|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: October 7, 2007
|
|
|
|
Mr. Richard - on behalf of the liquor stores - is transparently self-serving in this article. He says, "I think they're all kind of appalled anyone's trying to do this in light of the fact we have a huge budget problem". But our antiquated liquor laws are part of the reason we have a budget problem. Competition creates lower prices and/or better services, which spurs further demand for services. State/city tax revenues would increase, as would our quality of life. I'm tired of this moral equivalence between (a) what is good for the state and (b) what is good for an interest group. Our legislators should vote for what is good for the state.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I think I won't. Not only would they think I'm stupid for asking for that unpleasant package, but they'd laugh and point me to Pakistan, where Daniel Pearl was actually murdered. And no, I wouldn't want to go there. Nor would I want to go to Iraq, although our brave service men and women and our politicians go. As for Iran, well, I don't think there is much danger in the streets of Teheran. Pretty normal, from what I read, except for the flashes of religious intolerance of those that don't live the way extremists want them to live. (But, hey, what religious extremist would not want their society to be like that if they had the choice.) Pretty safe for the President to tape a message via satellite, in any case.
All I'm saying is that your comments would carry much more weight if you consider the facts rather than basing your opinion on your general knee-jerk impressions about things.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point; the campaign could have been handled better. And, I don't think the plan or the use of the sales tax is a perfect approach. But, looking at it objectively, the plan (other than the river channelling) was, for the most part, part of the INCOG plan. Not having an automobile component to the pedestrian bridges is not a large enough difference to qualify as a significant departure (especially since we are talking, really, about a river park that is, in essence, a place for running, playing and biking, and not driving). And I don't know what to think about the Corp of Engineers issue; I haven't heard the proponents implying approval, but I can't say that I've paid full attention. Finally, you may be right that there may be other ways to get the west bank development and other benefits of the plan, but how can I be confident that this would occur given the vehement opposition to any river development I'm seeing? Given this uncertainty, I'd rather approve a really good plan now, and make sure we scrutinize the implementation going forward.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to local development politics, I usually agree with Michael Bates. He is a voice of wisdom and reason in support of neighborhood preservation, sustainable development and smart (not impulsive) urban renewal. On the issue of River Development, however, I respectfully disagree with his views. Mostly, Michael fails to acknowledge that Tuesday’s citizen vote gives Tulsans an opportunity to accept the proposed river plan and thereby makes completely irrelevant his points that the plan is somehow the design of a few of the city’s elite that want to spend city resources on projects they favor or somehow does not reflect the required public INCOG process for river development. Michael’s concerns could have been relevant if the county government were trying to implement this plan without a citizen vote. Pushing aside, therefore, the irrelevant concerns about who is behind this plan, let’s discuss the substantive concerns with the plan. First, just because we need to fund our parks or our streets doesn’t mean that we should reject river development. Although the city needs to develop a way to ensure ongoing availability and quality of its parks, it can do this through a variety of means, including corporate sponsorships that could make the parks self-sustaining. Developing the river has nothing to do with parks (except possibly attracting businesses that could increase the tax base, leaving more money for parks upkeep). Similarly, street repair needs to be approached in a comprehensive way to make sure that we fix streets that need repair correctly, and that we don’t waste money on street projects that are not necessary. To address this important issue, the city is correctly convening a commission to review this issue and come up with proposals. Second, although I have no reason to doubt that the ballot leaves the county with significant discretion to spend funds for different projects or that there are questions about the plans for river development raised in the Vision 2025 ballot process, this is no reason to reject raising additional funds for an appealing project that has significant benefits. If you are upset by the decisions of your elected politicians, then you should hold them accountable for their actions. If you distrust how the River trust authority is going to spend the money, then you should watch them carefully and let them know how you feel. Make sure they tell you how they are using the funds and whether there are any left over, and then make them use the remainder wisely. Use of and accounting for the proceeds should be posted on the web and updated often. And then hold them accountable at election time. If you believe that you were misled by the Vision 2025 architects, you should not let them continue in power. But don’t vote down a perfectly good plan that has the potential to benefit all of us that live here. This plan is a great opportunity to create the infrastructure foundation for private investment (which Michael should support), which will add to our quality of life. It will do so by adding pedestrian-friendly retail in an appealing environment near downtown. It will provide new venues for small-scale entertainment, social gathering and recreation. And it will spur further development of downtown. It is a realistic approach to Tulsa’s development that has many of the things that those of us (like Michael, I would think) who favor smart (and not impulsive) development would want near downtown.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
