A bald-faced lie to Broken Arrow

| | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)

If a picture is worth a thousand words, the pro-river tax campaign just told a thousand-word lie.

Below is a thumbnail of a mailer that was sent to Broken Arrow voters. Click the image to see the full-size (700 KB).

brokenarrowrivertax.png

Notice the drawing in the photo, labeled "Broken Arrow Riverfront." That's a conceptual sketch from the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (ARCMP), the long-term wish list for riverfront development that was developed from 2003 to 2005.

NOT ONE CENT of the money in this plan will build what you see depicted in that drawing, but the image and text of the piece is designed to give Broken Arrow voters the impression that voting yes will give them that riverfront. It takes a voter familiar with the list of projects in the ballot resolution for next Tuesday's tax election to see how the ad parses words in a deliberate effort to mislead.

By the way, Don Mullican, the Broken Arrow citizen quoted in the piece, is the Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company. George Kaiser, the President and CEO of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, is Don's boss.

Although I have my political differences with George Kaiser, I believed him to be an honorable man, and I believed that he would use his influence over the vote yes campaign to insist that it be conducted honorably and honestly. It's hard for me to believe that he would want his name associated with this flyer or the overall effort to confuse the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and Tuesday's tax package in the minds of the voters.

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A bald-faced lie to Broken Arrow.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3113

» A taxing question from dustbury.com

Let's see if I have this straight. Passage of the so-called River Tax next Tuesday will provide Tulsa County with which of the following benefits?All the oil companies who fled to Houston will come home New, catchier name for the... Read More

8 Comments

David S. Author Profile Page said:

Another reason to hold the County Commisioners responsible for allowing this election to move forward.....

john Author Profile Page said:

I'm so tired of all the misleading. Using children, ensuring "a better economy", "well, technically, the corp of engineers has already approved it". Someone came and spoke at my fiancé's company (name withheld) in support of this tax and said exactly that.

I'm going to start my own misleading campaign for vote yes. Here's some, a yes vote will ensure peace in the middle east. Vote yes Oct. 9th and say no to drunk driving for good. Every day kittens die for no reason. Say yes on Oct. 9th and stop the innocent kittens from being killed.

DaWizard said:

Of course Michael, believe as you will on the honor of Mr. Kaiser.... truth be known .. Kaiser is a bleeding heart progressive ... and Tulsa's 'George Soros' ... nothing less!!

Scumbag's like that look down their noses at the average Tulsan while doling out their 'sheckles' in an effort to 'impress' and 'power-play' for their own grandisement!

My vote goes to NO on Oct 9th ...

That sure likes what Jenks already has. Could they have possibly lifted that picture from jenks?

JW said:

Since I'm not a citizen of BA I don't think it is my place, but someone who lives there should get on the news with that flyer and tell everyone viewing the news that the illustration is a LIE.

Heather Prescott said:

It scares me that this will pass because only the people truly involved in politics know the truth behind all this - The "laymen", if you will, base their decisions on those misleading commercials and fliers.

No people should statrt asking the questions:

1. Why push this so hard no - voting "no" this year will not keep the river from being developed in the future - but there is no turning back once you vote yes.

2. What are they going to do about the God awful smell along the river due to the sewage plant and refineries.

3. Why is the language on the ballot so ambiguous? If they are now saying the 2025 didn't include low water dams and Zink Lake improvements based upon the wording of the ballot, can't they do the same with they way this ballot is worded.

4. The "No" people need to hit ALL of the towns in Tulsa County and push push push for them to get out and vote no -

5. Ask the Yes people why they have to resort to criminal tactics and lies to get their point across, ie burning signs, bounty on "No" signs.

6. If the river development is a good idea, and an income producer, you will find investors willing to invest, so all these big shots, waving their big money and using as a tool to try to get people to vote yes is plain BS

Not one "No" person Ive talked to says that river development is a bad idea - whats wrong with it is timing, lack of planning and making taxpayers pay for something Jenks did with private money

Ardent Author Profile Page said:

We got two more direct mail pieces today, getting one or two every day now. For what the Vote Yes people are spending, we could keep lots of pools and parks open.
Sure the River Project will create lots of jobs - while it is being built. We could move sand piles and do that. The problem is that even if the new shops, arcades, villas, whatever, create jobs they will be minimum-wage jobs. Why don't we just lure another call center and not add the sales tax!

jasonk Author Profile Page said:

This is so typical of the tactics used by the Vote Yes people.
Last week I had lunch with an employee of the chamber. She said that they are telling people, "vote no on October 10." She laughed and laughed. I asked her if she ever felt bad that the chamber was more concerned with winning than with the will of the people. She said she was just joking, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I have devoted a great deal of space on my site to informing people of the truth regarding this issue. There are too many devious tactics being used, smoke and mirrors designed to distract us from the truth.
I will be voting no.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on October 1, 2007 11:00 PM.

A round-up of river tax ponderings and imponderables was the previous entry in this blog.

River tax forums is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact

Feeds

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Atom
RSS
[What is this?]