River tax town hall meeting 2 p.m. Sunday
County Commissioner Randi Miller has scheduled her one and only public meeting on the $282.25 million river tax plan for tomorrow -- Sunday, July 29, at 2 p.m., in the at the east end of the QuikTrip Center (formerly known as the IPE Building and as the Expo Center). That probably means it's in the cafeteria building, a smaller brick building attached to the east end of the bigger structure.
The information was in Saturday morning's Whirled, buried on page A17, in the least read edition of the paper. That's a good way to make sure that, say, county employees know to show up, but citizens with questions and concerns don't get the word.
There will be three other meetings on the topic, all hosted by County Commissioner Fred Perry. Here is the complete list from the Whirled:
Sunday: 2-4 p.m. at the east end of the QuikTrip Center (formally known as the Exposition Center) at Expo Square; Commissioner Randi Miller will give a PowerPoint presentation.Monday: 7 p.m. at Hardesty Regional Library, 8316 E. 93rd St; discussion hosted by Commissioner Fred Perry.
Tuesday: 7 p.m. at the CityPlex Towers, 81st Street and Lewis Avenue, on the second floor of the atrium building; discussion hosted by Perry.
Wednesday: 7 p.m. at Central on Main, 210 N. Main St. in Broken Arrow; discussion hosted by Perry.
Come and make your voice heard. Word is they'll vote on putting the tax on the ballot on Thursday.
If I'm able to go, I have two three things to tell the county commissioners:
(1) They promised to construct two low-water dams and to improve Zink Lake as part of Vision 2025, and they promised that the projects on the ballot would be fully funded before any new projects are considered. They need to keep that promise and fund the construction of low-water dams and Zink Lake improvements from Vision 2025 money. It's wrong for the County Commissioners to make us tax ourselves twice to get what we've already paid for.
(2) It is irresponsible for the County Commissioners to send a tax hike to a public vote when they haven't given due consideration to funding these projects without a tax increase.
(3) If the County Commissioners say they can't find a way to fund the low-water dams with Vision 2025 money, they are saying that there isn't enough money in Vision 2025 to complete all the promised projects.
MORE: Ken Neal's Sunday Whirled column is already on the web. Neal praises Commissioners Fred Perry and John Smaligo for having become more open-minded about tax increases and accuses City Councilor John Eagleton of trying to delay river development for many years. And Ken's notion that borrowing against future revenues would be like a second mortgage is just plain wrong. Tulsa County has been borrowing against future Vision 2025 revenues all along, with the intention of completing all projects in the first half of the 13 year period of the tax.
STILL MORE: TulTellitarian, writing at meeciteewurkor.com, has been crunching numbers, too. He makes some different assumptions but comes to the same conclusion: There's enough money in Vision 2025 to pay for the low-water dams and Zink Lake work that was promised, enough even for all the essential pieces of the new proposal. (By the way, he used Google Documents to embed spreadsheets in the blog entry. For that reason alone, if you're interested in web technology, it's worth clicking through to see how that works.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: River tax town hall meeting 2 p.m. Sunday.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2986
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Did Commissioner Randi Miller and Mayor Taylor actually allow the peasantry to SPEAK at this afternoon's meeting?
Rather than be accused of a being a "nay sayer" (which, as we all know, is almost as bad as being a fan of Ann Coulter), I would suggest using Cleveland, OH as an example of how buying stuff does not constitute economic development. Cleveland is a great example of a city population that was sucked into to voting for tax increase after tax increase to pay for stuff that would magically transform the city into greatness. Instead, all they got was rapid population loss, high taxes, and a crime rate even higher than Tulsa's.
Much of what is being hustled to Tulsa voters and the method of hustling looks like Cleveland deja vu all over again. Take a look at Cleveland's web site. If stuff was what made a city, then Cleveland ought to be solid gold. But it ain't. People are moving out of Cuyahoga county over to Lorain county ... where the taxes are lower (probably crime too). Brothers and sisters, can I have a Homer Simpson "Doh!"
http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/around_town/index.asp Note a web page about living downtown; and (egad!) a waterfront project.
I've read comments about how full the Arkansas river has been lately, and wouldn't it be nice if it were always like that. I wouldn't know since you can only see the river from a very, very small part of Tulsa where I've not taken the time to go so I can see a river. Wow! A river! I'm sure I missed out on the thrill of my life -- but I sure have seen a lot of bad roads. I'll trade some better roads and lower crime for a sandy river (that I don't often see) any day, any time.
It might be interesting, at one of the county meetings, to get a show of hands of how many people know what kind of convention center and city offices Charlotte, NC has. How many people at the meeting care about what other stuff Charlotte has bought lately? If they got a job offer in Charlotte, would they be asking what kind of stuff has Charlotte bought lately; or would they be more interested in mundane things such as transportion, crime rate, and schools?
Some folks are just so stinkin' boring.
One more comment to the folks posting the "No River Tax" signs: I suggest a more effective sign would be "Better Roads. Less Crime." That way you don't come off looking like the dreaded Nay Sayer opposing taxes just for the sake of opposing taxes. Instead, you stand a better chance of making others look like people who spend money on glitzy projects just for the sake of spending money on glitzy (but worthless) projects.
So, what exactly happens to the $5.6 million allocated to CONSTRUCT the two low-water dams under Vision 2025? I'm assuming that money is GONE??
Through July 18, 2007 all the written information provided by the Tulsa World referenced a tax proposal of $277 million. Magically, beginning July 19, 2007 the Tulsa World and all other proponents of the project started (and continue to) referencing a total project cost of $282.25 million.
Question: What's the additional $5.25 million for?
Whoever S.Lee is she/he seems to speak some sense about the River.
Over the years I've lived in Tulsa, as changes in my residence occurred, I was pulled further east and south, farther from the River Parks.
Likewise, my job locations eventually landed in the suburbs as well. I not so fondly remember paying for PARKING every day during my miserable commute downtown.
Now, in our suburban office building, parking is "free", or at least provided by the building owner.
So, as a result, there is little to bring me downtown, nor little draw me to the river.
Would I want to spend $100,000,000's of tax dollars just to create some artificial draws at hubs along the river.
No.
A person probably chooses a city to relocate to based on #1 the Job and Pay, #2 commuting time, and #3 possibly then quality of life.
#3 being substituted as Quality of Schools for those with school-age children.