Looks like OKC has continued to move forward by passing the hote tax increase to improve state fair grounds livestock facilities. It passed by an overwhelming margin. At the same time, Tulsa voted down a proposal to build a new central library. Unfortunately, Tulsa once again let politics get in its way...everything from the location of the library to the cost. Many of the posters on Tulsa Now called a proposal for a new downtown library a waste of funds. I'm sorry to express my opinion here, but I highly disagree with this. The downtown library in OKC has really added to the arts district, and moved OKC into the 21st century. Meanwhile Tulsa sits with a 39 year old library, and they seem to be happy with that. I will never understand their mindset.

downtownguy has an interesting blog on this today. www.downtownguy.blogspot.com

Addendum: I read something interesting on the Tulsa Now forum...one poster was voting against the Tulsa downtown library because he/she favored stronger regional libraries in Owasso, etc. Boy, Tulsans are a tad bit behind the times. Hello! We're trying to move bck to urban life, not suburban! You WANT to build up your downtown library, not build up your suburbs.

I find it interesting that for the most part (Vision 2025 is an excpetion), Tulsa has voted down every opportunity for advancement that's been put in front of them. And this town is wanting to compete with larger towns? The mindset in Tulsa will have to change if they expect to compete with the big dogs.

In contrast, the citizens of OKC are starting to impress me. Finally, we're passing bond issues, tax increases, etc. to improve our city. Our citizens are finally showing that they're tired of the status quo, and want to create a uniquq city, with real quality of life.

Here's a post made by Seth explanatory on Tulsa Now:
"Posted - 08/20/2004 : 13:04:56
I guess I don't get out enough but I have to ask, do enough people still go to the library to warrant spending 56 million on a new one? I haven't been to a library in years and I find myself with far more access to reading and reference material than ever before. I cringe at the thought of the hours I used to spend in the library doing research in college that can now be accomplished from my home in a fraction of the time it used to take. "

Again, this kind of mindset is what's holding Tulsa back. If Tulsa citizens aren't willing to invest in educational venues like the library, that's a huge problem. Even back in 1992, the library was the most popular MAPS project....it and the river had the highest voter appeal.

swake.....I noticed you were opposing the downtown library..what's your take?

Here's an interesting article fromTulsa blogger Michael Bates.

I find it interesting that he's also voting against the Tulsa downtown library. He'd rather spend money on the jail system than on a new downtown library. Hmmmm.....sounds a little backwards to me, but okay! I think voting against improvements for your city sets a dangerous precedent, especially when you're voting against something educational related.

What do you guys think?

----------

"December 14, 2004
The power to tax
If you live in an incorporated area of Tulsa County, you are in the jurisdiction of seven separate entities with the power to levy property taxes, namely:

Your municipality
Your school district
Tulsa County
Tulsa City-County Library
Tulsa City-County Health Department
Tulsa Community College
Tulsa Technology Center
The library system currently receives 5.32 mills. Once you apply the assessment ratio and homestead exemption, the owner of a home worth $100,000 pays $53.20 in taxes every year to support the library. The library's budget gets bigger automatically as property values rise.

The first of two items on today's ballot is a permanent increase in the library's millage of 0.8 mills. For that $100,000 homeowner, that's another $8 a year. For the library, that represents a 15% increase in the tax rate, a 15% increase in the budget even if property values don't increase. The tax increase will not expire but would have to be expressly repealed if the people don't want it anymore.

The second item is a $79.1 million bond issue, which will also increase property tax by an estimated 2 mills over the next fifteen years. That's another $20 a year for the $100,000 homeowner.

So if both propositions pass, the $100,000 homeowner would be paying about $80 a year in taxes for the library system.

The question in my mind is not whether the library system is a good use of tax dollars, the question is whether the library system is the most needy or worthy recipient of the additional money they seek. As I watched a presentation today by a library official about the vote, I came to the conclusion that it is not.

The presentation made it clear that we have a very good system, with nearly every library in the system either new or significantly refurbished and expanded, mostly using funds from the 1998 bond issue. The presentation spoke not of replacing decrepit or dangerous buildings, but instead of keeping facilities "fresh." The current Central Library building is in excellent shape, and the library official confirmed that the building could indeed be expanded upwards by two stories, while pointing out that doing so would mean closing Central Library for a year or more and far from fixing the parking problem, it would create more demand for the library's limited spaces.

The library system is not in jeopardy. They are not short of funds. The facilities are in good shape. The library system is seeking to max out its allowed operating millage in hopes of expanding staff and services, but its current level of service is well funded.

The library system has been largely unscathed by the budget crises of recent years, thanks to its dedicated funding source. I can't justify giving the library system more money when many other more critical government functions are short of funds -- e.g., the jail. We need to reserve that taxing capacity for other parts of local government with greater needs. That's why I'm reluctantly voting no on both propositions today."

Just because one Tulsan wants stronger suburban branches doesn't mean the entire city is behind times. I don't think we could say OKC or Tulsa is "with" times. As for the library, I am also glad it didn't pass. Yes we need a new downtown library, but not the one they were proposing. We need an urban library in an urban district. Not on the very edge of downtown just to make it easier for people to get to. I know that they are already coming up with a new set of plans for the library. And when they do come up with a decent proposal, it will pass. But until they do, I hope it keeps failing. I would like to see a new central library, but definintely not the one that they are wanting.

Yeah, on some level it's not quite a Tale of Two Cities. The horse industry is part of OKC's lifeblood and heritage. Few can say no to such an asset. The library in Tulsa, however, was turned down partly because of the specific proposal, as nuclear stated. It will come back again for a vote.

If any city, no matter where it is, declines a proposal to make that city a better place to live and visit, it is behind the times. They are hurting, not only themselves (the individual), but also the entire nation.

Well, I do think it's true that politics has gotten the better of Tulsa. It's pretty thick in Cleveland, too. Nothing can get done because of partisanship and turf battles. OKC, however, is a shining example of solidarity among leaders, even when there are disagreements. You kind of hope that success won't swell anybody's head and take this solidarity for granted.

Look, this was not an urban library the way they originally talked about, it included surface parking, was on the fringe of downtown next to a highway. I am for a downtown library, but the more I considered it, I want in the core, like you said, the OKC library helped the arts area, well, here is was going to be surrounded by surface parking, a suburban style apartment complex and a highway. Over a mile from the downtown arts area.

Make it urban, put it in the Blue Dome, East Village or Brady District, add a parking garage and I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Also, detail what is to be done with the current library, which is actually a pretty cool building in it’s own right. I disagree with Mr Anderson that all progress is positive, just because it’s new does not make it better. I was not sure that this project was going to help downtown, and that was a lot of money to spend if it wasn’t going to help downtown and really did very little for the branch libraries. People would have exited the highway at Denver, gone to library and then left and been right back on the highway with never really going downtown if the library was moved there. In some ways, it would have been worse than the current location, even as land locked as it is by the civic center around it.

And don’t think Tulsa’s library system is in trouble, it’s actually one of the best anywhere and most of the libraries in the system have been expanded or redone in the last 5-10 years. There is a huge brand new super-regional library on the south side almost the size of your central library in OKC. The focus of this bond was not right and the need, if it was not going to really help downtown, was not dire.

I hope that the new proposal for the Library in Tulsa will be in a downtown district and be an urban building. I would never vote to pass a suburban style library, no matter how nice it was going to be and how much we need it.

I'm on Swake's side of this issue. The last time they passed a bond issue for libraries in Tulsa was 1998, and by all accounts they got their money's worth out of the deal. What's more, Tulsa County's library millage is already higher than Oklahoma County's. I don't know if this deal was motivated by the ever-annoying Turnpike Rivalry (hey, they have one), but I don't think for a minute that Tulsa is slipping into the abyss just by turning down this bond issue.

Well, keep in mind that it took Tulsa three times to pass a community improvements package. Granted, though, that the third improvements package was the best, most comprehensive package, and Tulsa voters gave overwhelming approval. I am still a little skeptical about Vision 2025. There are too many peacemeal projects, and the plans for the arena are not being well thought-out. Many Tulsans are not happy that the arena will cut off an off ramp from the Inter-Dispersal Loop into downtown.

However, it is understandable that Tulsans insist on an urban-style library. I agree with them. The current plans are a bit of a joke. I place the blame on Tulsa politics and poor planning... something I feel happens often in our sister city. The first two improvements package were simply thrown together to keep Tulsa from falling behind. Former Mayor Susan Savage and the Tulsa City Council were constantly at political odds, and Tulsa citizens are at odds with the city council. The political battles have hampered that city, and I don't foresee any change in that situation.

I don't doubt that Tulsa citizens would approve a good plan for their city, but they are constantly presented with proposals that have been slapped together.

Well, keep in mind that it took Tulsa three times to pass a community improvements package. Granted, though, that the third improvements package was the best, most comprehensive package, and Tulsa voters gave overwhelming approval. I am still a little skeptical about Vision 2025. There are too many piecemeal projects, and the plans for the arena are not being well thought-out. Many Tulsans are not happy that the arena will cut off an off ramp from the Inter-Dispersal Loop into downtown.

However, it is understandable that Tulsans insist on an urban-style library. I agree with them. The current plans are a bit of a joke. I place the blame on Tulsa politics and poor planning... something I feel happens often in our sister city. The first two improvements package were simply thrown together to keep Tulsa from falling behind. Former Mayor Susan Savage and the Tulsa City Council were constantly at political odds, and Tulsa citizens are at odds with the city council. The political battles have hampered that city, and I don't foresee any change in that situation.

I don't doubt that Tulsa citizens would approve a good plan for their city, but they are constantly presented with proposals that have been slapped together.

This all makes me appreciate the leaders we have in place here in OKC.

Thanks guys. I think we all understand this a little better now. The blame can definitely be placed on Tulsa politicians. Appararently, it isn't that Tulsan's don't want these projects, it's that Tulsans don't want these projects as proposed.

mranderson, it would've been like voting to building our downtown library south of I-40 near the downtown post office. Many of us would've been against that proposal, not because we didn't want a library, but because of the location.

Fortunately, for us, Oklahoma City leaders made some pretty smart choices on locations. The downtown library is sitting in a nice location right in the heart of the arts district! the ballpark and canal are in the thriving Bricktown district. The Ford Center is located in the heart of Bricktown, directly across from a thriving convention center.

Tulsa leaders just aren't using their heads on these issues. The said part is that they're paying for it in the long run....it's costing a lot more for Vision 2025 projects now then it would've 10 years ago. Prices keep going up. Unfortunately, they probably won't be able to get anothert library on the ballot for a year or two. By that time, prices will have risen again. Tulsa leaders, not the citizens, are really shooting themselves in the foot.

Tulsan's deserved much better than what this library was going to offer. I'm glad they realized this (or just didn't want increased property taxes) and voted this thing down. I hope they regroup and pick a site IN downtown, not on the fringe next to the highway. Maybe even totally remodel the current library, make it something actually nice in the district where we are building a 100+ million dollar arena. Maybe it will jumpstart a project to update the courthouse/city hall complex which sits right next door. Another idea was to put a new central library in the Brady or Blue Dome districts and have it anchor a new "urban neighborhood" downtown. Then turn the old library, a modernist piece of architecture, into a modern art museum.

I think they should have a Vision 2025 II similar to what OKC did with their multiple MAPS projects. This plan would include more downtown improvements such as a new (or renovated) library, courthouse/city hall refurbishments, funding for downtown housing, OSU-Tulsa buildings/student housing, and some river projects.