So we are left to determine if devoting $300 million to these dams is the smart, prudent, responsible and best use of the funds. The massively disproportionate share of the costs expected to be borne by Tulsans (90%) in relationship to the projected benefits simply do not add up.
This is the first in a series of Op/Ed columns titled Who Gets and Who Gives a Dam, Installment I – An overview, to help citizens understand the ramifications of the Arkansas River Infrastructure Task Force’s proposal for a series of low-water dams. Our mission and our goal is to provide as much relevant information as possible…
The Vision 2 proposal (extending the Vision 2025 sales tax to the year 2029) includes an economic development component and a quality of life component which begs the question… is there really a difference between the two… economic development and quality of life? The term “economic development” has often been used to describe the…
I have a new appreciation for historic preservation, here’s why. Historic preservation, smart growth, sustainable development, and new urbanism are terms we seldom hear bandied about by our elected officials in Tulsa. This is an unfortunate fact that needs to change if we are going to meet future challenges for economic growth and development. Make…
