This week's column in Urban Tulsa Weekly is a report and commentary on the public comment session of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan Advisory Committee regarding The Channels, held a week ago Tuesday, October 3, at OSU-Tulsa.
The copy editor is evidently bored with the topic, as my column was given the headline Poltergeist X. (It's actually the fifth column in a row that has had something to do with the islands-in-the-Arkansas plan.)
I, on the other hand, feel like I've found my muse again. It's not that I'm smitten by The Channels (which should be obvious), but the proposal has given me a jumping-off point to talk about many other important issues: How do we create interesting and lively urban places? What makes for walkable communities? What should we be doing to compete for population with other cities and with our own suburbs? What do we mean when we say we want river development?
I've uploaded several audio files and will be uploading more over the course of the evening, along with comments. This first group were mentioned in this week's column, so that you can hear for yourself what was said. These are all MP3 files, each less than 1 MB in size.
- Facilitator Gaylon Pinc explains the format for the evening.
- Pinc explains that answering questions would allow things to "get out of hand."
- Debbie Sanditen of changethechannels.com reads a letter of concern from the Oklahoma Floodwater Management Association.
- Richard Baldwin, a property owner along the north bank of the river west of downtown, explains the effect of high river levels on land north of the levee and on the river's tributary creeks.
- Architect Dan Hicks describes his alternative proposal for development on the west bank of the river.
- W. K. Warren, Jr., declares that Tulsa is a backwater community and says, “I don’t want to give $10 million dollars to something and hear a bunch of naysayers.”
- Attorney Mike Redman discounts Hicks' plan because it lacks a presentation as slick as that produced for The Channels.
- Tamara Daniel touts The Channels as a cure for Oklahoma's obesity epidemic.
- Flood control expert Ron Flanagan says that we ought to handle unfunded higher-priority projects to take water out of the flood plan, rather than using tax dollars to build new land in the floodway.
- The next to last speaker, Josh Walker, describes the concerns raised at the meeting as "ignorant statements."
Also, don't miss my colleague Jamie Pierson's column, which covers the history of the relationship between Tulsa and the Arkansas, up to and including the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan.
Comments (6)
I've been following your commentary and agree with your observations.
One thing I'm wondering about. There is a premise that "young people find a place to live and then look for a job." This assertion appears over and over and has become a mantra. But is it true? What is the source? Are there other assertions that refute that?
Seems to me that young people might pick a town first if there are available jobs in more than one city. But to think a person picks a town and steps off the plane and "poof" a perfect job appears seems a little too magical.
$700 million is a lot to spend on a faulty premise.
Secondly, why not sponsor a forum about The Channels and invite the Tulsa Stakeholders to participate. That way, those of us who are trying to be prudent can control the agenda, ask the questions and keep the rampant PR to a minimum. Surely, if TS have nothing to hide they would be willing to participate.
Say hi to Jamie, she's one of my favorite people.
Keep up the good work,
Shannon Hall
Posted by Shannon Hall | October 11, 2006 9:59 PM
Posted on October 11, 2006 21:59
Let's see, walkable neighborhoods, exclusive social strata and Fat Asses; what are we doing
building an exclusive FAT FARM for Tulsa’s inflated Elite EGO's? I rather spring for plane fare to France, it'd be a darn sight cheaper and we get a break from their insufferable arrogance.
Posted by Twatch | October 12, 2006 9:21 AM
Posted on October 12, 2006 09:21
Might be more appropriate for Mr. Warren to say "the family I inherited my money from" and must get a sizeable salary for working where he works for how many hours a day -- states he
doesn't want to give money with any negative comments from concerned Tulsa citizens that have facts to back up their concern for the river project Mr. Warren is interested in.
Mr. Warren can always propose a similar idea to the City of New Orleans.
Posted by susan | October 12, 2006 12:42 PM
Posted on October 12, 2006 12:42
The Channels "Dialog" sounded like a Channels promotional MONOLOG.
These local elite personages don't want ANY input. They just want to steal more of our hard-earned wages and salaries in the form of ever higher confiscatory sales taxes.
Cities are not about Islands created in a muddy river. Rather, a city is first and foremost about providing the basic infrastructure to attract good, high paying jobs.
People didn't migrate to places like Detroit and Chicago for the ambience; or the Weather!
They went/go to those cities because of the JOBS!
Posted by Bob | October 12, 2006 4:04 PM
Posted on October 12, 2006 16:04
Bob has a great point. Let Mr. Warren take all areas of Tulsa and develop that into something Tulsa can be proud of with high paying jobs. Make a nice donation for a new
Republican governor, and let's see how Istook
can improve Oklahoma. Interesting comments today on their debate.
Posted by susan | October 12, 2006 11:53 PM
Posted on October 12, 2006 23:53
Thank you, Susan.
Today's Lorton's World has a front-page article quoting the INCOG chairman Jerry Lasker.
Mr. Lasker threw a bucket of ice water on The Channels project, commenting at length about the promoters lack of transparency and lack of forthrightness about their entire plans.
Makes some interesting reading for a change in what is usually of birdcage floor-covering Newspaper quality.
Posted by Bob | October 13, 2006 1:14 PM
Posted on October 13, 2006 13:14