ROR Podcast #4

Please to enjoy this latest Roemerman On Record Podcast. This time I discuss Tulsa City Councilor GT Bynum's comments at the last Tulsa City Council regarding the new Downtown Assessment that will be used to fund the Ballpark.

I play clips of the councilor's statements at the meeting, and respond with my commentary. At the bottom, and embedded in this post is the full video of the councilor's speech during last Thursday's meeting. Also, because not everyone is going to listen to this podcast, and because I want this content to be indexed by Google, I'm posting a few of Bynum's quotes with a the transcription, or the Reader's Digest version of my commentary...




.................................................
“I can only speak for myself, the Mayor didn’t railroad me into anything…I didn’t get railroaded.”

So you were satisfied in the process imposed by the Mayor? You were satisfied that property owners wouldn't really get the chance to protest the amount of their assessment or to argue the benefit to their property? You were OK with that process? You flushed it out, and understood it, and approved it? You think it’s fair to impose a fee on people, a fee that they didn’t ask for, and then trick them into thinking that they could not protest when in fact they could? You knew that they would have to go to court to get justice? If you weren’t railroaded and were satisfied with the process, then what does that say? Or if you didn’t fully understood those ramifications, and voted yes, what does that say?

.................................................
On graduated assessments...

“If we did have that graduated level of assessment, rather than setting a minimum level of benefit, that we’re talkin’ about here, Uhh, instead of having people concerned about whether or not they benefit as much as anybody else in the IDL, we’d be talking about, the guy whose on one side of the dividing line from the other, and gosh that guy’s building is 20 feet away from me, I’m having to pay more but we probably benefit the same. I think you’re never going to have a perfect system, and again that’s why I support this proposal.”

So, you have determined that the guy that is the furthest from the IDL, the guy that benefits the least will have some minimum level of property appreciation. Whatever that benefit is, it’s worth 6.5 cents per square foot. What I hear you saying is that because it’s hard to have a perfect system, and because it might create situations where one bar owner pays one fee and the bar owner that is 20 feet away pays a different amount, and because that might get a bit messy, you’re in not in favor of even trying to make it equitable?

If the minimum level of benefit is worth 6.5 cents per square foot, what is the level of benefit to the guy right across the street from the ballpark? What is that worth? If we were to agree that everyone benefits, and everyone should have to pay because of that benefit, then don’t we owe it to the person of least benefit to determine what the person of greatest benefit should have to pay? Because it‘s hard, you aren’t in favor of even trying? I completely reject this line of reasoning.

.................................................
“The citizens of Tulsa shouldn’t expect other people to pay for everything for us. We need to be willing to step up and pay our fair share….I also think, that along those lines, it’s about responsibility on our part. We’re asking those that will benefit from the property appreciation that will come with this, I believe, to pay their end”

How is it responsible for the government to force downtown property owners to pay for the ball park? How is it responsible for the government to take from one group and give it to another, because it thinks it knows how to spend it better than they do? I would not call that responsible or fair, I would call that tyrannical!

As a Republican, and supposedly a conservative, what do you believe the proper role of government is councilor? Is it to build ball parks? Where in the US constitution, the State constitution, or the City charter does it say that Tulsa should build a ball park?

If it is a good idea, and investors want to do it, let’s pass a TIFF, let’s provide tax benefits, so that investors can build a ball park. Private investment, for private benefit, that is the free market, that is conservatism!

You seem to imply that when a property owner sees the value of their property appreciate because their neighbor makes an investment, that entitles the investor to demand money from that property owner whose property value increased. That is so abhorrent to me that I can hardly understand how you could possibly be for this assessment and still consider yourself a conservative. I completely reject this assessment. I reject it because the assessment is flat and not graduated; I reject it because property owners haven’t been treated fairly and allowed to protest this before the council; and I reject it because I'm a conservative and a believer in limited government and in the free market. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that public monies should be used in such a manner.
.................................................
“If we want to continue to find reasons to oppose development in downtown, and people want to vote that way, that’s fine, but that’s not how I’m not going to choose to vote.”

Who is opposing downtown development councilor? Who is standing up and saying, “I’m opposed to downtown development?” No one. Pretty much every other councilor said they were for, at lest the idea of a ball park. Personally I think the idea of a downtown ballpark is good…just not publicly funded. That last line was so disingenuous to the reality of the situation, and why people are opposed to this assessment, that I cant believe you said it.
.................................................

Again, those are only some of the quotes, and an abbreviated version of my commentary, I encourage you to listen to the podcast in it's entirety for full effect.