As usual, talk of city-county consolidation targets the City of Tulsa but ignores the other municipalities of Tulsa County, many of them rapidly growing, and most of them, like Tulsa, extending into other counties. Rather than create a city-county authority, removed from direct accountability to the voters, entangling a dozen or so governments, the simplest way to eliminate duplication is to eliminate the county parks department, transferring each county park to the nearest city -- LaFortune and O'Brien to Tulsa, Chandler to Sand Springs, Haikey Creek to Broken Arrow, etc. Tulsa County government should be shrinking to its essential administrative functions as unincorporated territory shrinks, leaving municipal functions to the cities.
Kathy Taylor ripped off Tulsa taxpayers by capitulating on the Great Plains Airlines lawsuit, handing BOK $7.1 million in property tax dollars that Tulsa didn't owe. Taxpayers sued and a court threw out the unjust settlement that Taylor and Dewey Bartlett approved.
When Councilor Bill Martinson warned of the impending fiscal disaster facing Tulsa, Kathy Taylor didn't heed the warning, but instead worked for his defeat. Martinson was defeated by an opponent funded by out-of-state business associates of Kathy Taylor's husband.
Kathy Taylor's budgets climbed during the fat years, despite calls by Councilor John Eagleton to limit budget growth. Her free-spending ways made the readjustment to smaller budgets in 2009 all the more painful.
Kathy Taylor was involved in the Tulsa Development Authority's unjust treatment of developers Will and Cecilia Wilkins, who had been selected by the TDA to develop a parcel at Archer and Elgin, but then were shoved aside to please her wealthy friends who wanted to control all the land around the new ballpark. The Taylor-driven actions of the TDA spawned yet another lawsuit.
Kathy Taylor's inequitable plan to fund the ballpark charges the same assessment to property owners a mile away as it does to those right across from the ballpark. One downtown building owner found it more economical to bulldoze a building in order to cut the assessment. Once again, her hardheaded approach to leadership resulted in a lawsuit against the city.
Taylor's signal achievement, moving City Hall to the Borg Cube, has cost more money than estimated and hasn't produced the promised revenues from the sale of surplus property.
Kathy Taylor and Dewey Bartlett are two sides of the same tarnished coin. Tulsa deserves better.
Mr. Giles posted a similar comment from an Albuquerque IP address at batesline.com. Sadly, he doesn't bother to offer any specific rebuttal to this piece, just generic abuse. Perhaps he was affiliated with DTU in the past?
Firesprinklerman, I don't want anyone to be injured or killed in a fire. To be totally safe from fire, we could ban candles, matches, fireplaces, stoves, dryers, water heaters, electricity, natural gas, and gasoline engines. We could eat cold food, take cold showers, walk everywhere, and wash our laundry in cold water and hang it out to dry. Short of going to that extreme to achieve perfect safety, we have to decide where is the appropriate tradeoff between safety, cost, and convenience.
(1) Karen Keith doesn't seem to get the difference between one's philosophy of government and one's conduct as an elected official. I wrote:
"Although Randi Miller is gone, her philosophy of county government is still in the race. The Karen Keith platform is nothing more than the Randi Miller approach to county government with a more appealing façade."
To those who think this is unfair, please give an example of a policy decision that Randi Miller made as a county commissioner that Karen Keith would have made differently. It's noteworthy that nowhere in her response does Keith note any policy differences with Miller.
Keith sets up a straw man with her subpoints, all of which have to do with conduct, not philosophy or policy.
(2) She says that she was "part of the team working for the passage of Vision 2025." Her part was to serve as a spokesperson during the campaign. She debated on behalf of the vote yes campaign at the TulsaNow debate at Harwelden and on KWHB 47. I know because I was there debating on the other side. She also made speeches to civic groups and neighborhoods on behalf of the tax. She debated against Jack Gordon and Jim Hewgley on Fox 23. She may have also been doing work behind the scenes, but her visible role was as someone who spoke on behalf of passing the tax.
Keith is on the record as supporting more local tax dollars for river development, which I consider an amenity, not a necessity. She supported the failed river tax increase last year. She has stated at least by implication that she'd support sending another river tax to the voters:
"Keith also said she would not oppose using more public funds for infrastructure projects along the Arkansas River.
[snip]
"'We've already made significant public investment in engineering for the river,' Keith said, 'but more may be needed to make it possible for the private sector to come in and create housing, entertainment and retail that is sensitive to the natural habitat.'
"After her speech, Keith clarified her remarks by saying residents would have the final say on any tax-increase proposal."
Keith protests at being called a "pro-tax" candidate, but I can't think of any local tax initiative that she's opposed. Someone let me know if I've overlooked one.
Furthermore, would Karen Keith unequivocally commit that she would not send a tax for amenities to the voters? Sally Bell has.
She has danced around this issue, by saying that the final decision belongs to the voters. But the voters can only give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever package the County Commissioners choose to send to them. Tax votes are expensive: Expensive for the county election board, expensive for the proponents, and expensive and time consuming for the opponents. Putting a tax on the ballot is not a neutral act. Surely Keith understands that.
At the All Souls debate Keith said that her most important platform plank is "economic development for this region," citing Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County. Keith appears to believe that government-funded amenities are the key to economic growth.
At the Red Fork debate, Keith blamed the failure of the river tax in part on the delay in announcing that Celine Dion would be performing at the BOK Center.
She also blamed the state of Tulsa's streets on failed tax initiatives. Tulsa has passed every tax initiative for streets since 1980. The only taxes we've turned down have been for amenities. Karen Keith seems to believe money for amenities brings prosperity which brings revenues to pay for streets. In reality, you'd make much more progress on streets if you put the funds directly to that purpose, instead of investing it in amenities and hoping for a marginal improvement in revenues over time.
At the same debate, she said that if the river tax were put back on the ballot, it would be a different package, and it would pass. Who is going to put that tax back on the ballot, if not her?
Over and over again, Keith has cited the Vision 2025 tax package as the model for progress, as the source of our economic growth.
(3) Regarding the Bob Dick endorsement, Keith is either disingenuous or staggeringly unaware of Dick's legacy as a county commissioner. Again, I would challenge her to specify any major decision made by Bob Dick as Commissioner which she would have made differently.
If I were blindly partisan, I would not have been as critical as I have of Dick's record, nor would I have called for someone to step up to challenge Dick for his 2006 re-election bid.
(4) Here Keith contradicts the point she made in item (1)(d). Having the County take over municipal park maintenance is an example of "having the county government act as some sort of metropolitan government service provider."
(5) I stand by my statement. Keith did attack Bell's business record at the Kiwanis debate, and if you listen to what she said (I think you can still find it on the KRMG website), I think you'll agree it was awkward. She stumbled and stammered through it. It was a stark contrast to the smooth way she reads prepared text.
(6) I've written many times about the "Money Belt" phenomenon, for example, in my July 30 column on the Collective Strength survey of 1,000 Tulsans. I was writing about the regional differences on agreement with statements like "City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs" and "I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out."
"The gap between Midtown and south Tulsa on the one hand and north, west and east Tulsa is not surprising. Maps of election results showing support for various tax increases, of where appointees to city boards and commissions live, and of those selected to the PLANiTULSA Advisers and Partners reveal a common pattern.
"I've labeled it the 'Money Belt'--a band of Tulsa's wealthiest neighborhoods running south-southeast from downtown through Maple Ridge, Utica Square, and Southern Hills then fanning out into the gated communities of south Tulsa.
Regarding Keith, I wrote:
"Keith and her midtown money belt allies appear to think it was a foolproof recipe for passing funding packages, but as we saw last October, in the failed attempt to pass a countywide sales tax for river projects, its time has come and gone."
That statement doesn't preclude the possibility that she has non-Money Belt allies, but by reason of her geography, mindset, and major contributors, Keith clearly belongs to the Money Belt.
By the way, the Urban Tulsa staff requested copies of both candidates' ethics reports. The Bell campaign supplied her report. The Keith campaign did not even reply to the request.
Read the column, Midtowner: "Good land use planning doesn't grant an automatic win for developers or homeowners. It requires rules that are consistently and fairly applied, regardless of the wealth or influence of the applicant." There are criteria in the plan, which I quote above, for allowing higher densities. The Bomasada proposal doesn't meet those criteria.
Joe, it would be an end-around if the city tried to impose the same sales tax that the citizens voted down. What was on the ballot on October 9 was a sales tax increase for river projects, not river development by any other means.
As for our limited resources, the beauty of a TIF is that it does not put the city government's limited resources at risk. If the TIF district is structured properly, the risk will be on the developer, and the developer will be reimbursed for infrastructure-related expenses only if his development generates enough new revenue within the TIF district.
There's plenty to rebut here, but I'll just point out Commissioner Perry missed a key phrase in the column about which he complains. I said (emphasis added), "There is a positive, constructive path for making our river happen WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. Here's hoping the Mayor and County Commissioners follow the City Council down that path." With its resolution, the City Council moved publicly in that direction. I haven't seen any public action on the river by the County Commission since the election, much less anything that would suggest they are proceeding with engineering on the dams or getting a handle on their Vision 2025 finances, as I suggested in my column. Regarding the surplus Vision 2025 funds, Commissioner Perry might want to check back in with his bond adviser for some updated numbers.
akupetsky, if the vote yes team had been honest and said, "We know this isn't the INCOG plan and that these projects aren't in the ARCMP," then you'd be right, and it wouldn't be an issue. The voters could decide whether they want to take a flier with projects that haven't had the public scrutiny that the ARCMP has had. Instead, everyone on the vote yes side from George Kaiser to Randi Miller to Vic Vreeland is telling the voters that this tax is too the "INCOG plan" and implying that every aspect of it has been subjected to Corps of Engineers' studies and public input.
Likewise, if they were honest and said, "We messed up and spent all the extra Vision 2025 money on the arena, so we don't have the overage we expected to make up for the lack of federal funds on the dam, and now we're asking you for more" that wouldn't be an issue. Instead, they've tried to convince voters that the money was all spent on studies (not true) or that we should have known that the Vision 2025 funding for the dams was insufficient. They're also trying to mislead voters into thinking there's a commitment to fund west bank land acquisition, but you won't find any such commitment in the ballot resolution.
There is a way to have the kind of development you describe on the west bank, without raising tax rates and without limiting our city's options for funding basic public services, but to move in that direction requires saying no on Tuesday.
MMoore, I did not have any of my children with me at the meeting. I did raise my voice, which I regret, but the linked video is hardly a temper tantrum. I was trying to get the commissioner to acknowledge the plain language of the Vision 2025 Proposition 4 ballot resolution, the legal document governing the expenditure of the tax, which promised the construction of two low-water dams and repairs to Zink Lake. If you're concerned about morals in public life, you should be more worried about a county commissioner who will break a promise she made to the voters while pretending that she made no such promise.
The first paragraph of the published version of my response to J. S. Maloy is not all like the first paragraph of what I submitted. Here is what I actually wrote: "I'm always pleased to know that someone has given one of my columns a close and critical reading, as OSU Political Science Professor J. S. Maloy has done with my column on the rise and fall of the Greenwood district. This aspect of Tulsa history is important but overlooked, so I welcome his interest. I empathize with his disappointment that so little of Greenwood remains. My column was an attempt to use available evidence to explain why things are the way they are." The remainder of the piece appears to be as submitted.
I want to remind readers that I do not write the headlines or taglines for my columns, and I do not agree with the harsh, sarcastic tone of the tagline written for this column. I am grateful for the willingness of George Kaiser and other Tulsa philanthropists to contribute to the well-being of this city, and my suggestion that direct investment may be the best way to make the river the kind of place Tulsans want to enjoy is a suggestion made in earnest.
I can't believe I failed to mention Jack Frank's wonderful Tulsa Films series -- using vintage TV news footage and home movies to bring local history to life.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Posted by: Michael Bates
23 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Parks and Consolidation
Re: Full Circle ... Four Years Later
When Councilor Bill Martinson warned of the impending fiscal disaster facing Tulsa, Kathy Taylor didn't heed the warning, but instead worked for his defeat. Martinson was defeated by an opponent funded by out-of-state business associates of Kathy Taylor's husband.
Kathy Taylor's budgets climbed during the fat years, despite calls by Councilor John Eagleton to limit budget growth. Her free-spending ways made the readjustment to smaller budgets in 2009 all the more painful.
Kathy Taylor was involved in the Tulsa Development Authority's unjust treatment of developers Will and Cecilia Wilkins, who had been selected by the TDA to develop a parcel at Archer and Elgin, but then were shoved aside to please her wealthy friends who wanted to control all the land around the new ballpark. The Taylor-driven actions of the TDA spawned yet another lawsuit.
Kathy Taylor's inequitable plan to fund the ballpark charges the same assessment to property owners a mile away as it does to those right across from the ballpark. One downtown building owner found it more economical to bulldoze a building in order to cut the assessment. Once again, her hardheaded approach to leadership resulted in a lawsuit against the city.
Taylor's signal achievement, moving City Hall to the Borg Cube, has cost more money than estimated and hasn't produced the promised revenues from the sale of surplus property.
Kathy Taylor and Dewey Bartlett are two sides of the same tarnished coin. Tulsa deserves better.
Re: Council Connection
Re: Downtown Tulsa Unlamented
Re: Sprinkled to Death
Re: Rest Stop
Re: Setting the Record Straight
"Although Randi Miller is gone, her philosophy of county government is still in the race. The Karen Keith platform is nothing more than the Randi Miller approach to county government with a more appealing façade."
To those who think this is unfair, please give an example of a policy decision that Randi Miller made as a county commissioner that Karen Keith would have made differently. It's noteworthy that nowhere in her response does Keith note any policy differences with Miller.
Keith sets up a straw man with her subpoints, all of which have to do with conduct, not philosophy or policy.
(2) She says that she was "part of the team working for the passage of Vision 2025." Her part was to serve as a spokesperson during the campaign. She debated on behalf of the vote yes campaign at the TulsaNow debate at Harwelden and on KWHB 47. I know because I was there debating on the other side. She also made speeches to civic groups and neighborhoods on behalf of the tax. She debated against Jack Gordon and Jim Hewgley on Fox 23. She may have also been doing work behind the scenes, but her visible role was as someone who spoke on behalf of passing the tax.
Keith is on the record as supporting more local tax dollars for river development, which I consider an amenity, not a necessity. She supported the failed river tax increase last year. She has stated at least by implication that she'd support sending another river tax to the voters:
"Keith also said she would not oppose using more public funds for infrastructure projects along the Arkansas River.
[snip]
"'We've already made significant public investment in engineering for the river,' Keith said, 'but more may be needed to make it possible for the private sector to come in and create housing, entertainment and retail that is sensitive to the natural habitat.'
"After her speech, Keith clarified her remarks by saying residents would have the final say on any tax-increase proposal."
Keith protests at being called a "pro-tax" candidate, but I can't think of any local tax initiative that she's opposed. Someone let me know if I've overlooked one.
Furthermore, would Karen Keith unequivocally commit that she would not send a tax for amenities to the voters? Sally Bell has.
She has danced around this issue, by saying that the final decision belongs to the voters. But the voters can only give a thumbs up or thumbs down on whatever package the County Commissioners choose to send to them. Tax votes are expensive: Expensive for the county election board, expensive for the proponents, and expensive and time consuming for the opponents. Putting a tax on the ballot is not a neutral act. Surely Keith understands that.
At the All Souls debate Keith said that her most important platform plank is "economic development for this region," citing Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County. Keith appears to believe that government-funded amenities are the key to economic growth.
At the Red Fork debate, Keith blamed the failure of the river tax in part on the delay in announcing that Celine Dion would be performing at the BOK Center.
She also blamed the state of Tulsa's streets on failed tax initiatives. Tulsa has passed every tax initiative for streets since 1980. The only taxes we've turned down have been for amenities. Karen Keith seems to believe money for amenities brings prosperity which brings revenues to pay for streets. In reality, you'd make much more progress on streets if you put the funds directly to that purpose, instead of investing it in amenities and hoping for a marginal improvement in revenues over time.
At the same debate, she said that if the river tax were put back on the ballot, it would be a different package, and it would pass. Who is going to put that tax back on the ballot, if not her?
Over and over again, Keith has cited the Vision 2025 tax package as the model for progress, as the source of our economic growth.
(3) Regarding the Bob Dick endorsement, Keith is either disingenuous or staggeringly unaware of Dick's legacy as a county commissioner. Again, I would challenge her to specify any major decision made by Bob Dick as Commissioner which she would have made differently.
If I were blindly partisan, I would not have been as critical as I have of Dick's record, nor would I have called for someone to step up to challenge Dick for his 2006 re-election bid.
(4) Here Keith contradicts the point she made in item (1)(d). Having the County take over municipal park maintenance is an example of "having the county government act as some sort of metropolitan government service provider."
(5) I stand by my statement. Keith did attack Bell's business record at the Kiwanis debate, and if you listen to what she said (I think you can still find it on the KRMG website), I think you'll agree it was awkward. She stumbled and stammered through it. It was a stark contrast to the smooth way she reads prepared text.
(6) I've written many times about the "Money Belt" phenomenon, for example, in my July 30 column on the Collective Strength survey of 1,000 Tulsans. I was writing about the regional differences on agreement with statements like "City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs" and "I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out."
"The gap between Midtown and south Tulsa on the one hand and north, west and east Tulsa is not surprising. Maps of election results showing support for various tax increases, of where appointees to city boards and commissions live, and of those selected to the PLANiTULSA Advisers and Partners reveal a common pattern.
"I've labeled it the 'Money Belt'--a band of Tulsa's wealthiest neighborhoods running south-southeast from downtown through Maple Ridge, Utica Square, and Southern Hills then fanning out into the gated communities of south Tulsa.
Regarding Keith, I wrote:
"Keith and her midtown money belt allies appear to think it was a foolproof recipe for passing funding packages, but as we saw last October, in the failed attempt to pass a countywide sales tax for river projects, its time has come and gone."
That statement doesn't preclude the possibility that she has non-Money Belt allies, but by reason of her geography, mindset, and major contributors, Keith clearly belongs to the Money Belt.
By the way, the Urban Tulsa staff requested copies of both candidates' ethics reports. The Bell campaign supplied her report. The Keith campaign did not even reply to the request.
Re: Out With the Old
Re: Showdown at the County Jail
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Ordinances/ordinances/27PENAL.pdf
Re: St. Paul's Letter to the Tulsans
Re: Big Plans for Brookside
Re: New Ideas for Old Buildings
Re: TIF 201: Advanced Concepts and Case Studies
As for our limited resources, the beauty of a TIF is that it does not put the city government's limited resources at risk. If the TIF district is structured properly, the risk will be on the developer, and the developer will be reimbursed for infrastructure-related expenses only if his development generates enough new revenue within the TIF district.
Re: Back to the Arkansas
Re: Voting for Plutocracy
Likewise, if they were honest and said, "We messed up and spent all the extra Vision 2025 money on the arena, so we don't have the overage we expected to make up for the lack of federal funds on the dam, and now we're asking you for more" that wouldn't be an issue. Instead, they've tried to convince voters that the money was all spent on studies (not true) or that we should have known that the Vision 2025 funding for the dams was insufficient. They're also trying to mislead voters into thinking there's a commitment to fund west bank land acquisition, but you won't find any such commitment in the ballot resolution.
There is a way to have the kind of development you describe on the west bank, without raising tax rates and without limiting our city's options for funding basic public services, but to move in that direction requires saying no on Tuesday.
Re: Voting for Plutocracy
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=436799
Re: River Battle Rages
Re: Love Letters, Hate Mail
Re: Money Where Mouth Is?
Re: Living History