Recently in Arkansas River Category

There's an exciting lakeside community planned for Oklahoma, unlike anything in the state, but hopefully a model for many more to come. New urbanist city planner Andres Duany has been hired by former Oklahoma City mayor Kirk Humphries to plan Carlton Landing on 1600 acres beside Lake Eufaula. The result of a design charrette -- a kind of brainstorming session -- was presented earlier this week in Oklahoma City.

Duany planned the Gulf Coast town of Seaside, Fla., turning that tiny piece of the Redneck Riviera into a popular resort town and generating similar developments all along that stretch of the Florida Panhandle's shore.

As Seaside was, Carlton Landing is family-owned land that has never been developed.

Instead of the usual resort community pattern of only residences along winding roads, Carlton Landing will have a heart, right on the shore, with shops, dining, recreation facilities, and even a chapel. The 1600 acres will be home to about 2500 people -- not high density, but more dense than a typical lakeside development. Duany has almost complete freedom to set design and development standards -- there are no existing land use rules to work around.

From a fleeting glimpse of a map in this slideshow from the charrette (about 2:14 into the video), it appears the Carlton Landing property is centered around the marker on this map:

View Larger Map

I've had my differences with Kirk Humphries, but I admire him for doing something different and daring with this land. Instead of, say, asking taxpayers to spend $600 million create a vibrant community out of the middle of a river, he's making it happen with his own money and land. A couple of years ago I suggested that the folks behind the Channels could do the same thing right here in Tulsa:

Tulsa Stakeholders, Inc., (TSI), the group led by John-Kelly Warren of the Warren Foundation which is proposing The Channels development, has a commendable desire to create a thriving, pedestrian-friendly urban place in Tulsa. So instead of asking the taxpayers to spend $600 million to build three tiny islands on which a walkable community can be built, why doesn't TSI create or restore a walkable community on land that already exists, and thus encourage the creation of this kind of neighborhood all over Tulsa?

(It may be cheeky for me to tell TSI what to do with their money, but since they're telling us taxpayers what we should do with ours, turnabout is fair play.)

TSI could demonstrate that traditional neighborhood development will succeed, even in car-bound Tulsa. They could use their deep pockets and risk tolerance to blaze a trail for more risk-averse conventional developers.

Building a traditional mixed-use neighborhood on taxpayer-subsidized islands would send the message that such developments are too fragile to survive in the free market.

Building or restoring the same kind of neighborhood with private money on private land would set an example that other developers could follow with confidence.

There are many opportunities for TSI to do pioneering work in this area. They could build a New Urbanist community on undeveloped land somewhere in the metro area. They could incorporate walkability and mixed use into the Warren Foundation's own developments (e.g. the Montereau retirement community).

TSI could do some of the exciting infill development recommended by the East Tulsa Community Plan (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/EastTulsa.asp), helping to knit together a lively international district and creating a walkable center for a vast swath of car-bound suburbia.

Perhaps the most strategic investment TSI could make would be in the Pearl District (aka the 6th Street Corridor); on the charitable side, its assistance could fund implementation of the stormwater project for the three-square-mile Elm Creek basin.

This would take land out of the floodplain, making restoration and infill practical. Full public funding for the plan--about $35 million to create stormwater detention ponds and to link one of them to Centennial Park by a canal--is at least a decade away.

Fixing Elm Creek not only helps 6th Street, but it would improve drainage in the Gunboat Park and 18th and Boston areas. (Elm Creek flows underground through both neighborhoods, emptying into the Arkansas River at 21st Street.)

On the private side, it could set an example for other developers by doing some quality infill development and restoration in accordance with the Pearl District Infill Plan (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/6thStreet.asp). No need to use condemnation to assemble vast tracts of land--restore some existing buildings to their former glory, or build new brownstones on already vacant lots.

TSI's leadership would make it safe, maybe even fashionable, for other investors to get involved in the district and to create walkable places in other parts of the metro area.

The revival of the Pearl District would strategically patch a hole in Tulsa's original urban fabric, reconnecting centers of activity--downtown, Cherry Street, Kendall-Whittier, TU, and the Utica medical corridor--which are quite close to each other but which now seem miles apart. And it would make it possible for more Tulsans to make walking a part of daily life, not a specially scheduled activity.

Through private action to create or restore a walkable neighborhood, TSI would send the message, "Come on in, the water's fine," to Tulsa's developers. It might not be as splashy as islands in the river, but such a project would create ripples that would spread far beyond the riverbank, making all parts of our metro area healthier, livelier, and more attractive as a place to live, work, and play.

"There's no Plan B. River development is over." -- County Commissioner Randi Miller, October 10, 2007

"Six Companies vie for Arkansas River Projects" -- Tulsa World, March 13, 2008, p. A-8

Thursday's story notes that $9.5 million from the Vision 2025 sales tax and $650,000 from Four to Fix the County 2006 are available for dam work and reports a cost estimate of $30 million per dam. (That number keeps getting bigger. It was $27.5 million during the river tax campaign.) The bids are for pre-construction work; presumably the pre-construction work will lead to a more concrete, itemized estimate of costs for the actual dam construction.

The Whirled's slant on this issue is evident in the second paragraph of the story:

In December, county commissioner chose to move forward with the permitting, design and engineering work despite an October vote in which county residents rejected a $282 million plan to build the dams, which are proposed for Jenks and Sand Springs, and to modify Zink Dam.

First of all, it wasn't a plan on the ballot. It was a county sales tax increase, and the voters rejected that tax increase. Second, it would be more accurate to say, "a $282 million tax, $68 million of which would have paid for the two new dams and improvements to Zink Dam"

Also in yesterday's paper, on p. A-11, we learn that the least tern nesting islands are being rebuilt, the kayaking run near the PSO plant is being improved, and junk and debris are being removed from the river. All these improvements are happening without the passage of a new sales tax. Some of the funds are coming from private companies, some from a fine paid by the Sinclair refinery. County crews are doing the work on the island -- presumably the workers were already drawing a county paycheck -- it appears its being handled within existing budgets.

It's amazing how the constraint of a budget can inspire creative ways to get things done.

During the late campaign for a Tulsa County sales tax increase to pay for river projects, we were often told by the tax increase's proponents about the low-water dams that Oklahoma City funded with its MAPS tax, and how this investment had brought jobs in the form of a Dell Computers call center. I've read about plans to run a water taxi service from the hotel cluster at Meridian Ave. to near downtown along the river.

I was in OKC this past Saturday morning for the Oklahoma Republican Party executive committee meeting and afterwards decided to have a closer look at their river, the North Canadian, aka the Oklahoma River.

This picture was taken from beneath the south end of the Exchange Ave. bridge looking east. Clicking the photo will take you to a set of seven pictures, all taken from the south bank of the river between Penn and Exchange.

Despite the fact that it was in the 70s and sunny and about 2:00 p.m. on a Saturday, I encountered only about eight other people using the trails. I read that there was a boat parade that evening, but I can't imagine where they had enough water to float a boat.

Anyone have an explanation for this?

Last week I wrote a primer on tax increment financing (TIF) districts. My column in this week's issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly is the advanced course: TIF districts as applied to Jenks' proposed billion-dollar River District development and a Branson Landing-type development on Tulsa's west bank. You can read all about the speed with which Jenks officials have moved forward with its latest TIF district, the complaints from the Jenks school district, how the City of Jenks has designed the River District TIF plan to put the financial risk on the developer, the lengthy process for TIF review established by Mayor Taylor's administration, and how the City Council can bypass it, if they choose.

Also in this issue, Tulsa County Commissioner Fred Perry responds to my October 25-31 column outlining a way to move forward on river development following the defeat of the Perry-endorsed county sales tax increase, and praising the Tulsa City Council for taking the first steps in that direction. Perry objects to my final paragraph:

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.

Perry's op-ed begins:

In a recent edition of the Urban Tulsa Weekly, after the Tulsa City Council passed a resolution supporting river development, (OpEd writer) Michael Bates stated that the County Commission and Tulsa Mayor should follow the lead of the City Council as it relates to working to put a similar high quality development in Tulsa. ( ) This is amusing when one knows the facts.

I've responded to Perry in detail in my column in the issue that will be out on Thursday, but I did post a comment to his op-ed noting that he seems to have overlooked a key point:

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.

The U. S. Senate voted 79-14 this morning to override President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (HR 1495). The bill becomes law; the House voted Tuesday to override, 361-54.

The fourteen brave souls who voted against the override comprise 12 Republicans and 2 Democrats, including our own Tom Coburn: Allard (R-CO), Brownback (R-KS), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Gregg (R-NH), Kyl (R-AZ), McCaskill (D-MO), McConnell (R-KY), Sessions (R-AL), Sununu (R-NH).

Of the seven Senators not voting, five are presidential candidates: Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden, and Republican John McCain. (Republicans John Cornyn of Texas and Jim Bunning of Kentucky were the other two.)

The bill includes a $50 million authorization for Arkansas River corridor projects related to the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan:

SEC. 3132. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA.

(a) In General- The Secretary is authorized to participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan dated October 2005. The Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, including representatives of Tulsa County and surrounding communities and the Indian Nations Council of Governments.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.

Club for Growth wanted to see the veto sustained and will make this vote part of its congressional scorecard. The bill came out of conference committee 60% bigger than either of the original House or Senate versions, and the Heritage Foundation called the bill "a prime example of legislation run amok."

RELATED: Andrew Roth of the Club for Growth, writing at National Review Online, debunks the top lame congressional excuses for pork barrel spending:

• "I know my district better than some unelected bureaucrat!"
• "Earmarks don't increase spending."
• "It's for the children!"
• "I'm fighting to get our fair share!"

My latest Urban Tulsa Weekly column, in the November 1-7 issue (the adoption issue), is a primer on tax increment financing (TIF) districts. There's a lot of debate about the topic in Jenks and talk about using a TIF district in Tulsa to enable west bank commercial development, and people seem to confuse TIF districts with tax abatements and other economic development tools. It's a bit dry, but I had fun writing the opening. For the rest of it, I tried to stick to a simple explanation of the facts -- answering questions like where Tulsa's TIF districts are and when they expire, and what state law governs the creation and operation of TIF districts. (The next issue, out Wednesday, will have a follow-up column dealing specifically with the controversy over the proposed River District TIF district in Jenks and how a Tulsa west bank TIF district might work.)

Also in the current issue, Brian Ervin has several great articles, including one about the owner of Mexico Lindo restaurants, who says he's an unwilling plaintiff in the lawsuit against H. B. 1804, Oklahoma's new immigration enforcement law. Brian was interviewed last Wednesday on KFAQ Mornings. (You can download the MP3 of Brian Ervin's interview here.)

This struck me as strange. Maybe this was unintentional, maybe not. You be the judge.

There's a shift in the way the Tulsa World refers to the potential commercial development on the west bank of the Arkansas River at 21st Street.

Prior to the October 9 Tulsa County sales tax election, the paper consistently connected the proposed west bank development to Branson Landing, the retail development on the shores of Lake Taneycomo in downtown Branson, Missouri, and mentioned developer Rick Huffman by name. After the election, the development has been mentioned a few times, but without any reference to Huffman and only one to Branson Landing. After the jump, you'll find examples of what I'm talking about.

You may have missed this, as did I when it first aired last Wednesday: A KOTV story which looked at polling data from a week before the election to explain why the Tulsa County river sales tax increase failed at the polls. There's a snapshot showing the reasons given by people who said they oppose the tax:

29% no more taxes
23% other priorities / fix streets
34% private donors should pay for all of it
10% no confidence vote

The story quotes Oklahoma City-based pollster Bill Shapard:

But the way that got spun by the no side was, if he's going to put up all that money, George Kaiser, why doesn't he just pay for all of it. And so while I think George Kaiser and his generosity was the greatest asset for the yes campaign, it also became their greatest liability.

I don't know of anyone on the no side who "spun" that, much less spent much time talking about the pledges by Kaiser and others. I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything on the No River Tax website along those lines. My take on the pledges was that $282 million was a lot to spend for a free gift. The donors have a right to decide to whom, for what, and under what conditions they spend their money, but the voters needed to focus on the tax they were being asked to pay and the projects it would pay for.

It did surprise me how many people volunteered to me an opinion similar to that poll result. Most often it took the form, "If they're going to give that money, why not use the money to pay for the dams instead of these 'gathering places'?" Almost always the idea was "the dams instead of the parks" rather than "the dams and the parks."

I'd be curious to know exactly how the question was asked and how the results were tabulated, as that can make all the difference. Were voters allowed to give more than one reason for voting no, or were they asked to give the most important reason? Were voters given a list of reasons to pick from, or was it an open question, and if it was an open question, how were the responses categorized? Would "donors should pay for the dams instead of the parks" be classified as essentially the same answer as "donors should pay for the dams and the parks"?

Because of a job-related day trip, I'm postponing my weekly visit with Gwen and Chris on 1170 KFAQ until Wednesday morning.

A couple of different young professionals sent me this e-mail, which they received late last week from TYpros, the Astroturf YP group created by and for the Tulsa Metro Chamber. One wrote, "Honestly, this letter (and its leadership team's public homogenization of the TYPros membership into a monolith of river tax supporters) has me considering leaving TYPros." Another wrote, "I had lent my support to TYPROS in the early days, but ever since their support of the River tax I've lost my faith in them as an agent of change."

At first, I didn't see what bothered them so much about this e-mail. It's encouraging people who might have been disappointed in the outcome of Tuesday's election not to be hyperdramatic about it, but to stay involved.

But there is an undertone which undercuts that sensible message -- "The 4,000+ members in Tulsa's Young Professionals bear a heavy burden." Please.

It's easy to understand why older generations become so cynical.

After Tuesday's vote, it's easy to become disenchanted, disheartened, and frankly, disgusted. It's easy to trash-talk the opposition or vow to learn how someone voted before having lunch with him or her. It's easy to spout off promises to flee the community for more progressive and yp-friendly cities and regions.

It's easy to quit.

It's much, much harder to shake it off and decide where we go from here.

To survive and thrive in the future, developing our community to attract and retain young, talented workers and new college graduates must become everyone's business. The 4,000+ members in Tulsa's Young Professionals bear a heavy burden and the result of Tuesday's vote makes our job even more difficult. My company, your company, North Tulsa, South Tulsa, East or West, suburbs or downtown, all depends on us to be here in the future.

Young people are the future growth of our region. High school students today are deciding where they want to live tomorrow. College graduates decide where they want to live before they find a job.

Some people get it. Some people don't.

George Kaiser gets it. We applaud his courage, conviction and generosity.

So, our message is this. From young professionals to one slightly more seasoned professional: Mr. Kaiser...we won't give up if you don't give up on us.

Sincerely,

Tulsa's Young Professionals

UPDATE: There are some good comments posted below, but two in particular worth spotlighting:

From Jeff Shaw:

That reads like an email from 14 year old girl. :)

And from Jason Kearney:

TYPROS. Please. A bunch of morons if they still don't understand. Many of them are single, making more money than they know what to do with. They don't care how much money they pay in taxes, because they don't have enough to spend their money on now. They are too immature to realize that people can have differences of opinion. It has to be about who "gets it" and who doesn't. Give me a break.

I hope they are watching the local news, and seeing that they were duped by the chamber, the mayor, and the county commission. River development continues, but the right way, with private investments, not taxpayer money.

Too tired and too busy with family stuff tonight to do anything more than point you to some articles about Tuesday's defeat of the Tulsa County sales tax proposal.

Justin Juozapavicius, the Associated Press correspondent for Tulsa and a former Tulsa World reporter, filed a report on the tax defeat that had an air of hopelessness about it.

For supporters, Tuesday's "no" vote meant another missed development opportunity for Tulsa, while other cities such as Memphis, Tenn., San Antonio and Kansas City, Mo., continue to profit from their waterfront projects.

Oklahoma City voters also recognized the potential years ago, approving an initiative that turned an aging warehouse district into Bricktown, the city's nightlife and entertainment hub, complete with a mile-long pedestrian canal.

While the reporter did speak to two opposition leaders, Tulsa City Council Chairman Roscoe Turner and Broken Arrow Mayor Wade McCaleb, the story overlooks the opportunities to move forward on river development. It also incorrectly summarizes what was on the ballot:

Both were contingent on the passage of the 0.4-cent tax increase that would have paid for low-water dams, land acquisition, pedestrian bridges and habitat improvements along 42 miles of the river from Keystone Dam to the city of Jenks.

While the improvements would have indeed stopped at Jenks, the 42 miles includes Bixby and Broken Arrow, neither of which would have seen any of the listed improvements had the tax passed.

At first I was upset with Mr. Juozapavicius for filing a story that preached doom and gloom about Tulsa, but a large share of the blame belongs to the officials he quoted in the story. What do you think?

Meanwhile in Jenks, Jerry Gordon, who used his own money to build RiverWalk Crossing, is proposing that he and other developers who would benefit from a low-water dam to pony up and pay for it themselves.

But in south Tulsa, where an estimated $100 million in riverfront development has risen up over the last four years, much of it without public support, a small group of Tulsa-area investors may attempt what Tuesday's election failed to accomplish - fund a south Tulsa dam across the Arkansas River.

Such efforts could face huge permitting hurdles beyond the projected $25 million-plus cost, especially if the private forces tried to proceed without governmental support. But Gordon, the maverick entrepreneur who opened RiverWalk Crossing in 2005, believes other business and civic leaders like himself, with vested interests in growing south Tulsa commerce, could and should cough up the funds necessary for building the dam so vital to maintaining water in the river.

In fact, he's already started quiet discussions with a few key associates to accomplish just that.

"We're going to float our own boat," the 25-year industry veteran said Wednesday, even with the start of primary construction on RiverWalk's second phase just three weeks away....

Gordon would not discuss who may be involved in his efforts. But he used for his inspiration the $117 million that private donors had promised to spend on river trails and parks projects if the vote had passed.

"We'll find a way to do it if you keep the politics out of it," the 48-year-old said. "This really is a city deal, not a county deal. We've thought all along this should be the way it's done."

His initiative would follow Indian Nations Council of Governments' proposal for a south Tulsa dam to maximize the potential of King's Landing, RiverWalk and other commercial developments that have already sprung up. Under his idealistic plan, the dam would be paid for by those who would profit by it.

Jerry Gordon deserves three cheers for clear thinking and initiative.

The story also notes that the Branson Landing folks are still interested in moving forward with their development if they can get the assistance they say they need for land acquisition and site preparation. Perhaps they should speak to Jerry Gordon to see how things can get done.

There's an interesting detail in the beginning of the story which illustrates a suggestion I've made several times:

"Many people told me I was crazy to use such expensive stonework on this, but I didn't care," he said, explaining how, as a private homebuilder, developer and contractor with no partners, using his own funds, he didn't need to worry about targeted returns on investment. "It's the project that's most important to me. If I know I'm going to make a profit, and I know what I'm going to do, that's fine."

That willingness to accept and embrace lower profit margins may explain much about how he hopes to succeed where Tulsa's river tax supporters fell short.

Because he was using his own money and wasn't dependent on partners, he could decide to spend more money on the quality of the materials, and he could step out with an idea like RiverWalk Crossing and just get it done when everyone else said it couldn't be done without public subsidy.

Someone like George Kaiser or John Kelly Warren has the ability to tolerate financial risk. That risk tolerance makes it possible for someone like that to build a commercial development along the river that is innovative, daring, and unusual. Or they could fund redevelopment in the Pearl District or downtown. They could build projects that a conventional lender would never finance.

Thanks to Tulsa County voters for turning down the problematic Tulsa County river sales tax, there's now an opportunity, if elected officials are willing to take it, to put together an approach to river development that avoids the pitfalls of the proposal that the voters rejected.

It's likely, though, that after trying to convince voters that the false dilemma set up by the County Commissioners was a true dilemma, that their way was the only way to make our river happen, that they've convinced themselves as well. They're probably going to need some time to detoxify and deprogram themselves from their own propaganda.

The Tulsa City Council should start the process of establishing a west bank Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district. We can do private riverfront development in Tulsa the same way they're doing it in Jenks and Bixby.

The County Commission should announce their resolve to move ahead with engineering work and permitting on the two new low-water dams and Zink Dam modifications.

The story linked above quotes PMg environmental manager Gaylon Pinc:

"This is a turning point for Tulsa," said Pinc. "I've heard nothing but criticism from Tulsa residents about why we've done nothing with the river for 40 years. And now they say they don't want to do anything."

That's not true, Gaylon, and I think after a few days to come down from the intensity of the campaign, you'll come to recognize that this wasn't a rejection of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, but of the tax increase and the extraneous projects in this tax package.

The issue now becomes how to proceed, since securing Army Corp of Engineers permits will require completion of engineering work. But just designing the two-low water dams and the Zink dam modifications could cost $4 million, he said - almost half the funds available through Vision 2025. Doing design work on the estimated $90 million in river channel modifications would more than consume the rest.

"Do you spend it, or hold on to that money or wait until you have enough money to build it?" he said, raising the question that county and Vision 2025 leaders now face. "Do you spend all the money you have to design something you can't afford to build?"

Yes, you do, because the County Commission asked the voters four years ago if they wanted two low-water dams and improvements to Zink Lake, and they said yes. So you pursue permitting on the dams. Once the permits are granted, we'll know how much the dams will really cost, and we'll know where we stand financially -- whether Federal dollars will be available and whether Vision 2025 revenues outstrip John Piercey's projections. If it looks like we don't have enough for those three projects, that's the time for the County to come back to voters and ask for enough to finish the job, just like Oklahoma City asked for a MAPS tax extension to finish the MAPS projects.

As for the $90 million for channel modification, if Pinc and others feel that it is worthy of incorporating in the ARCMP, that concept needs to be put through a process for consideration as an amendment to the ARCMP, a matter that would be decided by the planning commission, County Commission, and City Council.

The people who were at the No River Tax watch party tonight at Sadie's aren't against river development. I feel certain that everyone there would be willing to work with the elected officials and civic leaders who supported the tax to develop a plan that moves river development forward without forcing a tax rate increase.

MORE: Ted Streuli writes in the Journal Record that Jenks will bypass Tulsa, and we're all short-sighted, just like when we rejected the aquarium. What he doesn't tell you is that the City of Tulsa park board and Mayor Susan Savage put the kibosh on a Tulsa Aquarium on the river, not the voters of Tulsa. He also doesn't seem to be aware that this was a county-wide vote.

And Bobby of Tulsa Topics cheers the victory and hands out laurels to the victors: "Tonight, I actually have a glimmer of hope for Tulsa. Instead of taking the flim flam spin of the PR Meisters hook, line, and sinker, you actually decided giving a blank check to our wondrous County Commissioners may be a less than optimal use of your tax dollars. Tulsa County voters..... I salute you!"

UPDATE: Steve Roemerman has pictures from the No River Tax watch party (raise the roof!) and explains why it's time to stick a fork in Randi Miller's political career.

UPDATE 2007/10/10, 8:00 p.m.:

Jeff Shaw draws from a personal anecdote to think about the gap between the yesses and noes yesterday:

Tonight in Tulsa, there are people living in and around the neighborhoods where the Honorable Mayor resides and other affluent areas, scratching their heads and wondering: "Exactly how did this wonderful idea of improving the river get away from us?"

I'll share with you a couple of my thoughts....

If you've ever had to send your child to Cleveland Middle School, or Gilcrease, or Monroe, or McClain, or any of their really crappy feeder schools, you might not worry too much about whether some YP will be able to kayak through the man-made fjords of the new and improved Arkansas River, built, by the way, especially for YP's.

Stan Geiger thinks this is a bigger victory than the point spread indicates:

The yes camp had to have spent over a million bucks on TV ads. The no camp ran none. The yes camp virtually owned the free airspace, too. No local station held any bilateral forums on the matter. For George Kaiser to show up in front of a camera was akin to a vampire walking in the noonday sun. Nonetheless, KOTV gave him an uncontested platform from which he preached his sermon. Hanson was allowed a solo as well. The list of public endorsers read like a who's who. And the big, daily newspaper gave itself in total to the pro-tax crowd.

In spite of all that, the measure failed. The mouse vanquished the elephant. Substance defeated style.

This is the first contested tax election I can remember where there was not even one televised debate, and even the joint appearances at community forums were billed not as debates but "informational meetings," designed to prevent one side from directly challenging the assertions of the other side.

David Schuttler has a photo essay of some of our existing river parks, pointing out that we're not doing a very good job of taking care of the "gathering places" we already have. But you can still see plenty of wildlife -- he spotted a bald eagle rather early in the season.

(And you remember correctly, David: There was a time when you could take steps up to a deck on top of the pedestrian bridge, when the bridge walkway stopped halfway across the river.)

Mad Okie has some kind words for me and (more deservedly) for the courageous elected officials who stood against the tax "for not bowing to the county and standing up and speaking up FOR their constituents."

Here's the precinct-by-precinct tally of the result from the Tulsa World. The World also has a precinct map showing where the tax passed and where it failed. It would be interesting to see a "heat map" -- indicating by depth of color the margin of support or opposition in each precinct. (I'd love to have the tools to make that kind of map myself.)

Here are some basic facts and figures and links to more information about today's election. Be sure to tune into KFAQ 1170. I'll be in studio from 6 a.m. on to talk about what the proposed Tulsa County river sales tax is and what it isn't.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

The proposal is for a county-wide sales tax rate increase of 0.4 cents on the dollar, increasing the county's share of sales tax from 61/60ths (1.016666...) of a cent on each dollar to 85/60ths (1.416666...) of a cent on each dollar. The proceeds of the sales tax would be designated for river projects.

Here is a link to the text of the ballot resolution for the Tulsa County river sales tax, the signed and notarized commitment by the county to the voters regarding how the tax proceeds will be spent. As a backup, you can find the same text on the KJRH website.

The proponents of the tax have a website called ourriveryes.com.
The opponents of the tax have a website called notulsarivertax.com.

The Arkansas River category in the BatesLine archives has what I've written about the current proposal as well as last fall's The Channels proposal.

If you have specific questions, post a comment here or e-mail me at blog at batesline dot com, and I'll add the answers to this entry.

If I don't collapse at the keyboard, I've got maybe two River-related posts left. First, this roundup of news stories and comments and then, for the late deciders, a summary of the issue and links to key pieces that I've written.

The vote yes side has dodged all televised debates on the issue. KJRH canceled the planned League of Women Voters debate. Too embarrassed to show up, I guess.

KOTV had the story tonight about Monday's press conference by Broken Arrow Mayor Wade McCaleb and other Broken Arrow leaders, denouncing the misleading postcard that the vote yes campaign sent to voters in that city. As I write this, it's still the number one story on the KOTV website. You'll recall that the vote yes postcard featured a concept drawing with the words "Broken Arrow Riverfront." The story featured what may be Randi Miller's unintentionally funniest moment:

"Do you see how that is misleading?" News On 6 reporter Emory Bryan asked Commissioner Miller.

"No, because it not once says this is what is going to happen," Miller responded.

In addition to video of the story, KOTV has web extra video -- an extended clip of their visit with Miller on this issue, and comments by Charles Buxton, head of the Broken Arrow Chamber of Commerce.

(From down the Turner Turnpike, Charles G. Hill had a pithy response to the bogus Broken Arrow postcard.)

Fox 23 has brief interviews with two representatives from each side, responding to questions from the TV audience. The yes side is represented by County Commissioner Randi Miller and her deputy Terry Simonson. The no side is represented by State Sen. Randy Brogdon and Dr. Warren Blakney. The last video in the series of three is a critique of one of the vote yes commercials, debunking their claim that the tax will improve the roads that lead to the river.

(While I have the chance, I plan to download all the TV spots and other video content on the "Our River Yes / Rock the River" YouTube account. You might want to do the same, using a tool like KeepVid. That'll be useful no matter which side wins tomorrow. Campaign videos have a tendency to disappear quickly.)

You can watch the two hour Tulsa Now forum on the river tax featuring financial adviser John Piercey and PMg environmental manager Gaylon Pinc on the yes side, and City Councilor John Eagleton and Colin Tawney on the no side.

While notulsarivertax.com is the official opposition website, someone anonymous has set up a well-organized site called Enough Is Enough. I hesitated to link to it, because the webmaster wouldn't identify him/herself, which can sometime mean unpleasant surprises later, but it's turned out to be an attractive and colorful site explaining why this tax should be voted down.

Now, some blog comments from hither and yon:

Steve Roemerman sets forth his reasons for voting no...

...as does Notes from Polecat Creek:

Typically, Notes From Polecat Creek is positive in its' endorsements of public works projects and the taxes needed to pay for them. However, this one is a little too grand, smacks of making a few developers and contractors very rich and doesn't seem to recognize the fact that Tulsa has a backlog of road, sewer and other less glorious projects whose last price tag was estimated to be in the near one billion dollar range in total.

Dan Paden hasn't changed his mind:

I know little of how the proposed low-water dams would work. I know little of what the Corps of Engineers has to say about the proposed river development. What I do know is that history gives me precious little reason to believe that these "investments" will pay off as promised, or that the taxes funding them will ever actually be allowed to expire.

Dan also takes issue with the claim that our improving economy can be credited to Vision 2025:

I'm not at all certain that it is so simple to sort out just why Tulsa's economy has improved. It seems to me that there are other factors involved--like an economy that is improving nationwide--improving nationwide, ironically, in large part due to tax cuts. I also seem to recall our economy improving statewide--in large part due to rising oil prices. There are other things, like certain legislative developments statewide since 2003, that make me think attributing Tulsa's improved economy to Vision 2025 isn't quite the slam-dunk [so-and-so] seems to think it is.

Anyway, Dan, John Benjamin says we're drifting and in need of a transformative event, so Vision 2025 must not be all that after all.

This is from a while back, but worth mentioning: Randi Miller's claims that the City of Tulsa has a $200 million pile of money for streets just sitting there but there aren't enough contractors to spend the money. Ken Neal had a conflicting version of that at the All Souls event, saying the problem was that the city wouldn't raise the millage soon enough to be able to sell all of the bonds that have been approved.

Mad Okie has his top 10 reasons for voting no including:

County gov't has no business collecting sales tax. As the cities grow, [counties] have less to take care of, they shouldnt be growing!

David Schuttler has restarted his blog, using WordPress, and in a photo-illustrated entry wonders whether Branson Landing is really the sort of thing we want on our riverfront because of its "disconnection with the water":

I wondered about the same thing last December:

It was odd, though, that here was this waterfront development, and yet the water was mostly hidden from view. Only seven retail spaces--all restaurants--face the lake. The boardwalk which runs alongside the lake mainly faces the backs of shops and a service road. While having shops facing each other across a narrow street is good urban form--pedestrians feel enclosed rather than exposed--I would hope that a riverfront retail development would have more frequent vistas to the water, at least one every hundred yards (the width of a downtown Tulsa block), and that there would be retail spaces on the waterfront.

There's an Our River Yes blog, but it's perhaps more accurately described as "our river, yes, but this sales tax increase, no."

Jason Kearney explains the reasons for his no vote, reacts to the Hanson brothers' endorsement of the tax increase, and relays a bit of wisdom from (wait for it) Randi Miller:

"Under no circumstances should sales tax exceed current levels."

Asks Jason: "Ms. Miller, what happened that you changed your mind?"

Michelle predicts that if we say no, this won't be the last attempt at passing a river tax. And her husband Mark, a newly-minted blogger, has had quite a bit of his own to say about the river tax and our local government officials. Two I liked in particular:

There is Good In Our City, and
If You Really Loved Me You'd Say Yes -- will the County Commissioners respect us in the morning?

This ploy reminded me of a high school kid trying to score with his girl friend. I could've sworn I saw a football jock with his cheerleader honey in the back seat of his car..."But Honey, if you love me you'll say yes" Anybody with an ounce of life experience knows what the jock really wants. It's the same with our city; the leaders won't respect us any more than the cheerleader's "boyfriend."

Finally, Jeff Shaw provides us with our "moment of zen" in the form of a photo with an interesting juxtaposition of sign and skyline. And Jeff asks:

Which side wins? Will it be platitudes, silly unmeasurable promises, threats of drying up money and cute pictures? Or will it be facts and figures?

Here's the audio from Sunday's forum at All Souls Unitarian Church on the Tulsa County river sales tax. The panelists were, from your left, Michael Bates of Urban Tulsa Weekly, Ken Neal of the Tulsa World, Kevin Stubbs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland. Former KOTV moderator Clayton Vaughn was the moderator. The MP3 file is about 50 minutes long, about 5 MB in size.

I'll try to summarize it later. The audience, estimated at around 100, asked good questions, and the debate was substantive. A friend in the audience judged the crowd's reaction as indicative of a 50-50 split, which, if true, is amazing considering All Souls' location (in Maple Ridge near the river). I received some nice compliments afterwards from some of the members, including one lady who said I swayed her vote, had a constructive conversation about TIF districts, and was urged by a psychologist to modulate my self-assurance -- being too confident about the answers could make people push back. I agreed with him that I was a bit too aggressive at the beginning, but managed to tone it down, I think.

(Any suggestions for a way to embed an MP3 so that you could listen without downloading the whole thing first?)

John Benjamin, the former Tulsa City Councilor who left town for Bixby, the prototypical member of the Cockroach Caucus, on the wrong side of nearly every local issue (most recently pushing for the recall of Jim Mautino and Chris Medlock), has spoken out on the river tax. No surprise here; he's voting yes, evidently because all the money we spent on Vision 2025 didn't do the trick.

Fellow Tulsa County voters, greater Tulsa is drifting and needs a transformative event to trigger our resurgence. We need economic stimulus, infrastructure improvement and restoration of our sense of community and pride in our physical appearance.

I can't find where Benjamin made this argument four years ago, but plenty of other spokespeople did, and I don't recall Benjamin speaking up at the time to say that Vision 2025 wouldn't be sufficiently transformative.

Reminds me of something Randi Miller said at a Republican club meeting last month, as reported by Steve Roemerman:

One of the things I've heard her say on this and other occasions is "I wanted to do the river during Vision 2025, but we did not have a plan in place." She is admitting that she knew, in 2003, that development of the river is what was needed to spur Tulsa's growth. She knew that our real vision for Tulsa was the river, but she decided to support 2025 anyway. It was said that something had to be done, and that this was our opportunity to help Tulsa grow, and this was the tax package to do it. But now she is trying to sell us on the idea that 2025 was some how deficient and the river is the real opportunity for growth? I now hear the same rhetoric as before: something has to be done..this is our one opportunity and if we don't pass this tax Tulsa wont grow. Well excuse me if I don't buy it. If Randi knew this needed to be done in 2003, she should have shown real leadership and fought Vision 2025. I have to say it would be a much easier sell if we were not already over-burdened with the 2025 sales tax.

Benjamin gets a bit off-message in trying to minimize the cost to a typical household:

As voters we can make great strides in our river development by approving a limited seven year, 0.4 percent tax increase that each month amounts to about the price of a movie ticket for a family of four.

I think he meant to say that a family of four would sacrifice the price of a single movie ticket each month, but it comes across as, "You're going to have to cancel your monthly family movie night so you can pay for this tax." It's not as bad as that -- the family can still go, but dad will have to stay home.

I wasn't familiar with this idiom with which he starts a paragraph:

Least I mention Oklahoma City?

Anyone want to parse that for me?

Roscoe Turner, Tulsa's most believable city councilor, drills for the truth, in an open letter to bored Tulsa hipsters:

Those who believe the Tulsa metropolitan area has nothing to offer and must spend tax dollars developing the river to keep our young professionals entertained must be socially challenged. There are so many things to do in the Tulsa area that some have to plan and schedule weeks and months ahead of time to make sure they don't miss those activities in which they are most interested. But, for those nay-sayers who think there is nothing to do around here, I've pulled together the following list of great things to do in the Tulsa area:

1. Catch a TU football game at Chapman Stadium (formerly known as Skelly Stadium)

2. Check out a 66ers basketball game at the historic Fairgrounds Pavilion

3. The Tulsa Opera is going into its 60th year in Tulsa

4. The Tulsa Ballet has been declared one of the best in the world

5. The Old Lady On Brady is a great place to find a concert

6. Tulsa's floating amphitheatre usually has a movie night

7. Octoberfest

8. Mayfest

9. When was the last time you were at the Tulsa Zoo?

10. The Oklahoma Aquarium

11. Enjoy a play at Tulsa's Little Theatre

12. Don't forget Discoveryland

13. Eat fresh and buy local at the many community Farmer's Markets

14. Visit one of the area Herb Festivals

15. Shop the antique markets

16. Play a round of golf at one of the many area courses

17. Watch the Golden Hurricane play basketball at the Reynolds Center

18. Hike a trail at the Oxley Nature Center

19. Stay in shape walking or riding your bike on one of the many area trails

20. See what's happening at the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame

21. Try your luck at Cherokee, Creek or Osage Casinos

22. Grab a concert at the Osage event center

23. Take a trip down Route 66

24. Walk through one of the many shows at the Quik Trip Center (formerly known as the Expo building)

25. Dine, shop, or see a movie at the Riverwalk

26. There's always something to see at the Bass Pro Shop

27. Tulsa Drillers

28. Tulsa Talons

29. Tulsa Oilers

30. Gilcrease Museum

31. Philbrook Museum

32. Tulsa Air & Space Museum

33. The American Theatre Company always puts on a great production

34. What's going on at the Tulsa Convention Center?

35. And soon, very soon-or so we're told, you can see SOMETHING at the new BOK Arena

Once you've made your way through this list you can start at the top and work your way back through it. This by no means is an exhaustive list of the wonderful things there are to do in the area, but it's a great start for those who have decided that they are bored and want the rest of us to foot the bill for their entertainment. There are many hard-working people who live paycheck to paycheck; many elderly who worked their whole lives to retire on a very limited income, these people cannot afford to pay more taxes for your entertainment - especially those who live in areas of Tulsa where the city has made promises and reneged on them time and time again.

So, get out and spend some of your young professional money and generate some tax revenue, and before long we will have the money to fix the streets, open swimming pools and recreation centers at our community parks, mow the grass in all areas of the city, fix broken water lines and provide public safety by hiring more police. Then maybe, just maybe, we can take a look at doing something with YOUR RIVER.

Roscoe H. Turner

I'll add three things to Councilor Turner's excellent list -- make a point to visit the following websites, on a regular basis, to learn about even more interesting things to do and places to go around Tulsa:

• Urban Tulsa Weekly's events listings, updated every Wednesday
• Indie Tulsa, a celebration of locally-owned businesses by the author of Oklahoma's best inspirational blog for 2007
• Tasha Does Tulsa, Oklahoma's best culture blog for 2007

Last Thursday night, I was invited to a forum for the University of Tulsa's Earth Matters group. Steve Smith, who used to run an airboat on the Arkansas River, and attorney Rania Nasreddine spoke in support of the Tulsa County river sales tax, and I spoke against, as did Dan Weber, a student and member of the group.

Dan read out several passages on the nature and ecosystem of the Arkansas River from the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas River Coalition. Here are links to Dan's references, for your further reading on the issue of the proposed river projects and their impact on the creatures who live in and along the river:

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Oklahoma

(Threatened and endangered species that may be affected by changes to the Arkansas River include the bald eagle, the interior least tern, the piping plover, and the American burying beetle.)

The Arkansas River Coalition, which has among its goals to "[p]romote clean water and a healthy natural habitat along the river and its tributaries and [p]romote improved natural areas with a good mix of recreational space."

The Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan includes a habitat assessment in chapters 4 and 5 of the Phase II plan (note: this is a 38 MB PDF).

I've never been that interested in ecology, and have been as prone as any good right-winger to pooh-pooh the "environmentalist wackos" who hold up public works projects out of concern for some seemingly insignificant species, but I found the following quote in one of the Fish and Wildlife Service documents from Aldo Leopold. It contains a sentiment that resonates with me as a conservative and an engineer.

The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.

As a social conservative and an amateur student of cities, I'd say the same is true of social conventions and the urban fabric.

UPDATE: Be sure not to miss the op-ed in Saturday's Tulsa World by Jerry Brabander, field supervisor for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who writes:

The Sept. 30 Tulsa World Opinion page contained several opinion pieces and reader responses related to the proposed plan. Questions and answers presented by World staff included information related to potential impacts to river habitat, wildlife in general, least terns, eagles and river flows.

In our view, some of the answers were inaccurate. We support an organized plan for the Arkansas River that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife resources, but the proposed plan is largely conceptual and does not include details about how impacts would be addressed, minimized and mitigated.

For example, the potential impact on the river's habitat and wildlife has not been studied extensively. The only existing fisheries study, conducted by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, indicates that the effects of low water dams (LWD) on fish could be substantial. Building new tern nesting islands (to replace the four to six tern nesting areas that would be flooded or affected) in the created lakes would not be effective, if the terns don't have adequate forage fish to eat. Similar questions exist concerning effects on nesting and foraging bald eagles.

The proponents of the Tulsa County river sales tax are claiming that billions in private development hang upon the outcome of Tuesday's vote. Specifically, they're claiming that the $1,000 million "River District" project in Jenks, the $500 million "Tulsa Landing" project proposed for the west bank at 21st Street, and the $50 million South Village development in Bixby are all dependent on passage of the tax.

South Village is on a part of the river that won't be modified by any of the projects in this tax. The project will be the beneficiary of a $5 million rebate of sales taxes from the City of Bixby. The linked World story doesn't say, but I would assume that this is being done by means of a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district. The developer spends money for site preparation up front, then is reimbursed for those expenses by the increase in sales taxes generated within the TIF district. The linked story quotes developer Tim Remy saying that his project is not dependent on the proposed Tulsa County river sales tax.

River District in Jenks would have some frontage along the lake created by a low-water dam south of the Creek Turnpike bridge, but developer Lynn Mitchell has said that the project will go forward regardless of the outcome of the sales tax vote. The 330 acres has already been purchased. The Jenks City Council has given preliminary approval to a TIF District, and the Jenks school district, one of the key taxing bodies which must approve a TIF, has expressed its support.

Under the TIF plan, some of the increased tax revenues generated from developments within the River District would be transferred to the developer to cover approved expenses....

City Attorney Stephen Oakley said expenses qualifying for reimbursement would include floodplain and riverbank stabilization, roads, utilities and gas lines....

"I think it's the way a TIF district should be done -- it's entirely performance-based," Mitchell said. "We go in and pay for all the infrastructure out of our own pocket and then we come in and build the value up on the property by putting up buildings." ...

How will it work?: The proposed TIF district now generates about $13,000 a year in property taxes, which will continue to be collected and distributed, Oakley said.

The developer would be reimbursed from city sales tax revenues generated in the district and from increased property taxes as the development becomes more established, Oakley said. Jenks has a 3 percent city sales tax; the developer would receive one-third of that money, or one cent on every dollar of sales.

"They'll have certain items that qualify for reimbursement," Oakley said. "It's pay as you go. We're not bonding or advancing funds for any of it. It's all dependable on what the development generates out there."

That leaves the west bank development proposed by the developer that built Branson Landing, but that project isn't dependent on any of the "water in the river" projects or specifically on Tuesday's sales tax package, but on the availability of a large enough piece of contiguous land. As we've discussed, a TIF district can be used to fund land acquisition and other site preparation that would be needed for that development.

Since none of the big commercial development projects require passage of Tuesday's Tulsa County river sales tax to move forward, and in fact two of them are already moving forward, it's disingenuous for tax supporters to count any of those amounts as private investment that would be "generated" by this $282 million public "investment." Those who are including these amounts in their "private-to-public" ratio calculations in order to justify their support for a tax increase are standing on thin ice.

But what I'm really wondering about tonight is how they figure the value of these commercial projects. Riverwalk Crossing Phase I was described by leasing agent Doug Walman as a $26 million project. The proposed Tulsa Landing site, for example, is about 6 or 7 times bigger than Riverwalk Crossing, so how does that development manage to be 20 times as pricey? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know.

From a January 11 press release from then newly installed County Commissioner Fred Perry, regarding a county river authority and riverfront commercial development (emphasis added):

Perry said that he believed that public money should only be spent on infrastructure that "cleans up the river and the river bank and/or puts more water in the river and possibly other structural improvements to the river itself. If that is done, private developers and philanthropic individuals and foundations will facilitate the development as they would in any private sector endeavor."

In a related area, Commissioner Perry said, "At the suggestion of Skiatook developer Ron Howell, I visited Branson Landing last October. Shortly thereafter I met with Rick Huffman, along with Commissioner Miller and Mr. Howell, and encouraged him to seriously consider Tulsa. Subsequently he came to Tulsa, toured the river and began talks with the City of Tulsa regarding a site within the City of Tulsa. The Branson project is extremely impressive and something similar would be great for Tulsa whether or not more comprehensive river infrastructure work takes place. I stand ready to help as it relates to any potential development in Tulsa County," Perry said.

Of the funding package that Fred Perry voted to put on next Tuesday's ballot, more than $100,000,000 would going to projects that don't fit the criteria he set out in January for the appropriate use of public money: The $57.4 million site acquisition / bridge improvements / river studies / whatever fund, the two pedestrian only bridges, and the downtown connector.

The main topic of that press release was Perry's objection to the creation of a Tulsa County authority to oversee river development. Such an authority would be created if next Tuesday's vote is approved.

I made reference in this week's UTW column to the review process to which "The Channels" proposal (12-mile-long lake, islands in the river, removal of the west bank between 11th and 21st) was subjected last fall, a process that was skipped for the many projects in next Tuesday's sales tax vote that are not in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (ARCMP).

Last fall when The Channels were proposed, officials set up a three-month-long process to study the proposal and consider whether it should be incorporated into the ARCMP. It was described as "an expeditious but rigid technical review."

There were several technical committees examining the impact of The Channels proposal on the ecosystem, including stormwater drainage and endangered species. In the course of the process, many new concerns came to light, issues that might have been lost in a rush to the ballot.

A fifty-member advisory committee would have decided whether to recommend The Channels for incorporation into the ARCMP. Then the matter would have been considered by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the Tulsa County Commission, and the Tulsa City Council, as an amendment to the ARCMP and the Comprehensive Plan.

All of these steps had to be completed before the County Commission would submit a tax package for The Channels for voter approval.

INCOG had had a timeline for the review process on its website, but it's long since disappeared. I had transcribed the Channels timeline into an entry, however, so that people could look at the timeline without having to download and open a PDF.

It transpired that the timeline wasn't adequate. Advisory committees wanted questions answered, and the process of answering them took too long to meet the planned November 1 date for a TMAPC public hearing on the project.

Still, it's noteworthy and praiseworthy that there was a formal review process, and the parties involved took it seriously enough to give the process the time it required. I still don't understand why this process was skipped this time around.

At Thursday night's TU Earth Matters forum on the river tax, Kirby Crowe of PMg said I was incorrect in placing the "downtown connector" in the category of projects on next Tuesday's ballot that are not found in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (ARCMP). He's right: I had overlooked this brief mention on p. 117 in section 8.4.4 (Area/Site Plan), part of section 8.4 (Zink Lake Riverfront).

Connections to Downtown: As discussed earlier in this study, the Zink Lake area has excellent proximity to downtown Tulsa. There are tremendous opportunities for natural benefits between the central business district and this key section of the riverfront. Boulder Avenue and Denver Avenue provide strong linkages between the Arkansas River and downtown Tulsa. There is also potential for a trolley that will link key downtown and riverfront attractions. Another important connection between the Zink Lake riverfront district and downtown is planned near the proposed Route 66 Center and Plaza. As illustrated in Figure 8.4-2, the planned Centennial Walk will provide a pedestrian linkage to the southwest corner of downtown Tulsa. To futher enhance the appearance of downtown at its prominent southwest corner, the Master Plan proposes the replacement of the unattractive sloped concrete wall that is adjacent to the Tulsa Regional Medical Center. By creating terraced landscape planters in this highly visible area, a much more attractive gateway to downtown Tulsa and Zink Lake is achieved.

Here's theTulsa County river sales tax ballot resolution language that refers to "connectors from downtown":

Bridging East and West Arkansas River Banks and Downtown, including but not limited to pedestrian River crossings at 41st Street and 61st Street ($30 million), and connectors from downtown Tulsa to the Arkansas River and transportation corridor studies ($15 million).

It might be most accurate to put this $15 million into the "it depends" category, like the $57.4 million for "Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby." "Including but not limited to" opens the door for spending the money on items that aren't in the ARCMP, and it's hard to believe that the cost of modifying the TRMC retaining wall and putting in Centennial Walk sidewalk pavers is going to approach $15 million.

Still, in the interests of accuracy, there is a brief discussion of connectors between the riverfront and downtown in the ARCMP.

We've won the argument. They're reduced to saying, "Voting yes is positive, voting no is negative. And you wouldn't want to be negative, right?"

At the TU Earth Matters forum, the vote yes side didn't bother refuting the factual points I've raised, but they dismissed them as poking holes. Anyone can poke holes in anything, they said. They even dragged out the old "N" word -- "naysayer". When you use the word "naysayer," you've given up on winning the argument, and you're treating the audience as a mindless mob that you hope to sway.

The latest TV ad -- stark black lettering on a white background -- says that Tulsa County wasn't built on "no," and that young adults prefer cities who say yes.

I don't know about that, but I know that young adult males prefer young adult females who say yes. (But only up to a point; a "girl who cain't say no" tends to be used and discarded by the men in who flit in and out of her life. Consult this book for details. And plenty of "cities who say yes" have found themselves treated in a similar way by the big companies and sports teams they've said yes to. Find 'em, fleece 'em, and forget 'em.)

Casinos prefer gamblers who say yes. Vacation timeshare salesmen prefer people who say yes to buying a week's worth of condo. Saying no cuts into their bottom line.

You have to say no to the wrong things in order to have the opportunity to say yes to the right things.

A lot of "no" went into building Tulsa County. Building a successful business, building a stable family, building institutions like churches and schools and political parties and civic clubs all require saying "no" to one's own tendencies to slothfulness and selfishness.

George Kaiser, I suspect, is a man of self-discipline and self-denial. He built his life, his family, and his business on saying "no": No to blowing off homework. No to getting drunk and sleeping through his Harvard classes. No to abandoning his wife and children for a trophy wife. No to ruinous extravagance. No to too-good-to-be true business deals. No to bad bank loans. Those are all good noes. I'd bet he's said a lot more noes (implicit or explicit) than yesses in his life. Every yes to the right thing required at least one no or maybe many noes to the wrong thing.

Tulsa County voters have very limited options on Tuesday. The County Commissioners are only allowing us to say yes to their river proposal. If we want to say yes to a different approach to financing and developing the river, we must first say no to the one on Tuesday's ballot.

Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd offered us a multiple choice?

1. TULSA COUNTY VOTE: The low-water dams -- two new, one old. (I'll take their word that the three dams work as a system.)

(A) Use the Vision 2025 money you already have to fix Zink Lake and to proceed with engineering and the permitting application on the other two dams. Once you get the permits (if you get them), you can come back and ask us for more money (assuming we don't have enough in Vision 2025 and haven't received that Federal $50 million).

(B) Raise our county sales taxes now by four-tenths of a cent for 18 months to fund the dams.

(C) Raise our county sales taxes now by that annoying 1/12th of a cent for seven years to fund the dams.

2. CITY OF TULSA VOTE: The living river and the kayaking area. (The kayaking area seems to have been lumped in with the Zink Dam modifications. It's not entirely clear.)

(A) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to pay for these projects.

(B) Not now.

3. CITY OF TULSA VOTE: West bank land acquisition and preparation.

(A) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to buy and prep the land.

(B) Use a TIF district (no tax rate increase) to fund buying and preparing the land.

(C) Don't do either.

4. CITY OF TULSA VOTE: 41st St bridge.

(A) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to build a $15 million "Cadillac" pedestrian bridge

(B) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to build a $5 million "Chevy"
pedestrian bridge

(C) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to build a $20 million traffic and pedestrian bridge at 41st St. (ARMCP chapter 10 estimate from 2005 was about $13 million for this kind of bridge.)

(D) None of the above.

5. CITY OF TULSA VOTE: 61st St bridge.

(A) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to build a $15 million "Cadillac" pedestrian bridge

(B) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) to build a $5 million "Chevy"
pedestrian bridge

(C) None of the above.

6. CITY OF TULSA VOTE: Downtown connector

(A) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) for $15 million to explore and maybe build or maybe just study a "downtown connector," whatever the heck that is.

(B) Raise our city sales taxes by (appropriate amount and duration) for $2 million to explore and maybe build or maybe just study a "downtown connector," whatever the heck that is.

(C) None of the above.

The private donors could have then decided which of the outcomes were necessary conditions for their donations. The proponents and opponents could have presented voters with the pros and cons for each proposition.

The choices above would allow voters to say yes to some choices and no to others. I count about 78 different ways to say yes to river development, and one way to say no to everything.

The County Commissioners have once again set up a false dilemma: We can't get what we want unless they get what they want.

You want funding for research centers at our state college campuses? You want to update the convention center? You can't have either of those things, we were told four years ago, unless you vote to build an arena.

There are other ways to create the kind of places we all seem to want on the river. There are ways to "make our river happen" that don't hinder the ability of cities to finance basic public services. There are ways to "make our river happen" that don't raise tax rates.

The reason we weren't offered those alternatives is because they don't give County Commission what they want -- control of that four-tenths of a cent that Tulsa County voters approved for the Boeing 7E7 final assembly plant, a tax that never went into effect because Boeing stayed in Washington state. The county wants to tie up that money before the municipalities get hold of it.

Meanwhile, the construction companies want a plan that includes as much excavation and concrete pouring and heavy construction work as possible. A plan that just finishes the promised low-water dams doesn't accomplish that.

I can't read his mind or his heart, but I suspect Mr. Kaiser was after a plan that would build the concept developed by Bing Thom and the other consultants that were paid by his foundation, with the pedestrian bridges and the channelization of the river. A plan that only has what Tulsans seem to want most -- the low-water dams and a commercial promenade on the west bank -- doesn't accomplish his vision.

If saying no makes you a naysayer, the real naysayers in the current situation are the County Commissioners who said no to viable alternatives that were brought to their attention before they scheduled Tuesday's tax increase election. They chose to say no, not just to the alternative approaches, but no to the people who brought them forward. They chose to trust completely those people who said there's no way to make the river happen without raising county sales tax. They chose to dismiss alternatives out of hand and to turn their backs on the erstwhile supporters who offered them.

If saying no makes you a naysayer, George Kaiser is a naysayer, too. In person and through representatives, he was informed of the problems with his proposal and was offered alternative approaches that avoided those problems. He was evidently satisfied with the bargains he had struck with various officials and interest groups, so he said no to exploring the alternatives.

Credible alternatives are inconvenient to the proponents, because the existence of a credible alternative demolishes their carefully crafted false dilemma -- the illusion that the only choices are their way or not at all.

Jay Cronley asked in his column yesterday, "How will a No vote help the community or anybody in it?"

A no vote gives Tulsa County a chance to craft a river development plan that balances the desire to do something on the river with other civic needs.