|
Welcome to the official website of the
Bixby not giving up on bridge
By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer The city is unbowed by a Supreme Court ruling that thwarted a toll-bridge contract.Bixby officials still are determined to have
more than one bridge to get residents in and out of Tulsa, despite a
recent court ruling that derailed the latest plan.
JANUARY 30, 2008
URBAN TULSA WEEKLY   No Bridge, No Drillers. Maybe an indoor football stadium for the high school football team? Lisa Newman "We're doing the happy dance down here in south Tulsa," Michael Covey, spokesman for the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, told UTW last week. The "happy dance" in this case is to the sound of the proverbial fat lady singing, because a three-year struggle to stop construction of a privately operated toll bridge from Jenks, connecting at the 121st St. and Yale Ave. intersection in south Tulsa, is now over. "Neither Jenks nor ARBA has authority to build, maintain and operate a toll bridge outside of the corporate boundaries of Jenks and Bixby," read the unanimous decision issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last Tuesday. The decision nixes plans by the Arkansas River Bridge Authority, comprised of the cities of Jenks and Bixby, and Infrastructure Ventures, Inc. to build a privately-operated toll bridge across the River, and that over vehement objections from south Tulsans and their elected officials at City Hall (for full details, see "Troubled Bridge" in the Oct. 18-24 issue of UTW at HYPERLINK "http://www.urbantulsa.com"; www.urbantulsa.com). "Surreal" is an accurate word to describe his sense of the development, Covey said, considering the finality of the decision after so many twists and turns to the story over the years. "This is not appealable: it was in the state Supreme Court and there are no federal issues involved, so there is no higher court to for them to appeal to," he said. "When you get nine Supreme Court justices together, it's hard to get them to agree on anything, and to have all of them concur unanimously on what you've been trying to say for three years, and that often on deaf ears..." Covey said of the sentiment fueling the STCC's victory dance. Neither IVI president and CEO Bill Bacon nor Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland returned telephone calls, though, to comment on what kind of dances they were doing. Several months ago, though, on the front end of the lawsuit, Bacon told UTW, "We've been challenged in court twice, and twice we've prevailed." Covey and Co. lost two previous lawsuits against IVI and ARBA before appealing to the Supreme Court, and Bacon expected the same conclusion again. He made his comments, though, prior to the outcome of another lawsuit by Vreeland last year against Mayor Kathy Taylor, attempting to compel her to sign an engineering services contract, which would have been the first step in the process for design work for the Tulsa-side of the bridge. About two weeks after it was filed, Tulsa County District Judge Rebecca Nightingale threw the suit out on the grounds that it was Taylor's prerogative to sign or not sign the contract as she saw fit, contrary to Vreeland's contention that it was a "ministerial" rather than "discretionary" duty (for full details, see "A Week of Lawsuit Frivolity" in the Nov. 1-7 issue of UTW at www.urbantulsa.com). While the latest decision essentially rang the death knell for the IVI bridge plan, it still leaves much of the controversy surrounding it unanswered, however. In addition to its contention that ARBA cannot determine the use of land outside the corporate boundaries of Jenks and Bixby, the STCC also contended in its lawsuit that ARBA violated the state constitution by granting IVI a franchise without submitting the issue to a vote of the people, and by granting IVI a franchise for a term 50 years longer than legally allowed. Also, the group contended that ARBA can't incur a financial obligation past the current fiscal year without voter approval, and that the project should have been open to competitive bidding before entering an agreement with IVI. In an interview with UTW in October, Covey said the outcome of the lawsuit would have repercussions for the other public/private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development throughout the state. But, because the court only addressed the question of ARBA's infringement on Tulsa's land, all of the other legal questions are still up in the air, which means there's nothing in the decision to stop IVI or another group from forming PPPs in other parts of the state, so long as they do so with the approval all municipalities concerned. "Supreme Court justices are busy people," Covey said of the judges addressing only the single claim. But, a victory is still a victory, and Covey said STCC members are going to revel in theirs. When he said they're "doing the happy dance," he wasn't kidding. Upon learning of the decision, a party was planned for the following Saturday to celebrate the conclusion of their three-year legal battle. After the party, Covey said the group will wait for the dust to settle before disbanding, and possibly find a legal avenue to recoup the more than $125,000 they spent on attorney fees on the way to their victory. BY BRIAN ERVIN URBAN TULSA WEEKLY
Dear STCC Supporter – Attached for your convenience is the ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court (click HERE to view or see links to this and other legal documents in the grey banner to the right of this page). This ruling reverses the trial court’s earlier ruling in favor of the City of Jenks and IVI and instructs the trial court to enter a judgment in favor of STCC. Of considerable importance is the fact that this is a unanimous, 9-0 decision. It is not every day that a unanimous opinion is issued by the Supreme Court. Of STCC’s ten or so causes of action against the City of Jenks and IVI, the Supreme Court’s reversal is only based on a couple of these causes of action. This in no way vindicates the City of Jenks or IVI on any of the other causes of action. The Supreme Court simply did not address them. As stated by the Supreme Court in footnote 28 of the opinion “[b]ecause we reverse the order of the trial court on these grounds, we need not address the Coalition’s other claims.” For those too busy to read the entire opinion, the conclusion of the Supreme Court is as follows: “The intention of the Legislature in permitting the creation of public trusts and transportation authorities for toll road construction is that because toll roads and bridges by their nature connect various municipalities, towns, and counties, such sovereigns must consolidate their authority to construct toll roads and bridges. However, the Legislature intended that the municipalities, towns, or counties that form the public trusts or transportation authorities be the ones in which the toll road or bridge is to be constructed. If we were to adopt the City of Jenks’ and IVI’s] arguments, what would prevent Jenks…from granting IVI the right to build a toll bridge across the Oklahoma River in Oklahoma County?” While we could go on and on analyzing the Supreme Court’s opinion, the bottom line is that no bridge will be built without the City of Tulsa’s involvement and ultimate approval. So, where does STCC go from here? We will keep our eyes and ears open for any future developments regarding a bridge in South Tulsa and keep you apprised of any such news. We are also currently discussing with our attorney’s the possibility of attempting to recover some (if not all) of our attorney’s fees and costs in this matter. If our attorney’s believe that it is probable that we will be successful in these efforts, STCC will proceed accordingly. In closing, STCC would like to thank all of its supporters. Whether you donated $1 or over $10,000, or whether you donated your time by getting petitions signed, telling your neighbors or co-workers about our cause or simply forwarded our e-mails to your colleagues, STCC simply could not have been successful without you! Further, STCC would like to thank its outside attorneys George Gibbs and Kevin Hoskins with the law firm of Gibbs, Armstrong, Borochoff, Mullican & Hart. Job well done gentlemen! Thank you again. Michael Covey Spokesman for STCC
Court zaps toll-bridge plan
By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer Jenks and Bixby reached too far, the state's high court rules.Jenks and Bixby have no authority to allow a
private company to build and operate a toll bridge connecting Jenks to
Tulsa without Tulsa being part of the plan, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
ruled Tuesday.
According to a footnote in the Supreme Court ruling, the
coalition's other claims were not addressed because the order of the
trial court was reversed.
Dear STCC Supporter -
Great News!!!! This afternoon the Oklahoma Supreme Court
reversed the trial
court's opinion and found in favor of STCC. While we have not yet seen the opinion, it is our understanding that the opinion was unanimous (all nine justices concurring) that neither the City of Jenks nor IVI can build the proposed South Tulsa Bridge. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.
We will send out a more in-depth e-mail in the
next day or so, but we wanted to e-mail everyone as soon as possible to spread the good news. There is absolutely no way we could have done this without your support!!!
Thank you!
Michael Covey Spokesman for STCC
State high court: Jenks can't build contested toll
bridge to Tulsa
By STAFF REPORTS, TULSA WORLD
Jenks and Bixby
have no authority to allow a private company to build and operate a
toll bridge connecting Jenks to Tulsa without Tulsa being part of the
plan, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
All nine justices agreed that Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority -- composed of Jenks and Bixby -- had overstepped their rights in contracting with a private company to connect the bridge outside the cities' corporate boundaries onto the north bank of the river in Tulsa. Justice Yvonne Kauger concluded in her ruling that "because toll roads and bridges by their nature connect various municipalities, towns and counties, such sovereigns must consolidate their authority to construct toll roads and bridges." Tulsa objected to the bridge on several grounds, including inadequate streets that would be accommodating incoming traffic from the bridge and insufficient funds to improve the streets. Homeowners in south Tulsa organized to become the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition and led a grassroots effort to stop construction of the bridge. Coalition spokesman Michael Covey said he was elated to have some finality on the bridge question. "I think it's obvious that the two parties you have to have are the city of Jenks and the city of Tulsa. That's their major failure from a legal standpoint," he said. Covey doesn't believe that Jenks, the Arkansas River Bridge Authority and private contractor Infrastructure Ventures Inc. have other legal avenues to pursue. Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland asked for more time to digest the findings with attorneys before commenting. Infrastructure Ventures President Bill Bacon could not immediately be reached. The coalition pulled together more than $100,000 for its legal fight, which started in district court about two years ago.
Bridge
ruling favors Tulsa
By
SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer The city doesn't have to sign an engineering pact related to a toll bridge in south Tulsa, a judge says.
The city of Tulsa will not be forced to sign an
engineering services contract with a private engineering firm in
preparation for the construction of a planned toll bridge connecting
south Tulsa to Jenks.
Dear STCC Supporter –
Good news! Today, October 23rd, 2007, the Honorable Rebecca Nightingale heard arguments regarding the City of Jenks’ lawsuit against Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and Tulsa Public Works Director Charles Hardt for their refusal to sign-off on a permit allowing the City of Jenks and IVI to construct the proposed South Tulsa Bridge at 121st and Yale. Under oath, Mr. Hardt testified that he would not sign-off on the permit because the City of Jenks and IVI had failed to adequately address (i) the lack of infrastructure necessary to handle the increased traffic flow from the bridge, (ii) flood plan issues pertaining to the location of the bridge and (iii) the ownership / use conflict between the City of Tulsa’s park land and the City of Jenks and IVI’s proposed location for the bridge. Upon the conclusion of the parties’ closing arguments, Judge Nightingale did not recess and immediately ruled from the bench that she was dismissing the City of Jenks’ lawsuit. Judge Nightingale found that the act of signing-off on a permit allowing IVI to construct the bridge at 121st and Yale is a “discretionary” act (not a “ministerial” act which the City of Jenks argued) and that such discretionary action falls within the purview of Mayor Taylor and Mr. Hardt. As always, thank you for your support. Michael Covey, Spokesman for STCC
Dear STCC Supporter – On October 11, 2007, the City of Jenks filed a lawsuit against Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and Tulsa Public Works Director Charles Hardt for their refusal to sign-off on a permit allowing IVI to construct the proposed South Tulsa Bridge. In response to the filing of such lawsuit, the Tulsa City Council unanimously approved a resolution last night supporting Mayor Taylor and Director Hardt’s position. The resolution may be viewed by clicking HERE. As always, thank you for your support. Michael Covey, Spokesman for STCC To view the Writ of Mandamus (Jenks vs. Taylor-Hardt) legal document, click HERE. To view the legal document that includes the Engineering Contract that Mayor Taylor and Charles Hardt refused to sign, click HERE.
Council
resolution opposes toll bridge
By
BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer Councilors also endorse economic development along the river.The
City Council unanimously approved two resolutions Thursday -- one
against a proposed bridge across the Arkansas River and an unrelated
one supporting economic development along the river.
Troubled Bridge To view a detailed article in the Oct. 18-24, 2007 Urban Tulsa Weekly about the origins and history of the South Tulsa toll bridge debate, click HERE.
Bridge suit says Taylor's stalling By
SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer Jenks sues Tulsa's mayor and Public Works director over a planned south Tulsa County toll bridge.The city of Jenks filed a civil suit Wednesday
in an effort to force Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor to sign an engineering
services contract in connection with the construction of a privately
financed toll bridge in south Tulsa County.
State
Supreme Court will decide toll-bridge dispute
By
SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
Read the 11 counts in
the toll bridge lawsuit: CLICK HERE |
Show your support & donate online today!
OR
Mail your contributions to:
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
Suite D-1, PMB 303
6528 East 101st Street
Tulsa, OK 74133
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE OKLAHOMA STATE SUPREME COURT RULING
MISSION STATEMENT As concerned citizens, we want a RESPONSIBLE approach for a bridge in South Tulsa. We believe that a bridge should be built, but only if it will not detrimentally affect the growth and financial condition of the City of Tulsa. We believe that a bridge should be built, but only if the City and County follow proper disclosure, voting and bidding procedures regarding the construction of a bridge. We believe that a bridge should be built, but only if the necessary infrastructure is in place before beginning construction on a bridge. We believe that a bridge should be built, but only if the location of the bridge will not detrimentally effect the land earmarked for use as a public park. We believe that a bridge should be built, but only if the safety concerns pertaining to the Jenks Southeast Elementary School are addressed before beginning construction of a bridge.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE IVI-JENKS BRIDGE CONTRACT CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE LATEST RULING BY JUDGE MCALLISTER ON APRIL 9, 2007 CLICK HERE TO VIEW A COPY OF OUR LAWSUIT CLICK HERE TO VIEW A COPY OF MAYOR KATHY TAYLOR'S LETTER OF SUPPORT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Who is behind the bridge? IVI (Infrastructures Ventures, Inc) came to the county with a proposal to build the bridge between Yale Ave and Yale Place (you can find out more on IVI by going to the Email Page and clicking on their link). IVI is closely linked to Cinnabar, a company who deals with right-of-ways and noise abatement. 2. Why is the city involved? The city owns land that needs to be used by the county to build the bridge. If the city will vote to allow the use of the land, then the county will not have to use eminent domain to condemn the land. 3. What is the problem with the bridge? This bridge, according to studies done, will bring 7500+ cars to the intersection of Yale and 121st St. when it opens. How many of these cars will continue north on S. Yale Ave is debatable, but imagine if only half those cars tried to get past S. Yale Ave and 101st St. by Jenks SE Elementary School. The possible traffic congestion should paint a picture in your mind. In a couple of years, the number of cars will more than double. Yale is not going to be upgraded for 10 years. 4. What can be done about the traffic? MoveThatBridge thinks that the solution is simple - route the bridge west to tie it to the dangerous curve where Delaware meets 121st St and route thru traffic up Delaware to the turnpike or east on 121st to Memorial. We would like to see the access to Yale and Sheridan from 121st off limits to heavy trucks. 5. What's the benefit of the bridge to Tulsa? The Mayor claims it will bring tax dollars to Tulsa. There has been no evidence to support that claim. Many think that just the opposite will happen as the 151st Street corridor in Bixby develops.
|
||||||
