchen lines and the ticket office lines being so close to each other once our "Original" arena is opened!
Like there are no bums around the Ford Center.

[frankensooner]

Like there are no bums around the Ford Center.
Now you Tulsa lovers, don't even start dragging OKC's super fantastic downtown revitalization into your arguments. The only time I have been bothered in bricktown/downtown okc, it was by those stupid petition takers. ;)

[Mongo]

I'd vote for a tax to flatten out all them damn hills. it eats up one's mpg

[1stTimeCaller]

I just think it's funny when Fraggle refers to himself as a scientist. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I just think it's funny when Fraggle refers to himself as a scientist. :D

Kinda like when you refer to yourself as a man.

:pop:

[Whet]

Didn't the Mayor of Tulsa vote twice in the last Presidential election? Once in Tulsa and again somewhere else? And the voters STILL elected her?

Low water dams are notorious for being death traps for anyone that happens to get trapped in the swirling waters directly below the structure.

Why propose a tax at all? Why not get corporate sponsorship to build the fancy-schmancy dam? Why burden the taxpayers again, with another un-necessary project?

Seems like a prime example of tax and spend politics - take more money out of the pockets of citizens, after all, those pols know better than the unfortunate citizens, how to spend their money....

At some point, the citizens should make a stand and say "No more wishful projects!" If Tulsa wants to create a tax, do so for infrastructure improvements.

[Boomer.....]

As bad as the roads are, do you actually think that the people would pass a tax increase to fix them. Probably not. They just want to bitch about them and expect the little bit of existing money to magically repair them.

[1stTimeCaller]

Kinda like when you refer to yourself as a man.

:pop:

pretty much.



Fraggle and I were buddies in college. I've seen him slide down a jello slide from the first floor to the basement and all other kinds of stuff that make me laugh now that he is a scientist.

[Hamhock]

As bad as the roads are, do you actually think that the people would pass a tax increase to fix them. Probably not. They just want to bitch about them and expect the little bit of existing money to magically repair them.


i suppose it is all relative, but i don't think i'd call it a "little bit".

taxes should be for fixing the roads, not islands in the stream.

[Frozen Sooner]

After driving around Tulsa for a week, I gotta say:

You people don't know what bad roads are.

[Boomer.....]

i suppose it is all relative, but i don't think i'd call it a "little bit".

taxes should be for fixing the roads, not islands in the stream.
This is from the City of Tulsa web site:

The annual budget for the City of Tulsa is approximately $500 million. Of this, over $250 million is spent for Public Works and Transportation programs, $170 million for Public Safety and Protection, and $30 million for Cultural Development and Recreation.

The problem is that the $250 million isn't just being spent on roadway improvements. It is scattered all over the place. Since it costs so much to replace existing roads, the City ops to try and fix, repair, or patch the old roads to save money. These roads have been patched so many times that they need to be replaced.

I forget the exact number, but a few months ago, they found that it would cost over $1 billion just to get our roads to acceptable levels. The small share of the $250 million that specifically go to roads will not fix that anytime soon.

[Hamhock]

The annual budget for the City of Tulsa is approximately $500 million. Of this, over $250 million is spent for Public Works and Transportation programs, $170 million for Public Safety and Protection, and $30 million for Cultural Development and Recreation. .

This is the problem with our tax system. Why, pray tell, should the city of Tulsa spend $30 million on cultural development and recreation?

$30,000,000 would buy a lot of guard rails and those bumpy reflector thingies.

[Boomer.....]

Who knows why they have the money distributed the way that they do. On a similar note, I'm sure most people have noticed them replacing all of the guardrails along the BA. This is another chunk of money that comes out of the roadway fund. Yes, they needed to be replaced, but it shouldn't take away from the money that goes into the roads.

[NormanPride]

badger has been trying to get me to vote yes. I've wanted to vote no for a long time. I'm voting no.

I feel sorry for the North Tulsans if this passes.

[Boomer.....]

Why do you feel bad for the north tulsans?

[frankensooner]

I know several people who were down on the MAPS tax here in OKC prior to it passing. They were telling me "its just like the strand of pearls plan" that didn't pan out years earlier. Now these same people love Bricktown, love the library, love the Ford Center. If it works it will be great for Tulsa. Some times you have to nut up and take the chance. OKC is now a very attractive destination not just for tourism, but for relocating businesses as well. Good luck Tulsa, I wish you the best.

[OklahomaTuba]

No one is against making the ****ditch called the Arkansas look like a real river again. We are just getting way to many promises, way to many taxes, and not a lot of results. Poor *** planning is the reason IMO.

However, I do say vote for this thing, because the private investment that is being promised for this is just WAY to much for the people to turn down.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Low water dams are notorious for being death traps for anyone that happens to get trapped in the swirling waters directly below the structure.

That's true. Which is why the Tulsa Fire Department is fully equipped with a technical rescue team with swift water equipment to effect rescues from the river regardless of location and depth. Point being, because a low water dam is coined as a 'drowning machine', that shouldn't be a reason to vote no on an infrastructure tax. Bullets kill people, too. A damn sight more than low water dams, and the protection of is a constitutional amendment.


Why propose a tax at all? Why not get corporate sponsorship to build the fancy-schmancy dam? Why burden the taxpayers again, with another un-necessary project?

Because corporate sponsorship and corporate dollars are invested for one sole, single purpose. The generation of a profit. Building low water dams doesn't necessarily generate profit. Nor does land acquisition for future commercial projects. The projects themselves and the private sector dollars that are inserted into the market afterwards are what generates the profit.


Seems like a prime example of tax and spend politics - take more money out of the pockets of citizens, after all, those pols know better than the unfortunate citizens, how to spend their money...

Which given some flexibility in the state constitution, Tulsa as a community could've solved some of the woes of being almost strictly reliant on sales tax dollars for municipal funding. Apparently municipal fire departments aren't worthy enough to exist on ad valorem dollars. Instead, the entire focus of a city has to be the generation of revenue to maintain existing services. Sad, really.


At some point, the citizens should make a stand and say "No more wishful projects!" If Tulsa wants to create a tax, do so for infrastructure improvements.

I thought that's what this was for. By the way, where were you when the city petitioned the state legislature to amend the state constitution so that the sales tax burden of municipalities could be reduced by funding essential services like police and fire through ad valorem dollars, a more stable, easily relied upon source of funding?

Or are you just a no tax kinda guy?

[JohnnyMack]

Wasn't there also talk about the Branson Landing developers being interested in the 21st street area if this thing passes?

[Hamhock]

Wasn't there also talk about the Branson Landing developers being interested in the 21st street area if this thing passes?


If there is a chance of getting a Roy Clark theater, my vote changes.

[Scott D]

After driving around Tulsa for a week, I gotta say:

You people don't know what bad roads are.

Truck drivers say they should spend some time in Pennsylvania. Maybe they can tax Tulsa for that too ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Pennsylvania is stoopid.

[Boomer.....]

Wasn't there also talk about the Branson Landing developers being interested in the 21st street area if this thing passes?
Yes. Them and I think 3 other developers are willing to build if the tax passes. More perks.

[BigRedJed]

Most of the reasons listed here to vote against the tax were also used by opponents of MAPS in OKC. In '93 that tax was an absolute squeaker. MAPS continued to be extremely controversial for years after that, burdened by delays and cost overruns.

By '98, when the city had to go back and ask for a six month extension to the penny sales tax to be able to afford to build the Ford Center (cost overrruns in the other projects caused the shortfall), the measure passed by the largest majority ever to vote yes on a tax referendum in state history. The difference those five years made? The main change was the completion of the ballpark (the first completed downtown MAPS project -- there were a few completed prior to that at the fairgrounds), a few months prior to the election. For the first time, OKC voters were able to see their future, and understand in real terms what MAPS would do for their city.

To date, the investment (public and private) that OKC has seen due to MAPS has totalled $2.5 BILLION dollars. A pretty good return on an investment of a little less than $400 million. These days, you'll find it pretty difficult to get anyone to admit to being anti-MAPS in 1993.

The jobs created, tourism and hotel tax dollars captured, and general economic development OKC experienced due to this meager penny sales tax far more than compensated for the tax dollars spent building the infrastructure. The economic growth we experienced is exactly what we needed to be able to afford the better roads, services and the like. Roads and other needs will always be there, and the best way to pay for them is by having a good economy. It takes money to make money, and your city has to be appealing to create the type of economic development that allows it to move forward.

The difference between simple maintenance and capital improvement is vast. The sales tax model allows for a city to quickly catch up and not be saddled with debt. Otherwise, your options are basically limited to issuing bonds, similar to getting a mortgage on your home. When you consider the interest paid on a $100 million+ bond issue, paying it through a dedicated sales tax saves literally tens of millions of dollars for a city.

A separate, side item is related to the suburban communities that in T-town seem intent on cannibalizing the city itself, as if doing so is somehow a good thing for anyone. One of the key proponents of the MAPS tax in 1993 was the economic development director for Edmond, who rightly said at the time that it wouldn't do Edmond any good to be a suburb to a dead city. Ask the suburbs of Detroit if they would like to find a way to breathe some life into their neighbor. If Jenks, Owasso and others persist in competing with Tulsa rather than helping cure its problems, they will ultimately pay a dear price anyway.

For Tulsa to escape its economic doldrums, it needs to invest in itself. I know it pains everybody in Tulsa to use *gasp* Oklahoma City as a model, but SNAP OUT OF IT. Possibly the best example in the country of what this type of dedicated sales tax-based self-investment is only an hour and a half down the interstate. You're better situated than anyone in the country to find out how its lessons apply to your city. Other cities' leaders routinely spend lots of money to fly here and study MAPS (I have hosted them), you can do it with an afternoon road trip. Learn from it. Improve upon it. The roadmap is there.

I wish you guys luck. I wish I could vote yes for you. Instead, tomorrow I'll be voting yes tomorrow for another round of OKC school improvements, none of which would have been likely to happen without the momentum that MAPS created.

[Whet]

Because corporate sponsorship and corporate dollars are invested for one sole, single purpose. The generation of a profit. Building low water dams doesn't necessarily generate profit. Nor does land acquisition for future commercial projects. The projects themselves and the private sector dollars that are inserted into the market afterwards are what generates the profit.
Corporate sponsorship - If a corporation can invest millions of $ to sponsor the NASCAR series; have their names on numerous professional stadiums; attached to golf tournaments or other sporting events, they can sponsor the construction of something like this. Imagine, Bass Pro River Project, or something similar. Also, corporations DO purchase land for commercial development. What about Lincoln Properties, or other corporation in Tulsa, could they purchase land for this type of development? The Fed government has grants available for Brownfield developments. The city of Toledo has a recently developed riverside development, along the Maumee River, as does Cleveland, along its River Flats area. Both of which, I don't believe, required an additional tax burden on its citizens...

As for the safety of low water dams, your comment speaks for itself. It is something to consider, but should not be a primary cause to vote for or against the proposal.

Another thought to consider: Since we live in a litigious society, who will be pay the judgements from lawsuits for those killed or injured because of this unsafe structure? Tulsa will - but where will Tulsa get the money? From the citizens!


I thought that's what this was for. By the way, where were you when the city petitioned the state legislature to amend the state constitution so that the sales tax burden of municipalities could be reduced by funding essential services like police and fire through ad valorem dollars, a more stable, easily relied upon source of funding?

Or are you just a no tax kinda guy?
This project is not to upgrade/maintain the existing infrastructure. What is the age of the water/sewer system in Tulsa? How are the roadways? What is the average age of Police and Fire Department equipment? How developed is the ICS for disasters?

Essential services, as you mentioned, would be better served, if funded through property tax. As you stated, this mechanism would provide a more stable funding source and better long-term planning.

No, I am not a "no tax kinda guy," just believe pols should not be so anxious to rely on the pockets of the taxpayers to fund any wild idea they come up with. Did Tulsa really need a new arena? Does Tulsa really need this new development? It is up to the Tulsa voters to decide these issues, not me.

I don't live in Tulsa or Oklahoma - haven't lived there since '86. But, I have seen out of control pols grabbing citizen's money from my time living in Illinois and the city of Chicago. Chicago has a tax rate of 10.5%, is that where Tulsa is headed?

Just some thoughts. Afterall, it is your city!

Whatever your thoughts, yes or no, exercise your right - go vote.

[IB4OU2]

The success OKC had with MAPS is exactly the reason I believe Tulsa SHOULD approve the River Tax. Tulsa is such a beautiful city and has such potential to achieve and improve it's tourism and it's quality of life even beyond what OKC has already achieved and the basic components are already in place.

[olevetonahill]

I dont have Dog in this fight . So I just hope whats best for Yall is what happens ;)

[picasso]

Fixed.
:D

[StoopTroup]

I was against it at first but I'm gonna join the "IN" clique and vote yes.

In the long run....we won't remember even why we were against it.

I think folks are just PO'd about so many things that they are against it for no substantial reason.

This is a better oppotunity to improve Tulsa than what the idiots running the Fairgrounds have got going on.

[Sooner_Havok]

I personally hope Tulsa does vote this thing down, can't have another city spring up in Oklahoma and compete with the OKC for tourism and corporate investment! Everyone in Tulsa, do what is best for Oklahoma City, vote NO! :D :D

[Soonerus]

Tulsans would be fools to not vote yes on this item...would set them back another 10 years...

[Sooner_Havok]

Tulsans would be fools to not vote yes on this item...would set them back another 10 years...


Dude, don't tell them that, then they might actually pass this thing! Think how a resurgent Tulsa would hurt OKC!

[Boomer.....]

:les: GO VOTE PEOPLE!!!

[Mjcpr]

Tulsans would be fools to not vote yes on this item...would set them back another 10 years...

Sadly, we have our fair share of fools here. Some of them on the City Council even.

I bet it will be close.

[Oldnslo]

I voted. For the tax.

Yea, me.

[StoopTroup]

For lovers of all things Tulsa....

Here's an article on S.E. Hinton the author of the "Outsiders"

Good read IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/03/books.se.hinton.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

[Hamhock]

if this thing passes, I'm cancelling my SF sponsorship.

[StoopTroup]

Might as well go now by the looks of the poll.

It was nice having you around.

Damn bandwagoners....;)

[StoopTroup]

Ewwww....

I just voted.

[badger]

Hey guys, the views I say here do not represent my employer... which I will not name, but just in case you know (and please don't say it if you do),

As part of my job, I have been covering both pro- and anti-river pep rallies and events. Both sides have some very legitimate arguments. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the issue.

I will counting ballots and tallying votes tonight until about midnight, starting when polls close :eek:

[OklahomaTuba]

I just wrote STOOPS on my ballot.

[Mjcpr]

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the issue.

Who is Tulsa's worst City Councilor?

Thanks, I'll take my answer off the air.

[badger]

Who is Tulsa's worst City Councilor?

Thanks, I'll take my answer off the air.
I don't know the councilors that well, so I cannot and will not answer that question, but I will help with your choice! Three of them - Roscue Turner, Jack Henderson and John Eagleton - spoke AGAINST the river tax on Sunday.

Their thoughts were as follows (not direct quotations, I don't have that good of a memory):

Eagleton: Taxes are not good for the economy. When taxes are lowered, they help the economy, as was the case with George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman.

Henderson: They are telling us this tax is good for us (referring to north Tulsa). Rather than telling us what is good for us, they should ask what is good for us, or we won't give them our votes now or in the future.

Turner: (Referring to Vision 2025) We voted for it because they gave something to everybody, but I have yet to see any piece of it, so why vote for this, when all they're promising is $5 million? We're giving them a blank check for $225 million, and all we get is $5 million, and it's probably just another broken promise!

I should note that the $5 million refers to a promise by a single donor to build/maintain parks and pools in "low income areas" should the river tax vote pass. However, this is not at any specific area (i.e. north Tulsa), but rather, across Tulsa County.

Anyone else?

[Mjcpr]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. You have to choose one.

[badger]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. You have to choose one.
Nice try. I've only met three and I didn't dislike any of them upon initial meeting, so therefore, I don't dislike any of the ones I've met, nor have any reason to dislike any of the ones I haven't met.

But, I can give more thoughts on the three that I did hear speak:

Eagleton: Would not approve of river funding until roads are up to acceptable grade... I think he said C+, and I'm pretty sure we're on the "D List" like Kathy Griffin right now.

Turner: Also didn't like the plan to move Driller Stadium to downtown, because unlike the stadium moving to Jenks on the riverfront, it was his opinion that moving it downtown would cause a need for another tax in Tulsa.

Henderson: Feels like north Tulsa is being excluded from the benefits the rest of Tulsa receives through taxes and believes the jobs brought in by the tax vote would be temporary and not for Tulsans, namely north Tulsans.

[Mjcpr]

Since you keep mentioning those three, I will put you down as a vote for those 3 as the worst.

Thanks for participating in my pole.

[badger]

Since you keep mentioning those three, I will put you down as a vote for those 3 as the worst.

Thanks for participating in my pole.
:mad: Ok then, Mjcpr is the worst councilor. That's right, YOU.

VOTE HIM OUT! VOTE HIM OUT!:cool:

[StoopTroup]

What year will Mayor Taylor run for Governor?

[StoopTroup]

Will we be able to noodle down there after it's built?

[badger]

What year will Mayor Taylor run for Governor?
Hehe. Well, the guber(natorial) election will be 2010.

This is assuming, of course, that Henry does not run for U.S. Senate, which he has said numerous times that he will not. When VP (yes, the U.S. VP) is brought up, he says that he and his family are exactly where they want to be.

She already has friends in the cabinet, most notoriously "sweeping clean" Kim Holland, but Kathy Taylor has also said numerous times that she is where she wants to be.

That is the official stance.

The unofficial stance is that both Henry and Taylor are extremely ambitious, and if approached for Senate, VP, governor, whatever, they would look to "move up" in the political rhelm.

Having talked to both, I would say that Henry will at least finish his term as governor before thinking of challenging Coburn (as opposed to Inhofe, who already is getting a waiting list of people wanting to challenge him, lol) in 2010, when Coburn will be up for re-election.

As for Taylor, she is seeing some opposition to some initiatives and will have a few years left in her term to prove that they were worthwhile for the betterment of Tulsa. I'm referring not to Vision 2025, which was under the LaFortune administration, but rather, to the new city offices downtown that cost millions (but will include rental office space to earn the city income, in addition to selling the old city bldg lot), as well as the decisions to promote the river tax, the centennial related celebrations including the buried Bevedere et al, and seemingly ignoring the roads and bridges and their deteriorating shape.

Henry has little to prove in the rest of his time in office - regardless of what he does, he's out in 2010 and can't run for another term, and basically needs to do enough to not get impeached, or if he's looking to take another office, do enough to keep his legacy good. Taylor, however, has made questionable decisions, and must prove that they were good in the long run during her remaining time in office, or she won't be a candidate for governor, not to mention another term as Tulsa mayor.

[badger]

Will we be able to noodle down there after it's built?
You mean the Arkansas River? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
...no.

This was actually brought up at the Sunday debate/event, when an advertisement showed a girl with a snokel. To be fair, it was referring to a water park associated with the tax plan, not the river itself.

The Arkansas River is NOT safe to swim in. You can boat, you can kayak, you can do those types of river activities, but do NOT touch that water! You will get sick. As a typical prairie braided stream, it's not the same as some rivers you see in the north. After years of contamination (you Tulsa people might have relatives that dumped stuff in the river, I have heard many stories of job related and such dumpings), it would take more than the plan has to offer to make it noodle-able.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm not sure I'd vote for Kathy Taylor again.

[StoopTroup]

Then she's a lock.

I think she's made some questionable calls.

I think that most of them are going to pan out over time.

She's one tough cookie IMO.

I didn't care for her at first but she has really put her neck out there for things she believes in. There is just something about her that makes me think she's going to have a long Political Career.

[IB4OU2]

Will we be able to noodle down there after it's built?

I heard the Brown Trout are in abundance.

[badger]

I'm not sure I'd vote for Kathy Taylor again.
A lot of people in Tulsa have been saying the same thing. Some of these people will be even more angry should the tax pass, for the same reasons they don't like her now -- ignoring the infrastructure problems in favor of Tulsa toys, like the BOK Center, river and city offices.

Then she's a lock.

I think she's made some questionable calls.

I think that most of them are going to pan out over time.

She's one tough cookie IMO.

I didn't care for her at first but she has really put her neck out there for things she believes in. There is just something about her that makes me think she's going to have a long Political Career.
She fortunately has the time to let her decisions pan out, which I'm sure she took into consideration. If the election were today, and people saw her spending money for some of these projects, I'm not too sure she would be re-elected. However, they very well may "pan out," as you said, and be a benefit for Tulsa.


I heard the Brown Trout are in abundance.
HAHAHAHAHA... not funny. :mad:

[IB4OU2]

HAHAHAHAHA... not funny. :mad:

:eek: Believe it or not I used to Striper fish below the low water damn and pedestrian bridge....some of the fish caught were in the 15 to 20lb range and it was always catch and release. The river can be cleaned up not for swimming but for alot of other recreation.

[StoopTroup]

Everything bad in the river is downstream of the pedestrian bridge. :D

[JohnnyMack]

A lot of people in Tulsa have been saying the same thing. Some of these people will be even more angry should the tax pass, for the same reasons they don't like her now -- ignoring the infrastructure problems in favor of Tulsa toys, like the BOK Center, river and city offices.

She fortunately has the time to let her decisions pan out, which I'm sure she took into consideration. If the election were today, and people saw her spending money for some of these projects, I'm not too sure she would be re-elected. However, they very well may "pan out," as you said, and be a benefit for Tulsa.


Yeah, that's pretty much it. She doesn't seem too focused on reinforcing the infrastructure of the city or really tackling crime. Her choice of lapdog, I mean Chief of Police, and the way she handled that whole hiring process didn't sit well with me (or several of my friends who are TPD).

I can't really hang the BOk center on her as that die was cast long before she strolled into town. I actually do hope she doesn't make concessions in terms of getting that arena built the way it should be.

She definitely has a "If you build it (or move it to a new shiny office) they will come attitude", I just think this city needs someone who will try and clean it up and attract REAL jobs, not just building pretty parks and places to shop.

[StoopTroup]

Casinos are helping to centrally locate crime.

[Fraggle145]

Kinda like when you refer to yourself as a man.

:pop:

heh.

[badger]

:eek: Believe it or not I used to Striper fish below the low water damn and pedestrian bridge....some of the fish caught were in the 15 to 20lb range and it was always catch and release. The river can be cleaned up not for swimming but for alot of other recreation.
Yeah, that would be nice.

For the record, I registered to vote in Tulsa County too late so I am ineligible to vote in this election today.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/071009_A22_NoArt07248_Tulsavote-2color.jpg
If eligible, however, I would vote "yes."

The biggest argument against a higher sales tax is that it would hit low income families the hardest. However, they will receive a rebate that is equal to the estimate that they would spend. For those concerned about prescription drugs, sales taxes on these products are already lower than all other sales taxes, because state taxes do not apply.

However, as I cannot vote, I am completely neutral. If it passes, not my fault! If it fails, not my fault! I would, however, not mind contributing to river development fundraisers should it not pass and they still want to do this.

[IB4OU2]

Casinos are helping to centrally locate crime.

Why do you hate Native Americans? I won 250.00 last night. The wife won 2250.00 last week.

[StoopTroup]

I ordered a drink at Applebees the other day and it had a tax of 15% added to it.

So I'm not sure what all this "Will hurt the poor stuff" is about anyway...

I didn't see any poor folks there complaining.

I did see James "Quick" Tillis though.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/06/13/tyson.history/tyson_2.jpg

[StoopTroup]

Why do you hate Native Americans? I won 250.00 last night. The wife won 2250.00 last week.
Me love casinos.

I no use Smokemup shop though.

[badger]

http://www.geekonstun.com/images/jackal_lets_vote.gif
Hey T-town. Less than four hours left to vote, dang it! You effin hillbillies need to...
http://www.artinstitutes.edu/upload/losangeles/rock_the_vote.jpg
or else you'll regret it when you see the end result tonight!

...whatever that result will be. I would have to assume that people that are either for or against will be apathetic toward voting, then realize they could have made a difference instead of sitting back... kind of like Michigan's field goal coverage after Appy State... or USC's defense against Stanford... or Texas against KSU or OU.
http://www.eurielec.etsit.upm.es/~bisho/blog_files/vote_or_die.jpg
I don't care how you vote...
http://www.trincoll.edu/~sharris/gifs/sports_entertainment/Just_Do_It_nike.jpg

[Fraggle145]

pretty much.



Fraggle and I were buddies in college. I've seen him slide down a jello slide from the first floor to the basement and all other kinds of stuff that make me laugh now that he is a scientist.

Good times :D. I remember when you would fall asleep for the night with a dip in. heh. good times. RZ

[Fraggle145]

:eek: Believe it or not I used to Striper fish below the low water damn and pedestrian bridge....some of the fish caught were in the 15 to 20lb range and it was always catch and release. The river can be cleaned up not for swimming but for alot of other recreation.

If you think that these dams do not mess with the striper population you are sadly mistaken my friend.

[IB4OU2]

If you think that these dams do not mess with the striper population you are sadly mistaken my friend.

I agree. That's why I was fishing below the dam and not above it. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I thought you said strippers.

[StoopTroup]

Two more hours and we start throwing rocks in the Arkansas River.

[TMcGee86]

Most of the reasons listed here to vote against the tax were also used by opponents of MAPS in OKC. In '93 that tax was an absolute squeaker. MAPS continued to be extremely controversial for years after that, burdened by delays and cost overruns.

By '98, when the city had to go back and ask for a six month extension to the penny sales tax to be able to afford to build the Ford Center (cost overrruns in the other projects caused the shortfall), the measure passed by the largest majority ever to vote yes on a tax referendum in state history. The difference those five years made? The main change was the completion of the ballpark (the first completed downtown MAPS project -- there were a few completed prior to that at the fairgrounds), a few months prior to the election. For the first time, OKC voters were able to see their future, and understand in real terms what MAPS would do for their city.

To date, the investment (public and private) that OKC has seen due to MAPS has totalled $2.5 BILLION dollars. A pretty good return on an investment of a little less than $400 million. These days, you'll find it pretty difficult to get anyone to admit to being anti-MAPS in 1993.

I wish you guys luck. I wish I could vote yes for you. Instead, tomorrow I'll be voting yes tomorrow for another round of OKC school improvements, none of which would have been likely to happen without the momentum that MAPS created.

And just think... there are still US Americans out there that dont have MAPS.


It's tragic.

[Mjcpr]

A lot of people in Tulsa have been saying the same thing. Some of these people will be even more angry should the tax pass, for the same reasons they don't like her now -- ignoring the infrastructure problems in favor of Tulsa toys, like the BOK Center, river and city offices.

How much of a sales tax bump would it take to raise the $1 billion needed to pay for all of the streets? Whatever it is, I'm sure they'd vote for it.

BTW, this is a County tax, not a City tax so I don't know why they'd hold the Mayor "responsible". She's in favor of it, but so are a lot of people.

The BOK Center was part of Vision 2025 and was passed under the LaFortune administration; Mayor Taylor was just saddled with sorting out some of the budget issues that arose due to a big jump in material costs.

One Tech was her idea to get out from under the current City Hall at no additional cost to the City and to free up some City property for private development, especially City Hall which is very near the BOK Center. However, it required Council approval which it got........with, I think, one dissenting vote. And that vote came from whatshisname who never votes for anything, so that one almost doesn't even count. :)

[Okla-homey]

I'm thinking its gonna pass, at least if ejucated folks turned out to vote today.

Here's the thing, if it does, I expect Greenpeace, the Sierra's and the rest of the usual suspects will sue to enjoin the low-water dams. They won't win, unless there is some rare species living out there on the sandbars which will become extinct if the dams go in, but they can successfully tie the project up in court for a few years.

Therefore, I hope we have a "lockbox" in which to put all the proceeds from the sales tax increase pending the resolution of the inevitable litigation.

[StoopTroup]

I guess we'll be waiting until 10pm for the news on this.

I don't see any of the locals with an on-screen total vote.

[bri]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2233/1527610604_7ef9b2dbb5.jpg

I voteded!

[StoopTroup]

With 55% of the precincts in....No is leading by a slim margin.

[Mjcpr]

75% and No is leading 52% - 48%, or about 4,000 votes.

I was afraid it wouldn't make it.

[Soonerus]

I absolutely cannot believe the people of Tulsa have solittle vision....amazing...

[TMcGee86]

srsly.

this disappoints me greatly.

[Soonerus]

I am disappointed and I live in Norman...

[bri]

This surprises me none.

Remember, this is a community that killed about three or four Tulsa Projects before they finally grudgingly passed Vision 2025. I love Tulsa, but sometimes I absolutely loathe Tulsans.

[M]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g258/DixieChickMissy/87665Dude-Wtf-Posters.jpg



:confused: :confused: :mad: :(

[Soonerus]

Tulsa verrrrry disappointing...

[OklahomaTuba]

I think this is going down.

The reason this didn't pass is simple, too many basic needs are being ignored in favor of Wants like the arena & new city hall. And not to mention the sales tax rate is already way too high to begin with.

And the fact this vote was asking people in towns not even on the river is a bit stupid as well.

If it were just a City of Tulsa vote, I say it passes, since they don't seem to mind decaying infastructure, high crime and sub-par schools.

Maybe some other way can be found to fund the river development. A sales tax increase is just the easy way of doing it.

[Soonerus]

sad...

[StoopTroup]

I should have voted no...

It would have passed then.

[KABOOKIE]

Heh Tulsa. What a dump. :D

[Soonerus]

Tulsa is very nice but why not take the next step....bizarre...

[badger]

Official word now in (unless they want a recount)
NO!

If you're hoping for development, don't give up hope just yet - they'll probably tinker with the plan a little and try again in six months... that's about how long they took on this one.

[Getem]

I think one reason for the no vote is a lack of trust in the leadership involved. I voted yes, but with strong reservations because I have absolutely zero faith that the project could be executed responsibly by the current leadership of Tulsa. I hate the way they have run the Yes campaign, with all this misleading info like:

Streets near Riverside will be improved - they don't mean the actual street, they mean that the scenery will be improved.
That flyer that went to BA people, with a picture of a "Broken Arrow Riverfront" development - there is nothing in this project for that. And Randi Miller defended it, saying "It's not misleading because the flyer doesn't say that will happen". Riiighttt.
The 5.6M for the two low water dams in Vision 2025 - what happened to that? Now they say everybody should have known that you can't build dams with 5.6M. WTF? Why was it worded that way in the resolution then?

Really the problem is that they think we are all naive when they are the ones that are stupid.

[Soonerus]

too bad you have untrustworthy leadership in Tulsa..

[bri]

Russell, shut your goddamn mouth. Go monitor the flood waters in the town you actually live in or something.

[Soonerus]

How do you explain such a pathetic situation...Tulsa now moves 20-30 years behind the times...

[Soonerus]

Russell, shut your goddamn mouth. Go monitor the flood waters in the town you actually live in or something.

btw, I would be banned for such a post...

[tommieharris91]

I never wanna go back to Tulsa, especially now. Too many okie aggies in leadership positions (at least in the schools).

[StoopTroup]

We're hunting them down...one by one. ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

HAHA! Thank you Tulsa residents! You have ensured that the economic growth in Oklahoma City will not be slowed down by a competing city a mere 90 miles away! Thanks for the big head start Tulsa, we'll throw you a bone when we get the Sonics, you can have the WNBA team! I was really sweating that one, I thought for sure they would pass this measure and start drawing away resources from Oklahoma City, I was wrong, Hooray!

[goingoneight]

Maybe this pit will actually pass a vote to fix what needs to be fixed. Roads and bridges, schools, you know... that little stuff.

[Boomer.....]

Weak.
Sauce.
:mad:

[Boomer.....]

I know that the private money was only going to be used if the tax passed, but why can't they still use the money to build a few dams. We can skip the scenic areas and pedestrian bridge for now. At least then we could still have water in the damn river.

[1stTimeCaller]

hey, at least you guys still have the World's best Arena III football team or whatever.

[Petro-Sooner]

HAHA! Thank you Tulsa residents! You have ensured that the economic growth in Oklahoma City will not be slowed down by a competing city a mere 90 miles away! Thanks for the big head start Tulsa, we'll throw you a bone when we get the Sonics, you can have the WNBA team! I was really sweating that one, I thought for sure they would pass this measure and start drawing away resources from Oklahoma City, I was wrong, Hooray!

Exactly.

Heres to growth Tulsa.......CHEERS.

[Mjcpr]

btw, I would be banned for such a post...

Try it and see.

[Mjcpr]

I know that the private money was only going to be used if the tax passed, but why can't they still use the money to build a few dams. We can skip the scenic areas and pedestrian bridge for now. At least then we could still have water in the damn river.

I'm not sure private money can go for that sort of thing, or land acquisition along the river. I believe that is what the public funds were to be used for.

I could be wrong on that, however.

[Mjcpr]

Maybe this pit will actually pass a vote to fix what needs to be fixed. Roads and bridges, schools, you know... that little stuff.

This was a county tax, the county is not going to fix Tulsa's roads and bridges, they MAY fix some county roads and bridges.

And schools aren't really funded by sales tax as far as I know.

[Hamhock]

Maybe this pit will actually use the tax money it already takes from me to fix what needs to be fixed. Roads and bridges, schools, you know... that little stuff.

fixed.

[My Opinion Matters]

As a Tulsan, I'll go ahead and say it...Tulsans are pretty dumb.

[Mjcpr]

As a Tulsan, I'll go ahead and say it...Tulsans are pretty dumb.

Some of us are, yes. :D

[Xstnlsooner]

Wasn't the defeat really because of the metro cities like BA that didn't want
their money being used in a city that is not theirs? I was for the tax, but I
can see their point.

[Boomer.....]

BA and north Tulsa were the big opponents of the tax.

It also seemed like the older generations were not for the tax either.

[Xstnlsooner]

I still believe it would have benefited the whole county, without a doubt!

[IB4OU2]

I was looking forward to a new statue on Riverside dammit! :mad:

[mikeelikee]

I felt insulted by the "conditional philanthropy". Out of the goodness of our wealthy hearts, we'll give you $122 million of private gifts, but only if you agree to tax yourselves. Charity with strings attached is not true charity.

The river can be developed without a friggin' county-wide sales tax. Create a TIF on the west side at 23rd Street, then the Branson Landing folks will develop Tulsa Landing. Get to it, Mayor Taylor. Lick your wounds, and get to it.

[Mjcpr]

Wasn't the defeat really because of the metro cities like BA that didn't want
their money being used in a city that is not theirs? I was for the tax, but I
can see their point.

BA would not be as successful as it is if not for Tulsa, so it would be in their best interest for Tulsa to do well. Where do most of those folks work?


=Boomer....BA and north Tulsa were the big opponents of the tax.

It also seemed like the older generations were not for the tax either.

Yep, despite there being a rebate of the estimated tax expense for those with low income and the elderly.

[badger]

The bottom line is if they had north Tulsa on their side, it would have passed. The margin of victory for "no" was right in north Tulsa.

The people up there were saying it for weeks (possibly months) that they didn't mind river development... they just didn't want to pay for it. I think that borderline voters in the area were also largely insulted by the single donor's offer to give $5 million to parks and pools if the tax should pass - you know, when the rest of the county gets more than $300 million and all...

Let me tell you after counting ballots last night, the margins in both Broken Arrow and north Tulsa were ASTOUNDING! 800 to 100... 300 to 30... the margins were that overwhelming.

If they should present such a project again (and they probably will), they will need to sell their cause to these areas... or yet again, it will be turned down by these votes.

Am I disappointed? Yes, but not sorely. It's a setback, but the Tulsa donors won't give up with a single "no" vote, I don't think. The donations will be there later. It's just that they are going to have to revise their project (and perhaps the idea of a countywide tax) to get it going.

[Mjcpr]

The people up there were saying it for weeks (possibly months) that they didn't mind river development... they just didn't want to pay for it. I think that borderline voters in the area were also largely insulted by the single donor's offer to give $5 million to parks and pools if the tax should pass - you know, when the rest of the county gets more than $300 million and all...

Those that could least afford this 40 cents per $100 of tax eligible purchases would have been able to receive a refund of this burdensome tax. Therefore, they wouldn't have paid for it.

And north Tulsa is part of Tulsa county just like the rest of Tulsa is so it's unfair to say they get $5 million when the rest gets $300 million.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm less than surprised it didn't pass.

This campaign felt very thrown together, not all that thought out.

And I think the reason it didn't pass is 1 part people in the outlying areas of the county not seeing how they would benefit and 1 part people in Tulsa proper thinking that the leadership needs to be spending more time and energy fixing what's broken, not buying a new shiny bauble.

[Hamhock]

I was looking forward to a new statue on Riverside dammit! :mad:

how did we get the buffalo in sapulpa? it definitely inspires me to spend money.

[NormanPride]

The problem here is that the private money isn't going to wait for another issue to pass. It's gone, people.

I voted yes, even though I didn't like the idea. I was pessimistic about it working, and even more pessimistic about it having any effect on Tulsa in general. Still, I tried to be an optimistic youth. Tulsa, however, is too jaded by past problems in misuse of funds and poor handling of previous taxes. In addition, there are too many self-serving communities in the outlying areas that don't realize Tulsa is their lifeblood. Thanks, BA. Not moving there...

[OklahomaTuba]

I know that the private money was only going to be used if the tax passed, but why can't they still use the money to build a few dams. We can skip the scenic areas and pedestrian bridge for now. At least then we could still have water in the damn river.

The funny thing is, We already voted and passed money for that!!!!

It was called 2025.

And yet, they aren't there yet. Surprise Surprise.

Why the hell we were asked to pay for something Twice is beyond me.

[OklahomaTuba]

duplicate post

[OklahomaTuba]

The problem here is that the private money isn't going to wait for another issue to pass. It's gone, people.

How much public money went into the River Walk in Jenks??

Somehow I doubt that the private money is gone. It will be used if there is a profit to be made.

[Mjcpr]

The funny thing is, We already voted and passed money for that!!!!

It was called 2025.

And yet, they aren't there yet. Surprise Surprise.

Why the hell we were asked to pay for something Twice is beyond me.

:rolleyes:

That has been explained over and over and over again. That money was matching funds because it would not pay for the entire project. The funds that it would match were supposed to come from the Federal water resources whatchit bill that Inhoffe (he's a repub, you know) has been sponsoring. Or, it would have been used as part of this plan had it passed.

Now, I guess it will sit around and wait for Inhoffe's dealio.

That is how I've heard it explained anyway.



The $5.6 million allocated for two low-water dams in Vision 2025 is not nearly enough to build the dams. A small percentage of those funds were used for engineering studies. The balance of $5.6 million will be carried forward and combined with additional monies included in this proposal to build the dams. Vision 2025 anticipated matching federal funds for construction of the two dams. Unfortunately, hurricanes Katrina and Rita occurred and any federal funds that we thought might be available were redirected.

[StoopTroup]

Dam you Katrina!

[Mjcpr]

How much public money went into the River Walk in Jenks??

Somehow I doubt that the private money is gone. It will be used if there is a profit to be made.

Do you count TIFs? If so, $233 million or so for that big Jenks project.

[Getem]

It is strange that several precincts along the river (yes even closer than ORU) from 61st to 81st voted no. 110,111,112,161... Is that area that dominated by the low-income projects? Also Jenks proper (702) voted no. So they DON'T want a discernable river at Riverwalk? :confused:

[picasso]

The problem here is that the private money isn't going to wait for another issue to pass. It's gone, people.

I voted yes, even though I didn't like the idea. I was pessimistic about it working, and even more pessimistic about it having any effect on Tulsa in general. Still, I tried to be an optimistic youth. Tulsa, however, is too jaded by past problems in misuse of funds and poor handling of previous taxes. In addition, there are too many self-serving communities in the outlying areas that don't realize Tulsa is their lifeblood. Thanks, BA. Not moving there...
they're not doing anything with the funds they got last time around.

who's watching their backs??????

Also, I've heard rumors that the private money thing is not dead. And what's with the big dogs of Tulsa dangling that carrot over our heads anyway? If you want to pitch in, do it and quit taxing my starving artist *** to death.