FAQ’s Regarding Fairgrounds Annexation

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the facts surrounding Tulsa’s proposed annexation of the unincorporated area on which the Tulsa Fairgrounds lies. This is my attempt to add some clarity to what has amounted to being a one-sided argument. I recognized as I got into this, that this could turn into one very large posting, so I'm going to post these four questions first and then produce more later.

{One other brief note, feel free to post comments, but understand that I'm not going to turn my blog into a "public forum" for debate. There are a lot of such sites available if you want to debate. The purpose of this blog is to provide a place for me to share my thoughts and opinions. As such, I'll be selective in what I approve. If you want to trash me or my opinion, do it on a site you pay for.]

Q: Is the City taking over the Fairgrounds from the County?

A: No. The County’s facilities happen to lie on a parcel of land that is surrounded on four sides by the Tulsa City limits. Several County parks (LaFortune for one) are owned and operated by the County but lie within the city limits of Tulsa. Annexation of the land on which the Fairgrounds lies will not change either ownership of the buildings, or which governmental entity would be responsible for operations.

Q: Is the Fairgrounds a “tax free” zone?

A: No. Sales taxes are collected (or should be) on every transaction for goods (but not services) that occur on the Fairgrounds. The State of Oklahoma gets its 4.5 cents of sales tax. Tulsa County gets its 1.017 cents of tax. Only the City of Tulsa receives no tax on sales of products deep within its city limits. If a 3-cent sales tax reduction is good for the tax payers, wouldn’t a 4.017 cent holiday be better? Why isn’t the County waving County sales tax at the Fairgrounds?
Q: Is the 3-cent tax break the major draw for retail activity at the Fairgrounds?

A: No, it only has a minor appeal at best. If it was a such primary consumer attraction, then basic economics would dictate the construction of retail properties outside of the city limits. However, such establishments don’t occur because several other factors have exponentially greater impact on consumer behavior.

I will endeavor to explore these in more detail later, but for the most part these relate to economies of scale (boat shows have a lot of boat vendors in one place), proximity to desired demographic groups (this can be as simple as closeness to major highways), synergistic marketing (sharing of advertising and promotions to a specific event at a specific time), and limited offers with a distinct ending time (which pushes the consumer to make a decision).

This last item has several factors, one of which DOES deal with the sales tax savings (“The show is over in two hours, after which you won’t save on the tax" strategy). However, other inducements can be given by the vendor to achieve the same end, just as they do with limited-time sales in their respective stores.

Q: Is annexation akin to raising taxes?

A: No more than closing a tax loophole is raising taxes. If someone is given an exception by the government to not pay taxes that others must pay, that is a loop hole. The County currently has a “loophole” smack in the middle of Tulsa’s city limits. Closing a loophole only raises taxes on those who have consciously chosen to use that loophole. It is a major stretch to claim such an action is akin to raising sales tax rates across the board (even if it is to pursue river development).

I know of no better conservative in the Oklahoma legislature than Sen. Randy Brogdon of Owasso. As a former mayor of Owasso, Sen. Brogdon supported the annexation of unincorporated land inside Owasso’s “fence line,” that included retail properties which had previously enjoyed a tax break by being outside Owasso’s taxable area.

Given the facile definition of “tax hike” that some of the more boisterous opponents of annexation have made, then Sen. Brogdon was “showing his true liberal colors” by supporting a “tax increase” when he annexed that land. I guess Brogdon was just being a hypocrite when he authored the “Tax Payers Bill of Rights.”

Such an argument is laughable and should be treated as such.

[I'll endeavor to post more a little later in the week.]

Tulsa County Municipal Tax Rates

The City Councils of Glenpool and Bixby made major shows this week of supporting the County on the issue of Tulsa annexing the land upon which the Fairgrounds sits. Was that neighborly?

How long ago was it that I and some of my fellow Tulsa city councilors were ripped apart by the Tulsa World opinionistas for questioning Tulsa's water policy that benefits the suburbs to the detriment of the city?

However, before I begin to waller in bitterness of the lack of consistency in the World's editorial policy, let simply point out that Glenpool and Bixby, have very little standing as the "tax payer's friend." Below, I present to you, the various sales tax rates of the various municipalities in Tulsa County. Judge for yourself which city council's are kindest to their citizens when it comes to taxation.

Glenpool...........(4.0 cents)
Sapulpa.............(4.0 cents)
Bixby.................(3.5 cents)
Sand Springs....(3.5 cents)
Tulsa.................(3.0 cents)
Owasso.............(3.0 cents)
Sperry..............(3.0 cents)
Broken Arrow..(3.0 cents)
Skiatook............(3.0 cents)

Makes one wonder how these communities, with their exploding tax bases, can attempt to begrudge Tulsa, with its shrinking tax base, what little incremental tax revenue Tulsa would realize from annexation.

As for those residents of Bixby and Glenpool who are opposed to higher sales taxes, maybe you should look for new representation on your respective city councils.

Will The Real Tax Champions Please Stand Up?

A Challenge to Our Three Republican County Commissioners

I am working on a much longer entry that will go into depth on many of the FAQs regarding annextation. However, I want to note the rhetoric that is being "liberally" bandied about as to whom are the true "conservatives" on the issue of annexation? I have tried to refrain from such simplistic arguments, because they are too often the tool of those who don't want to put much thought into what is, without a doubt, a very complex issue.

However, let me issue a challenge.

We have three county commissioners, all of whom are Republican, and are claiming to be the tax payer's friends. Here's my challenge.

If you are truly interested in the good of the taxpayers and all of the municipalities in your respective districts, pass a resolution stating your intent to not put the "Four to Fix the County" tax back up for renewal when it lapses in 2011.

I know some of you won't be there then, but such a resolution would become a natural campaign issue. Conservative voters could then determine, before renewal time, if they want a Republican candidate (incumbent or not) who openly supports renewal (a tax hike?).

The commissioners could also support the transfer of some or all of the 3 mils of ad valorem tax that law allows to be transferred to Tulsa, which would go a long way to help get the city through its current operations crisis, before the legislature and the current administration go to the extreme of creating a Fire Protection District that would raise Tulsan's property taxes by as many at 7 mils.

Do one or both of these two actions and I might believe your anti-annexation rhetoric.

Mayor Sending Staff to Tout Tax Increase

Mayor Taylor has begun her behind the scenes full-court press to develop support within the City Council for her proposed property tax hike to pay for fire safety.

"Herronner" has instructed policy staffer, Dr. Monica Barczak, to meet with the various counilors to edify them as to why a Fire Protection District in Tulsa is "critically" needed by the city. With a Republican majority on the council, one would normally assume passage of a significant property tax increase would be unlikely, but this council has seemingly preferred commity and decorum over ideology.

Word is, the Fire Protection District is the brainchild of Deputy Mayor and former City Councilor Tom Baker, who is also a former Tulsa Fire Chief. You know it has to be questioned by conservatives when the Tulsa World has begun to heap praise upon the proposal. The editorial writers recently penned,

"Residents might not like the idea of a new tax, even a very
modest one, but the realities of municipal finance in Oklahoma require that
responsible city leaders take on this challenge."

Here we go again. Support a tax hike supported by the Tulsa World, or face being called "irresponsible."

Should the legislature approve this tax district, Tulsans will not only be faced with increased property taxes for Fire Protection Districts, but are also looking at the likelihood of a property tax hike to fund EMSA shortfalls.

Mayor Taylor, who is rumored to be weighing a campaign soon for either John Sullivan's house seat or Jim Inhofe's senate seat, won't be able to garner enough Republican support in a congressional race to win, unless she gets help now, from Republican office holders. She needs to be able to equally lay the blame for tax hikes under her administration in the laps of republicans.

We'll have to stay tuned to see how many of the GOP councilors fall under the say of Dr. Barczak's lobbying.

Glenpool: Can't Say These Folks Lack a Sense of Humor

The lengths to which the County Commission seem willing to go to prevent the City of Tulsa from annexing the Tulsa Fairgrounds is becoming down right funny.

The latest is an apparent offer by the City Council of Glenpool designed to entice the County Commission to move the Fairgrounds to property just outside of their fair township. I say “apparent offer” because part of me is sure they were snickering when they made it.

Obviously, Commissioner Randi Miller, whose commission district includes Glenpool, is hoping that the fear of losing the fairgrounds to a much smaller city might frighten a Tulsa city councilor or two into backing down on annexation. However, any councilor that takes this seriously is showing his or her self to be unworthy of their office. Here’s why.

The Commission would never move and leave all of those recently spent tax dollars generated from Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County behind them. Glenpool is trying to shine everyone on that the move could be funded by the sale of all of those buildings, but who would by them? Even if they did buy them, what impact would it have on the big shows that are contracted for the coming years. Can’t happen and everyone knows it.

But even if it could, no commissioner would vote to move the fairgrounds for the simplest of political reasons; there are more voters in Tulsa than there are in Glenpool.

Making such a move at the city’s expense would pretty much end a commissioner’s career. That’s why they would never go for such a move.

As such, one has to wonder why the Tulsa World treated it as a serious story. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bobby Lorton’s brother-in-law, Hal Salisbury (of The Channels fame) is an active leader with “Friends of the Fairgrounds.” Maybe the Lorton’s are trying to help their neighbor, Kathy Taylor out of a no win, political jam.

Either way, you have to admit it. The folks in Glenpool have a delicious sense of humor.

Where Is Tulsa's Legal Department on Bixby Bridge?

Are they lost? Are we being burdened by so many nuisance suits that there are no Tulsa City Attorneys available to help the citizenry in a very public and high-stakes court action?

The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (STCC) has a court date on December 20th in their attempt to ‘move that bridge,” that is proposed to cross the Arkansas River near 121st and South Yale Ave.

The wannabe builders of the bridge are Infrastructure Ventures, Inc. (IVI). They hope the bridge will provide a second link over the river between Tulsa and Jenks. They too, will have attorneys at the court hearing on Dec. 20th, but with one noticeable difference. IVI’s lawyers will most likely be joined by the legal eagles paid by the good citizens of Jenks.

You see, Jenks views the building of this bridge to be in their city’s best interests, so they are using taxpayer dollars to fight the home owners of South Tulsa. In contrast, STCC is having to raise money to pay for lawyers, or are depending on pro bono assistance from some of the lawyers in the effected neighborhoods.

This is shameful, bordering on SCANDALOUS!

The taxpaying home owners along South Yale have paid their taxes. Their property values are under attack by IVI, the City of Jenks and the City of Bixby. They deserve to be represented by the Tulsa City Legal department.

This might not be the case, if the following weren’t true:

1. Mayor Taylor signed a pledge (as did most of the mayoral candidates last Spring) to oppose building the bridge where IVI and the other city’s want to build the bridge.
2. Last Spring, the Tulsa City Council approved a binding resolution opposing the building on Yale Ave. The resolution was signed by both City Attorney Alan Jackere and then mayor, Bill LaFortune.
3. The current City Council has not rescinded that resolution.

As such, it is the official position of the City of Tulsa that the bridge should not be built where IVI wants the bridge and where STCC does NOT want the bridge.

So why are tax paying citizens of Tulsa being forced to fend for themselves in the courthouse, rather than being assisted by the city’s legal department?

Mayor Taylor needs to get off the fence, be mindful that she gave her word, and get some attorneys down to the hearing on December 20th.

Are "The Channels" All But Dead?

Very quietly, at two meetings of Tulsa's Chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the death knells were sounded for the proposed $700 million river development known as “The Channels.”

The November guest speaker at the Republican Assembly meeting was newly elected County Commissioner John Smaligo. During his presentation, he said that he very much doubted that The Channels would ever be brought to a vote of the people due to cost and an overall lack of support.

Last night, during the December meeting of the Republican Assembly, guest speaker Fred Perry echoed Smaligo’s assertion, stating that he “very much doubted” a vote would ever take place.

Beside myself, others of note present at the meeting were former City Councilor Jim Mautino and current District 7 City Councilor John Eagleton. Both meetings were video taped, so it would be very awkward for either commissioner to back track on statements made before a group of conservative activists that make up a large part of their base.

Given it only takes two votes to kill The Channels, and given these two commissioners’ very public remarks, you can pretty much take it to the bank.

J-K Warren’s “The Channels” will remain the pipe dream of a few mid-towners who meant well, but weren’t in tune with what the public wanted.

Bridge Behind Mayor's Legal Department Shake-Up?

Take a good look at the woman in the photograph to the right, because she might just be the next Tulsa City Attorney and the savior of Infrastructure Ventures, Inc.'s Bixby bridge project, if Mayor Kathy Taylor gets the support she needs from the Tulsa City Council.

Who is she? She's Nancy Jane Siegel, who currently serves as Mayor Taylor's Chief Counsel. See link.

A story in the February 28, 2006 edition of the Tulsa World, listed Siegel's live-in partner (husband?) Daniel E. Holeman, as a $5,000 maximum contributor to Taylor's mayoral campaign. On-line records show Siegel and Holeman as both residing at 115 East 24th Street, in Tulsa.

Beside being the Mayor's chief legal advisor, Siegel, is also a committee member, along with Taylor, of a posh Philbrook Museum group that specializes in wine tastings. Other members of the group include Bob and Roxanna Lorton (World Publishing), Becky Frank (Scnake Turnbo & Frank) and both Chip McElroy and Howard Barnett, who recently were leaders of a group seeking to change the make up of Tulsa's City Council to allow for three at-large councilors.

Siegel was also recently a board member of the liberal Tulsa Interfaith Alliance.

Just a week and a half after a meeting was held to discuss the proposed Bixby Bridge project, Taylor placed two vocal advocates for defending Tulsa's position in opposition to the bridge on administrative suspension. The meeting, which included Taylor, representatives of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and former Tulsa mayor Terry Young, was reportedly held to discuss what could be done to end the stalemate that has kept the public/private partnership proposed by Infrastructure Ventures Inc. (IVI) which seeks the new bridge over the Arkansas River near 121st & Yale Ave, from going forward.

Terry Young, is a principal at Cinnabar Services, which also employs IVI CEO Bill Bacon.

Today's Tulsa World story detailing [well...uh...sketching is more like it] Taylor's stunning move of placing the top two attornies [Alan Jackere and Larry Simmons] in the city's legal department on paid suspension, is a pretty strong indication that the mayor wants to name her own City Attorney. Her Sunday afternoon summoning of Jackere and Simmons was obviously timed to deliver the suspensions when City Hall was empty of other employees.

Taylor is hoping that the City Council will support her move to revise the Civil Service process to make it easier to hire City Hall outsiders, who might be more loyal to the mayor. Originally characterized as necessary to look for a new Chief of Police to replace the retiring Dave Been, the move, if approved by the City Council, would open the door for similar hires in key positions such as the city's top attorney.

In my final year on the Council, both Jackere and Simmons (who have very different styles and legal philosophies from each other), were in agreement on two major issues that I recall; the Bixby Bridge Issue and the position that repayment of a $7.5 Million loan made by Bank of Oklahoma in the Great Plains Airlines debacle would likely result in a Qui Tam action against the Council.

Mayor Taylor, then Oklahoma's Secretary of State also served on the Board of Directors for Bank of Oklahoma.

The Tulsa World's story on the proposed changes in hiring took great care to not mention Civil Service until the fourth paragraph, because such a move against the process designed to prevent political hiring might be met with resistance from her own party's Labor wing. The World wrote:

The revisions, set for a City Council vote Thursday, were written in an
attempt to clarify a policy that a district court has ruled requires internal
hiring. The city is appealing the court's ruling.

The hiring proposals also come as Taylor prepares to begin her search
for a replacement for Police Chief Dave Been, who is retiring next year.

Last week, Taylor asked the Civil Service Commission to approve her
revisions, which she calls clarifications that reflect "long-standing policy
practices."

Taylor was unavailable for comment.

Some City Hall observers postulate that next to the Mayor, the City Attorney's position in the most powerful job in Tulsa's government.

Obviously, Taylor would like to have someone in the position that is both loyal to her and more in line with her agenda.

Despite signing a pledge during the campaign to oppose the Bixby Bridge, recently Taylor has been seen as softening her position. Many postulate that she would love to see some resolution to the stalemate that would provide her political cover in advance of a speculated challenge of Rep. John Sullivan in the 2008 elections. An opinion from the City Attorney publicly advising the Mayor and Council that Tulsa's prospects of defeating the alliance formed by the cities of Jenks and Bixby would be unlikely, might give Taylor the cover she seeks.

However, it is very unlikely that either Jackere or Simmons would ever render such an opinion. As such, they have become in my opinion, a liability to Taylor's ambitions.

Nobody ever accused Jackere and Simmons of being buddies, or even loosely aligned. Simmons was one of four Legal Department employees that applied for the City Attorney's position in 2005. At the time, then Mayor Bill LaFortune made it clear that he wanted to appoint Jackere, rather than any of the four who applied for the post via the city's civil service process. LaFortune ultimately rejected the four applicants as being unqualified for the position and appointed Jackere.

Larry Simmons had wide support among the City Council [including my endorsement] and over twenty years of service to the city. This support is probably why Taylor needed to not just eliminate Jackere from his position, but also take out Simmons, who would make a very strong internal candidate.

Here's hoping the current Council sees the truth and honors their pledges to oppose the bridge issue wherever is pops up. In this case, it is masquerading as a not-so-minor change in the City's hiring procedures.

Siegel is a 1983 graduate of the University of Tulsa College of Law. Perhaps coincidentally, contentious Water Board member Lou Reynolds is 1982 graduate of TU Law.

Fred Jordan Divorced By Wife

For over a year now, House District 69 candidate Fred Jordan has been selling himself as a former marine who supports conservative family values. However, he has not let voters in on the fact that his wife, Kyndra Brooke Litrell Jordan has filed for and been granted a divorce from her Jenks homebuilder husband.

In fact, sources tell me the former Mrs. Jordan quickly took up residency downtown, renting a loft in a trendy downtown development that was developed by Jay Helm. Helm, you might remember, serves on the F&M Bank Board of Directors.

A quick check of his web site shows that he is still touting his marriage and his wife as selling points to voters. It states at the top of the home page:

A Native Oklahoman, Fred Jordan Puts Faith and Family First.

Fred Jordan returned to his roots after military service and graduation from law school. Fred and his wife Kyndra have made their home in Jenks where they attend Southern Hills Baptist Church and Fred has taught Sunday school.

But records at the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network website, www.oscn.net, show that their divorce was final on October 20th, 2006. In fact, it was granted in a very speedy fashion, having been initially filed by Mrs. Jordan on September 26th.

You can see the divorce record at the following link:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1924343&db=Tulsa
[Photo Source: http://www.fredjordan.net/photos/1.html]

Don't be fooled by the initials listed. The site lists "B. Jordan" as the petitioner [the one seeking the divorce] and "S. Jordan" as the respondent. The former Mrs. Jordan's full name is as listed above, so "B" apparently stands for "Brooke," which is her middle-name. While he goes by the name Fred, Mr. Jordan's full name is Sidney Fred Jordan. Obviously, "S" stands for Sydney.

You can view OSCN.NET's file on their wedding license by clicking here.

Any speculation that this could be two separate people is swept away by the fact that OSCN.NET includes near the bottom of the page, the following notation:

10-20-2006
DISPDIV JORDAN, S
61995849 Oct 27 2006 2:07:12:320PM
-
$ 0.00
HASKINS, KYLE: PLAINTIFF PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY HUGH RINEER. ONE WITNESS SWORN, TESTIMONY TAKEN. DIVORCE GRANTED. ALL AS PER DECREE OF DIVORCE. PLAINTIFF RESTORED TO "LITTRELL"

In fact, our friends at the Tulsa World also reported the divorce filing in their September 27th edition, reporting the following:

Divorces

Staff Reports, 09/27/2006
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A11 of
Divorces
approx. 168 words

ASKED
Adams,
Rachelle v. Robert Sr.
Curley, Morio v. Christina.
Espinoza, Deborah v.
Eugene Jr.
Jordan, B. v. S.
Mai, Amanda v. Hao Le.
McCall, Donald v.
Kimberly McKee McCall.

I'll leave the readers to sort out why so much effort was expended to hide this untimely and sad ending to a marriage.

As for myself, I do think any candidate that went so far as to include a photo of his wedding in his campaign literature [so as to show Fred in his uniform, yet again] should have the decency to share with the voters the dissolution of that marriage before elections day. I also think he would remove ambiguous language touting his marital status from his web site.

But that's just me.

Oh My...Uh...Angelou? Who's Zooming Who?

Who do the Tulsa Stakeholders think they're fooling?

KOTV.com is reporting the very impressive impact that the Oklahoma State University system has on Oklahoma's economy.

TULSA, Okla. (AP) _ Oklahoma State University has nearly $2 billion in economic impact on the state, a study released Friday says.

With 8,000 full-time employees, second in the state only to Wal-Mart if compared to private employers, and nearly $120 million generated in local and state tax revenue, the OSU system has an estimated annual impact of $1.89 billion on Oklahoma's economy.

It also accounts for more than 31,000 jobs and produces $13 in economic output for every dollar it gets from the state.

Fantastic news and "Go Pokes!"

HOWEVER!

As good as the news is for the administration of the Oklahoma A&M colleges, the numbers are far more interesting when compared with another recent story in the news. The following was reported in Friday's Tulsa World:

The proposed river development project The Channels would have a $35.3 billion long-term economic impact because it would draw in young professionals, increasing entrepreneurship and company relocations to the area, a national consulting firm says.

No specific figures or formulas were given during a Thursday news conference to explain how Angelou Economics came to its conclusion about the project's economic impact spanning a 20-year period.

The Channels' total economic impact is predicted at $38.5 billion. Of that amount, $3.2 billion would come from construction and operation of the islands over a total of 14 years beginning in 2007. An additional $35.3 billion would be generated up until 2027, the study indicates.

Do those numbers seem familiar? No? Well let's do some very easy analysis.

The entire impact of all of the universities, branch campuses, extension offices et. al., of Oklahoma State University has an annual impact on OKLAHOMA'S economy of $1.9 billion each and every year. If the figures remain constant over the next twenty years, OSU's economic impact statewide could be determined by a very easy formula [1,900,000,000 X 20 = 38,000,000,000].

$38 Billion? Isn't that the same number Angelou Economics said the fanciful The Channels would add to the Tulsa economy? Over how long a period of time? Oh...also twenty years?

Wow! The Channels, if built, will have an equivalent economic impact on TULSA's economy that a comprehensive land-grant university and all of its off-shoots have on OKLAHOMA's economy.

Well we've just got to build those islands!

This comparison alone would be interesting enough, if it weren't for one other delicious fact. The overly optimistic study done for Tulsa Stakeholders, Inc. was done by Angelou Economics out of Austin, TX. So who did the economic study for OSU?

By golly...it was Angelou Economics out of Austin, TX! KOTV further reported:

The study was presented Friday in Tulsa during a meeting of the Board of Regents for Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges. OSU paid $23,500 for the study.
It was conducted by Austin, Texas-based Angelou Economics, an economic development consulting firm with clients in Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida, among others.

OSU paid just over 23-grand for a study that seems on the surface to be accurate. How much did the Stakeholders pay the same guys for an estimate that seems wildly over the top?

Remember, it was just two weeks ago that I was on the Michael Delgiorno show on KFAQ-AM asking the Stakeholders why we hadn't been given an economic impact study. How could they expect us to support the use of $600 Million in tax-payer money without such a study?

Two weeks later? Lo and behold! Behold but don't ask us quesions on camera. Don't ask us specifics about how the number was arrived at. And for Gosh sakes, don't notice the similarities in the numbers between this study and another that Angelou did for OSU!

For those that still love the numbers, Angelou's impact study for The Channels [if it is to be believed...which is a stretch!], would mean that each and every man, woman and child in Tulsa County would see $5,000 of economic impact, EACH YEAR, for the next twenty years!

Think about it. There are just under 400,000 people in Tulsa County. For simplicities sake, round the number to 380,000. Use the basic formula [$38 billion / 20 years = $1.9 billion].

That means $1.9 billion per year in economic impact to Tulsa County. To get the per capita impact [per capita = "every man, woman and child"], divide $1.9 billion by Tulsa County's 380,000 inhabitants. [1.9 billion / 380,000 = 5,000].

So for a mere investment of $200 to $500 per year in sales tax impact to your household, a family of four [if you believe Angelou Economics] could net out $20,000 in economic impact!

WOW! How can you vote "no?"

The real question is, given the obviously fabricated economic impact study that has been laid before the citizens of Tulsa County, how could you ever trust these people enough to vote "yes?"