Inquisitive, (7/22/2009 7:14:54 PM)

Shows how much clout our "senior senator" has. Perhaps his one-sided attitude when his party was in control came home to roost and he doesn't like it.

Mar, Tulsa (7/22/2009 7:23:42 PM)

If Inhofe and Sullivan were Democrats and Liberal Democrats at that, they would be getting money hand over fist.

This is just why I hate for Tulsa to depend on anything to do with the federal government. The federal government has proven time and time again regardless who is president or who is in control of the congress and senate, you can't depend on them.

So you can just imagine how bad national health care would be. Like I want to put my health in their hands, no way! They already have too much control the way it is.

Bville, (7/22/2009 10:41:11 PM)

I'm sorry, Inquisitive. I understood from the campaign that Uhhhhhbama was moderate, bipartisan, unconventional, willing to bridge the gap and the divide, reach across the aisle, change politics as usual, work together, change, change, change, change, change, change, etc.

Ummm, maybe not, eh? False advertising.

D'OH!

Eagle 4, Tulsa (7/23/2009 6:59:28 AM)

Apparently Inhofe doesn't quite understand that shouting epithets at his neighbor keeps that neighbor from allowing Jim to connect a garden hose to his faucet when Jim's house is afire.

Jim, you can make a lot of political hay in Oklahoma by being a reactionary and an obstructionist to everything progressive, but the world will turn nonetheless.

clear vision, (7/23/2009 7:23:02 AM)

More boondoggles. We don't need any more low-water dams on the river. They build 'em and then tear 'em out, and it costs us taxpayers money each time they do it.

clear vision, (7/23/2009 7:23:26 AM)

More boondoggles. We don't need any more low-water dams on the river. They build 'em and then tear 'em out, and it costs us taxpayers money each time they do it.

Davy Crotchety, (7/23/2009 7:38:36 AM)

That's what we get for electing extremists like Coburn, Inhofe, and Sullivan. It doesn't matter which party is in power, these cranky, thoughtless clowns always end up on the wrong side of somebody. In the end, Oklahoma pays the price. How 'bout we send somebody new to DC?

Ric, Broken Arrow (7/23/2009 8:14:14 AM)

"U.S. Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., has secured $100,000 for the project after requesting $1 million earlier this year."

"Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who also submitted a $1 million request, ended up with nothing."
This has nothing to do with political clout... it has more to do with Washington not agreeing with pumping millions of dollars in to the Arkansas River. The river is fine the way it is, leave it alone for crying out loud!

57 Nomad, Tulsa (7/23/2009 9:25:20 AM)

Sullivan spokesman Vaughn Jennings said the $100,000 secured by the congressman will fund a feasibility study needed before additional spending can be approved.

"It is likely that additional funds will be required to complete the survey," Jennings said
Give me a break!

No Way!!!, (7/23/2009 10:11:54 AM)

Tulsa voters said "no" to this big waste of money.

Oklahoma congress got it resurrected.

Now Washington is saying "no" to this big waste of money.

Jeez, even the feasibility study is a ridiculous expense.

This entire project needs to be scrubbed and focus needs to be shifted to projects that truly would benefit not just Tulsa, but the entire state.

Ric, Broken Arrow (7/23/2009 10:34:08 AM)

These idiots think if the river is dammed up and it has it's little walkways and such, that people will actually move to Tulsa just for that! It's flat stupid to think in such a way and to try and sell it that way is ludicrous.

Tulsa County voted on this before, they voted NO on the River Tax. It's just proof that the people don't want to spend a loads of money on the river.

Eagle 4, Tulsa (7/23/2009 12:38:12 PM)

The mistake was putting the measure to a County vote. The measure passed among Tulsa voters(c70% of the County) but was nixed by the combined sub-burbies, who can't see past their own back yards.

I recommend again that the City of Tulsa declare itself Independent and drop the County anchor and join the other 40+ American cities sailing freely toward their chosen destination.

Ric, Broken Arrow (7/23/2009 1:16:43 PM)

Why not just a city wide vote?
Because Tulsa reaps many benefits from sub-burbies back yard taxes, that's why.

Mich098, Tulsa (7/23/2009 6:27:09 PM)

Beautifying the Arkansas River would be a major, major improvement to the Metropolotan area. Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, Bixby etc.

Those who oppose it also would have opposed creating all the beautiful man made lakes in Oklahoma--Grand Lake, Oologah, Tenkiller, etc.

They also would oppose putting trees in the parkways and parks in the city and certainly any public art.

In short, they would prefer to live in Ugly City, USA.

TheProff, Tulsa (7/23/2009 9:22:44 PM)

just as an interesting side note, if you type in the river tax website ourriveryes dot com it goes to a site maintained for Embassy Suites and Hilton Hotels. It shows it was registered August 7th 2007. Does anyone know anything about this?

Ayo, T-Town (7/23/2009 10:17:41 PM)

Neither Inhofe or Sullivan stated via which government agency this $100,000 is coming from. So they made their request via the Senate Appropriations Committee?

As far as the feasibility study. Feasibility of what? River bank restoration? Water quality? Whether the INCOG Master Plan is feasible? If they start getting into the feasibility of water quality (I highly doubt it's that since OWRB and OCC do that) If it's for riverbank stabilization or streambank restoration then how much of the river reach are they planning to study? Is it a feasibility study of whether this is even a viable project? $100,000 grand isn't going to get them very far.

Sorry folks, Inhofe and Sullivan are misleading you.

What's more, INCOG has studied, planned, and studied and planned for this Master Plan. $100,000 is like a drop in the bucket.

Who initially was suppose to fund the 50 million project? From what I remember INCOG worked with a contracted engineering firm to develope the Master Plan. They did it in phases, and had multiple meetings with the public to show the progress and discuss the wants and desires of the public. Then there wasn't funding for it, so it was never begun.....if I remember correctly.
I think Inhofe and Sullivan are pulling a slick willie on you guys. They are providing just enough information to get the masses stirred.

Dementius, The Springs (7/24/2009 12:14:28 AM)

Send the $100,000 back. We don't need any feasibility studies on that stinkin' river.