PreserveMidtown sent a short three question survey to all City of Tulsa candidates, except the auditor candidates, in this coming election.  We think it is important to ask these questions that may affect all neighborhoods in Tulsa.

You can read the responses of each of the candidates who replied.  You will also see those that did not respond.

Question One:  INCOG is a regional and independent contractor to the City of Tulsa. Would you support the PlaniTulsa recommendation to take Tulsa city planning out of INCOG and put it back under the jurisdiction of and accountable to the City of Tulsa?

Tom Adelson:  I have been listening to both sides of this debate for several months and would like to take time to review carefully this important issue.  I have been an active participant in the PlaniTulsa process and am committed to the implementation of a revised comprehensive plan.  Certainly the accountability to citizens is a critical issue.
Dewey Bartlett:  No response.
Mark Perkins:  I definitely think the City should handle more of its own planning and land use decisions, and I touched this in my Tulsa World Questionnaire dated 10/11/09 “The city of Tulsa can handle this like most cities.”
Karl Hulcher:  No response.
David Patrick:  I would like to see the City of Tulsa take more control over its own planning.  I would help work on that.
Roscoe Turner:  Not just yes, but HELL YES!  I’ve been saying this for the last decade.  Tulsans should make decisions for Tulsa.
Maria Barnes:  Yes.
Eric Gomez:  No response.
Jim Mautino:  INCOG should be terminated as a contractor, Zoning and Planning should be incorporated into the Urban Development Department so that there is a continuity between  community development plans and the actions of the City Planning Committee and Board of Adjustment decisions that are compatible with the community development plan.
Dennis Troyer:  No response.
G.T. Bynum:  I would support reviewing the idea.  Planning should be directly accountable within the City government.
Roger Lowry:  Could not send email to him.

Question 2:  Would you support a stormwater runoff ordinance requiring a stormwater runoff plan  for properties under an acre before a building permit is granted?

Tom Adelson:  I have seen first hand the results of storm water damage to neighboring houses.  A storm water plan requirement has been outlines in a letter dated September 29 from the City of Tulsa Development Services to the Homebuilders Association of Greater Tulsa.  It instructs builders to follow in much more stringent requirements.
The staff at Development Services is trained to assist those applying for business permits with storm water issues.  It may be that the guidance outlined in the letter combined with the permitting assistance will be sufficient.  However, if it is not, I will certainly explore the possibility of an ordinance.
The conveyance of any pollutant including sediment must be regulated.  However this is part of a larger issue.  I support the creation of a system-wide low impact development approach.
Dewey Bartlett:  No response.
Mark Perkins:  This sounds like it makes a lot of sense. As a midtown resident who has dealt firsthand with flooding issues for several years, I support ordinances that protect the neighborhoods from destructive infill without being overly prohibitive to development. The key is to have firm regulations in place that permit responsible building plans and practices without enabling irresponsible infill as we have seen in many neighborhoods. The right regulations should be enforced, so variances and exceptions are less common (thereby taking some of the politics out of the process)
Karl Hulcher:  No response.
David Patrick:  Yes.  Infill development needs this.
Roscoe Turner:  Yes.
Maria Barnes:  Yes.  Stormwater runoff created by new construction in established neighborhoods needs to be addressed by the city.
Eric Gomez:  No response.
Jim Mautino:  I would support.
Dennis Troyer:  No Response.
G.T. Bynum:  I have been the lead proponent of this on the Council, so yes.  Changes have already been made at the administrative level.
Roger Lowry:  Could not be reached by email.

Question 3: A large percentage of “meth houses” are found in abandoned/vacant homes in regular neighborhoods. Would you support making property owners of abandoned/vacant houses accountable if a “meth lab” is found in their house?

Tom Adelson:  Yes.  Homeowners of vacant or abandoned houses should be accountable for the maintenance and up keep of their homes.  This has been a serious problem in Tulsa and one that requires immediate attention.  Any house in which meth has been made has pollutants which may be dangerous for the next occupant, especially children.  Owners should bear the cost of cleaning and prospective tenants should be informed.
Dewey Bartlett:  No Response.
Mark Perkins:  I don’t know what could be done, but I support any efforts that combat meth use and production. Meth is one of the scariest afflictions facing our country.
Karl Hulcher:  No response.
David Patrick:  Yes.
Roscoe Turner:  Yes.  I have some ideas for absentee landlords too, because in addition to preserving midtown, we need to preserve the north community and its history.
Maria Barnes:  We must do something about absentee and local property owners across the city that do not keep their properties in good condition.  As for Meth Houses, we need to look at what we can do to prevent them in our neighborhoods now.  I think community policing would help with this and other neighborhood problems.
Eric Gomez:  No response.
Jim Mautino:  I would support making property owners accountable when the property is abandoned/vacant.
Dennis Troyer:  No response.
G.T. Bynum:  Yes.
Roger Lowry:  Could not reach by email.