Oklahoma Election 2023: August 2023 Archives

Originally posted on August 1, 2023. Post-dating to August 8 so it remains at the top of the page through election day. A previous entry has a just-the-facts discussion of the four August 8 bond issue and sales tax propositions.

Here are seven reasons to vote no on all four City of Tulsa ballot propositions at the special election next Tuesday, August 8, 2023:

1. Two-and-a-half years too early: The proposed sales tax may not go into effect until January 1, 2026.* A lot can change in two years and five months. Economic and global circumstances two years from now may be very different -- just think how different the world was two-and-a-half years ago -- and our priorities may change with those circumstances. We shouldn't commit nearly a billion dollars in spending so far in advance, nor should we start borrowing (and paying interest) on revenue that's two-and-a-half years in the future.

2. Hamstringing the next mayor and council: The proposals block the ability of new city officials to pursue capital improvements to implement their election platforms. A new mayor and city council will be elected in 2024, but the August 8 proposals lock up funding for capital improvements until 2030, after the end of the next mayor's term of office in 2028. It's selfish on the part of lame duck mayor GT Bynum IV, who is not running for re-election, to lock in spending priorities for his successor. There's plenty of time before the current tax runs out for the new mayor and council to decide on a new package. The new officials will have 10 months after taking office in December 2024 to put together a package and put it before the voters.

3. Too vague: $162 million is "itemized" for "citywide" but unspecified lists in broad categories -- streets, sidewalks, alleys, ADA implementation (whatever that means), bridge replacement. This list of vague citywide items includes traffic engineering, which is not a capital improvement but an operational responsibility, and project engineering inspection and testing, which in the past was always priced into individual projects as essential to any construction project. In the original 1980 "third-penny" sales tax vote and its early successors, specific intersections, bridges, widening projects, water and sewer lines, etc., were listed in the sales tax ordinance or general obligation bond issue, committing the city to specific projects with definable costs. It was possible to see whether or not funding was going to the most urgent needs and whether all parts of the city were given due consideration. These vague "citywide" line items don't give the voters anyway of telling whether we're being offered good value for money or whether contractor profits are being padded.

We also don't have specifics on nearly $80 million, divided between Proposition 1 and Proposition 4 for "Additional costs for completion of previously approved street projects listed in Improve Our Tulsa Proposition No 1 approved at an election held on November 12, 2019." Which projects overran? How much does each project require for completion?

Besides the "citywide" and "additional costs" items, many other line items are vague and undefined; some of them are outlined below.

4. $75 million for undefined "housing initiatives": When government sets out to solve a social problem, the money is wasted and the problem gets worse. $22 trillion was spent during the first 50 years of the War on Poverty, and there are more people dependent on government than ever before. The city wants $75 million to solve the homeless problem but they won't tell us how they will spend that money, not even why they think $75 million is the right amount to ask for.

The money will be spent in accordance with the recommendations of the Housing, Homelessness, and Mental Health Task Force, a group of the usual suspects and yacht guests that includes exactly one person who might have some direct experience dealing with homeless people.

The people in charge of our city government and the philanthropocrats** who control them see human beings as mere animals, automata that respond to stimuli in predictable ways. Their thinking goes that if you provide the proper environment and nutrients, people will thrive, just like plants do. That way of thinking leads to the arrogant belief that enough government money can fix anything: "If we can put a man on the moon" -- solve an engineering problem using the unchanging laws of physics and chemistry -- "we can end homelessness" -- a complex set of human tragedies that find their explanation in spiritual truths denied by the philanthropocrats and their minions.

The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, informed by a Biblical anthropology, understood that all human beings are created in the image of God and as such have inherent dignity and worth, but also that all human beings are marred by the Fall, and inclined by nature to selfishness and evil, which requires the internal restraint of the Holy Spirit, a conscience externally restrained by the social pressure of a moral society, or, as a last resort, the threat of state violence to prevent violent evil.

Christian ministries like City of Hope Outreach and John 3:16 Mission have helped homeless people successfully leave the streets and rebuild their lives, because they begin with a true understanding of human nature. Materialist philanthropists and social service agencies, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot hope to address the problem and will likely only enable more of the self-destructive and societally destructive behavior they claim to be able to stop, if only they had enough money to spend.

5. Gilcrease Museum held hostage: Bynum IV & Co. are demanding another $7 million in "matching funds for improvements." In 2016, Tulsans approved $65 million to renovate Gilcrease Museum. In 2020, we were told that it had to be demolished and rebuilt. (Bynum IV chief of staff Blake Ewing wrongly claimed at the Tulsa GOP forum that we didn't know until the museum was closed that demolition was necessary. In July 2021, the doors closed for what we were told would be three years. In March 2023 we were told that more money was required, and recently we were told that the museum won't be open to the public until 2026. Bynum IV & Co. will have deprived an entire generation of Tulsa students of the opportunity to visit Gilcrease Museum during their high school years.

Like the proverbial car dealer who throws your keys on the roof and won't get them down until you buy a new car, Tulsa mis-leaders are demanding more money before they'll let us enjoy the priceless collection of artwork, artifacts, and historical documents that we, the Citizens of Tulsa, own. They don't deserve any more trust when they've already betrayed us over and over again. To earn our trust, the first step is to reopen Gilcrease, and put our collection back on display, with the money they already have in hand.

6. PAC in danger: Now City Hall mis-leaders want $55,790,000 for "Tulsa Performing Arts Center - facility renovation, infrastructure, loading dock improvements, safety and ADA improvements." This is more than half of the money for specified projects in Proposition 2. Given our experience with Gilcrease Museum, I would expect a similar bait-and-switch:

1. Tulsans approve funding for PAC renovations
2. Mis-leaders "discover" "serious problems" requiring demolition (or gutting)
3. PAC closes with a promise to reopen in three years
4. Mis-leaders "discover" a need for more money to reopen
5. Construction delays keep PAC closed for two more years

I believe that Tulsa's mis-leaders wanted a new building for Gilcrease all along***, just like they wanted a new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge, and I strongly suspect they want a new PAC, but they know they cannot convince the voters to approve demolition of a beloved landmark or the full cost of the new facility. So they will deceive Tulsa voters, and if voters are stupid, they will fail to learn anything from past behavior and will let themselves be deceived once again.

Do we want to go for five or more years without a venue for Broadway theater, symphony, ballet, and opera? Until they deliver a new Gilcrease Museum to our satisfaction, we shouldn't trust Tulsa's mis-leaders with another precious cultural institution.

7. Millions more for a toxic lake: Work on the Zink Dam isn't complete yet, and the City wants another $3.5 million (per Proposition 2 in the bond issue resolution) or $5 million (per public statements) for "Zink Lake - infrastructure." Blake Ewing said during the Tulsa GOP forum that this was for parking lots, but when I asked where the document was that spells this out, I didn't get an answer. Meanwhile, Tulsa citizens have unanswered questions about toxic chemicals seeping into the lake from ground water under the refineries, past and present, along the river. Ewing dismissed these concerns as a "political, fun, fun hot button thing to get upset about."

In May 1979, Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one.

Thanks to Jesse Rodgers and City Elders for the logo at the top of the page.

The Tulsa County Republican Party has officially come out in opposition to the four City of Tulsa propositions for sales tax and general obligation bonds on the August 8, 2023, ballot ("Improve Our Tulsa 3"):

Republican Party of Tulsa County Takes Stance on
Improve Our Tulsa 3 Bond Package
Tulsa GOP is asking voters to Vote No on August 8th

TULSA, OK (08/02/2023)

On August 8th, the City of Tulsa is asking all residents to vote on the Improve Our Tulsa 3 bond package. We love Tulsa; however, Improve Our Tulsa is the wrong approach at this time. It is vague and unvetted by the citizens. This package is being rushed when we have over two years to renew the current tax. Our biggest concerns about this package are the $75MM for UNDEFINED housing initiatives in the housing package, additional funding for the Gilcrease Museum, and the uncertainty with Zink Lake. Should this package be passed, the next Mayor will be hamstrung with the responsibility of implementing something he or she had no part in creating. How is this fair for our next Mayor?

We should learn from our history, in May 1979 Tulsa voters rejected the first attempt to pass a "third penny" sales tax for capital improvements. The list of projects was too vague, lacked guarantees that money would be spent as promised, and included some big projects that voters didn't want. In October 1980, 60% of Tulsa voters approved a more specific package with better safeguards and without the most objectionable projects. City of Tulsa officials have plenty of time to give us a solid package if we say no to this one. (batesline.com)

These are just a few reasons why the Republican Party of Tulsa County is asking you, the Tulsa voters, to VOTE NO on ALL FOUR propositions on August 8th because history tells us..... WE. CAN. DO. BETTER.

MORE: District 5 City Councilor Grant Miller explains why he voted against sending the package to the voters:

The mayor continues to dismiss the real and valid concerns of Tulsans claiming that people who don't like the idea of not having a plan for $75M of spending on homelessness or want answers regarding chemicals in the river before spending millions on a recreational area are "...just folks, like Councilor Miller, who object to things for the sake of objecting to them." (Link in comments). We can do better than the Mayor's package and come up with something that actually works for Tulsa, instead. And there is absolutely no reason to rush into this. We have more than enough time to go back to the drawing board according to Chief of Staff, Blake Ewing. Everything is and will be funded through 2025. So why did the Mayor say it would be a disaster?! He knows that's not true. Dismissing Tulsans' very serious concerns is terribly arrogant.

Here's the link to Councilor Miller's comments on KRMG.