Steelyard

[Pete]

[Rover]

Lol. I would bet every possession I have on this earth most Oklahomans have no idea what a brown field grant is much less want then eminated. Making broad statements like this contributes to hyper partisanship and gridlock.

I agree they most likely have no idea what it is, but I agree with Spartan that they want it eliminated. Not knowing what something is or how it helps does not preclude people from wanting it eliminated just because they have been sold on the idea that it is a government give away and all government programs are evil. They would view it as a corporate welfare program. Whether they want this SPECIFIC program eliminated or not, they want the broad category eliminated.

[gopokes88]

I agree they most likely have no idea what it is, but I agree with Spartan that they want it eliminated. Not knowing what something is or how it helps does not preclude people from wanting it eliminated just because they have been sold on the idea that it is a government give away and all government programs are evil. They would view it as a corporate welfare program. Whether they want this SPECIFIC program eliminated or not, they want the broad category eliminated.

No it was a partisan cheap shot aimed at "Oklahomans", and I would say most Oklahomans don't want the EPA eliminated. They want the EPA to play by the rules instead of writing them without any authority to do so. They are a regulatory agency, not a rule making agency. For example, they've been writing a lot rules and doing so under the clean water act while stretching the limits of that law. The CWA applies to federal waters, if the water they are going after isn't federal, they simply declare it federal water and then fine and regulate the bejesus out of someone. There's huge difference between wanting an agency to act within its bounds, and wanting it eliminated. But, no it's way easier to just take cheap shots.

[Plutonic Panda]

No it was a partisan cheap shot aimed at "Oklahomans", and I would say most Oklahomans don't want the EPA eliminated. They want the EPA to play by the rules instead of writing them without any authority to do so. They are a regulatory agency, not a rule making agency. For example, they've been writing a lot rules and doing so under the clean water act while stretching the limits of that law. The CWA applies to federal waters, if the water they are going after isn't federal, they simply declare it federal water and then fine and regulate the bejesus out of someone. There's huge difference between wanting an agency to act within its bounds, and wanting it eliminated. But, no it's way easier to just take cheap shots.

The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. The are there to protect the environment. I support them making and/or writing rules to do so.

[TaurusNYC]

The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. The are there to protect the environment. I support them making and/or writing rules to do so.

What's the difference between a rule, a regulation, and a law?

[mugofbeer]

The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. The are there to protect the environment. I support them making and/or writing rules to do so.

Which is what most Americans agree on. The problems arise when people feel the EPA exceeds that authority, regulates where it is unnecessary or wildly overspends the way many federal gevernment agencies do..

[Plutonic Panda]

What's the difference between a rule, a regulation, and a law?

Which is what most Americans agree on. The problems arise when people feel the EPA exceeds that authority, regulates where it is unnecessary or wildly overspends the way many federal gevernment agencies do..

Yeah I don't want to get this thread sidetracked as I did with the one about the Syrian Refugees but my point was I believe the EPA should have authority to write laws protecting the environment. It should to go through a lawmaker and pass through the house and senate like any other law, but that was my point.

[shawnw]

EPA "was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress"

[Rover]

No it was a partisan cheap shot aimed at "Oklahomans", and I would say most Oklahomans don't want the EPA eliminated. They want the EPA to play by the rules instead of writing them without any authority to do so. They are a regulatory agency, not a rule making agency. For example, they've been writing a lot rules and doing so under the clean water act while stretching the limits of that law. The CWA applies to federal waters, if the water they are going after isn't federal, they simply declare it federal water and then fine and regulate the bejesus out of someone. There's huge difference between wanting an agency to act within its bounds, and wanting it eliminated. But, no it's way easier to just take cheap shots.

So, wasting toxic chemicals into my pond, which then flows into the creek, into the river, and on to Arkansas is not an issue? The fact it is in MY POND is all I need to be able to do whatever I want? Interesting take.

People want to reduce complex problems into simple sounding soundbites that are a mile wide and a millimeter deep. If the rules they make are not legal, or authorized under authorities given by congress, then they should be taken to court .... which is I believe what is happening. Trouble is, everytime the court upholds rules certain people don't like, then the court becomes the boogie man.

And yes, it was a shot at Oklahomans. A large population of this state isn't particularly fond of anyone controlling the environment, until it actually harms them...and then they want protection. Otherwise, they want to do whatever they want.

The fact that there are funds available to help make tainted ground safer to inhabit is a good thing.

[JAW]

Let's steer this back to the Steelyard. What's the most recent completion date estimate?

[OKCisOK4me]

Let's steer this back to the Steelyard. What's the most recent completion date estimate?

Id say Winter 2016/early 2017.. Just a guess

[Pete]

[Pete]

[dankrutka]

From Saturday.

[Pete]

[ourulz2000]

That's going to be a nice intersection.

[Teo9969]

#itshappeninggif

[traxx]

Yea! It's officially above ground now.

[Pete]

[ourulz2000]

Going to be awesome seeing this go up this summer!

[KingOfTheNorth]

I truly believe that this will have the greatest impact on appearance for the Bricktown district as I know many people enter downtown off the clover leaf loop on Sheridan off 235 and this will provide an entirely new experience. It would also be smart for them to put a flashing pedestrian sign between the steelyard and the criterion for safety.

[_Cramer_]

I think it would be wise for them to take it down to two lanes with a center turn lane. Add nice bike lanes and extra-wide sidewalks from Lincoln to the railroad tracks on Sheridan, IMO.

[dankrutka]

I think it would be wise for them to take it down to two lanes with a center turn lane. Add nice bike lanes and extra-wide sidewalks from Lincoln to the railroad tracks on Sheridan, IMO.

Seconded

[traxx]

I think it would be wise for them to take it down to two lanes with a center turn lane. Add nice bike lanes and extra-wide sidewalks from Lincoln to the railroad tracks on Sheridan, IMO.

Like

I truly believe that this will have the greatest impact on appearance for the Bricktown district as I know many people enter downtown off the clover leaf loop on Sheridan off 235 and this will provide an entirely new experience. It would also be smart for them to put a flashing pedestrian sign between the steelyard and the criterion for safety.

The area around Bricktown and Deep Deuce has really filled in the last several years. There used to be a lot of grassy field areas and empty lots. It's beginning to feel a bit more urban.

[Pete]

Yes, we went from having big gaps everywhere to it dwindling down to just a handful.

And I suspect those will ultimately fill in as well.

Momentum seems to be picking up pace almost daily.