that place blows the ford center out of the water. it may be smaller, but what a building.

Temporarily. Wait until next year when the renovations are completed. Until then, I'll take the big diamond ring and let someone else have the nice-looking, empty black box in which it came.

No. You're putting words in our mouths.

Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon. Your city, our state.

End of discussion. It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality. If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name. Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.

Why don't you read the thread before posting? It's been said before in this thread marketing is part of the reasoning behind naming it Oklahoma City instead of Oklahoma. Naming it after the state makes the team sound small time and like a college team.

If Tulsa went out and got an MLB team and named it the Tulsa Whatevers, I'd support them and I don't live in Tulsa or OKC.

But I still feel you're telling Tulsans to get on excited about the Oklahoma CITY team as opposed to the Oklahoma STATE team. You don't think that might make some difference in whether I want to go buy an $80 jersey? Really?

Whatever small amount of difference that may make in the sale of a few tickets or jerseys will be eclipsed exponentially but the positive PR for Oklahoma City and the resulting financial benefits.

The owners (and taxpayers that are investing in the arena) stand to gain greatly by promoting the city in which they live, work and are heavily invested.

This is an easy call if you want to bring economics into it.

Here is a thought and solution for the the friction between two great communities.
Stop the competing.
Every year the High School football championship tries to place a Tulsa team with an OKC team. When I was in High school PC West 1979 we palyed a state championship game against PC. No political correctness. The best two teams were in. Back then no Tulsa team ever made it to the championship and people complained. The roles are now reversed.
The Hockey teams compete. The Baseball teams thankfully do not.
We have Bedlam, one part of the state against another.
I love what Colorado has, CU and CSU are in different leagues. the Big 12 and the Mountain West. That allows everyone in the state to root for both teams.
Just a thought.
What do you think.

marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.

politics?? did you even listen to our mayor??? when people around the world or nation hear tulsa, what comes to mind... HANSON or NOTHING COMES TO THEIR MIND AT ALL.

unfortunately, okc brings to mind huge F5 tornadoes or the largest act of domestic terrorism. we need something that is not a tragedy associated with our name. we need something positive. so until you have a big a$$ bomb go off in your town or your city is devastated by a big ol' twister... you really need to shut your mouth.



(and no longer being the kingpin city in oklahoma is not a tragedy.... it's comedy)

When I was in High school PC West 1979 we palyed a state championship game against PC. No political correctness. The best two teams were in.

Not to get off track here but that was in December 1977.

I organize all the PC Class of '78 reunions (just had one in June) and created a comprehensive website that features some highlights and all the press coverage from that year. You might find it interesting:

PC78.com - Pirate Football (http://www.pc78.com/pages/football/footballsenior.htm)

politics?? did you even listen to our mayor??? when people around the world or nation hear tulsa, what comes to mind... HANSON or NOTHING COMES TO THEIR MIND AT ALL.

unfortunately, okc brings to mind huge F5 tornadoes or the largest act of domestic terrorism. we need something that is not a tragedy associated with our name. we need something positive. so until you have a big a$$ bomb go off in your town or your city is devastated by a big ol' twister... you really need to shut your mouth.



(and no longer being the kingpin city in oklahoma is not a tragedy.... it's comedy)

Okay dude. How's that rave scene going? lol . . . you sure burned Tulsa there.

Thanks for being so welcoming.

Regarding politics, the only reason I brought it up was because David Stern did -


Stern brought up the idea that the team could be called just Oklahoma, because of the inclusion of Tulsa in the market size and the fact it would be considered a "state franchise."

Stern said it's interesting that "if you drive fast in Oklahoma, and most people apparently do, how close Tulsa is and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the Hornets when they were there, to be a state franchise," Stern said.

"I'm going to leave that to the politics of Oklahoma. I would guess that the current group would be under significant incentive and pressure to make it an Oklahoma franchise, and that would be a good thing."

Cornett says team name will include 'Oklahoma City' | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/article/3232124/1208568724)

RAVE ON!

I love what Colorado has, CU and CSU are in different leagues. the Big 12 and the Mountain West. That allows everyone in the state to root for both teams.
Just a thought.
What do you think.
i personaly like the idea of ou and osu not playing each other. it would make my marriage a lot more manageable. and please someone tell me what is the deal with osu nad ou always playing tu every year? i wish ou and osu would stop the nonsense and play somebody more competitive. why waste your time playing a pathetic team like tulsa, when you can play much better teams. i just heard that ou signed like two more years playing tulsa. and another thing, why is tulsa named the hurricanes? how many hurricanes has hit oklahoma besides the leftovers? my two cents.

1977 was the year Pete.
I meant I graduated 1979.
Nevertheless, Sgt.Pepper is correct TU is a throw away game, for OU anyway.
Hurts your BCS rankings, Does not help with recruiting (most players are from out of state) fuels the division in the state.

Hey Pete thanks for the memory.
It was the greatest. I have replayed it many times.
It was greta to be suited up for that one.
Wish we could have taken kelly out sooner. (just kidding)
We certainly focused on Vann going in to the game.
That part worked.
I still say donleys pass was out of bounds on the line back of end zone.
Thanks for sending back into therapy.
lol

We play Tulsa b/c we like Tulsa and we would like to see TU get some good exposure... Also, TU was pretty good last year epecially with Malzahn running the offense.

Swake- OU produces far more primary physicians in this state than osu does... in every population range. I will provide a link when I get my computer back (I am getting my Masters in Hospital Administration right now and my computer is fried).

I would love for Tulsa to get a pro anything and I would treat it as if it were my own (b/c it would be... I root for everything Okahoma less osu).

tulsa stinks, ou beats them 50 to 0 every time they play them. tulsa does not deserve exposure. that university needs to rid of the football program. all thier good for is someone to practice with untill ou/osu plays a real team. good grief

Okay dude. How's that rave scene going? lol . . . you sure burned Tulsa there.

RAVE ON!
why would i know how the rave scene is... tulsa is the one who's nightlife is stuck in the 90's.
kids in okc are on the cutting edge of the dance scene. electro clash, dance rock, baltimore breaks... our dj's play on both coasts quite often and in other countries. however, i did notice a tulsa dj played in stillwater the other night. oh, i forgot... tulsa djs do make it to fayetteville, arkansas and springfield, missouri as well (hey, at least those are out of state gigs).


www.myspace.com/dancerobotsdancedotcom

This is kind of cool... The NBA site now says "Oklahoma City" rather than Supersonics:

Seattle SuperSonics (http://www.nba.com/oklahomacity/)


By the way, we won today. :)

Many of those remarks in that thread were indeed tongue in cheek. Most Tulsan's understand the importance of any improvement in OKC radiating out to the rest of the state and intend on attending games. Even our mayor was involved I believe. However, there is a snobbery infecting a few in Tulsa that just won't wash off...

Many of those remarks in that thread were indeed tongue in cheek. Most Tulsan's understand the importance of any improvement in OKC radiating out to the rest of the state and intend on attending games. Even our mayor was involved I believe. However, there is a snobbery infecting a few in Tulsa that just won't wash off...

Kinda like that same snobbery exhibited by the great mayor of OKC, Mick Cornett.

I've said this once before; I dont' care what they name it. What I do care is that they snubbed it but sure did ask Tulsa for help in justifying why and how it could work.

Don't expect me and many others to support this franchise at all. You can thank your mayor and his attitude for that.

I'm pretty sure the season tickets have been sold out without you and the many others so I think they'll be fine. As long as you live in Tulsa, you're included in the TV market and every head in the count helps. It doesn't matter if you watch, enough people will and the sponsors will follow.

You're better off just enjoying the NBA, regardless of what the name or who the mayor is. I'm not trying to come off as a d*ck, but last time I went to Tulsa there wasn't a whole lot to do; this is going to add another entertainment option to the state so just enjoy and quit fighting it. What's been done is done.

U and a handfull of others, your arrogance is the reason u will miss one of the great moments in OUR STATES history!

And as far as our "great mayor" i would go to war for that man any day of the week for what he has done for our city and state!!!

And for the most part this is a stupid thread i like everybody i know from Tulsa, don't like the city too much, just a personal thing.... not really any reason. But for all of us Oklahomans to be attacking eachother and where we choose to live of all things is ridiculous. This is a great time to be from this STATE so stop all the bitching at eachother and enjoy the fact the we all have a major league franchise, no matter if it says OKC or not... the fact of the matter is it says Oklahoma one way or another.

We have enough people around the country attacking our state and our integrity, and we're going to fight among eachother? Stupid and childish:ou2

I hate these pissing matches between two great cities; or, more accurately, between posters on an Internet forum. In my opinion it's juvenile.

[Any issues with board moderation and our policies are to be handled in the form of a personal message to me or one of the moderators. Thanks, Pete.]

The title of the thread explains a lot of the bile. Tulsa does not hate you. Tulsa hates that we didn't get a pro-anything team and that we may have been snubbed. Most of us hate the fact that alot of what's been said about us in this thread is true. We have a well entrenched anti-anything group that has been strangling the city for the last decade while your city overcame the same type of groups.

A change in the title would have been advisable.

How is discussing a heated topic juvenile? Is it juvenile just because the debate is held on the internet? To ask in a different manner, is it juvenile if the discussion is held in person, via satellite hookup, phone, etc? Does the media in which the discussion take place make a difference in whether or not the exchange is juvenile?

It is just your opinion and I'll respect that, but I'm just hoping you articulate your reasoning?

As I've stated a couple of times on this thread, I think the average citizen of each community is generally pulling for both cities.

Internet discussion does tend to take people to the extreme opposite sides of an issue and things often get personal.

Having said that, many things raised in this thread are on the minds of a lot of people and for the most part, discussion is healthy. Just try and be respectful and debate the post, not the poster.

If Tulsa had gotten an NBA team instead of OKC, I'm sure OKC forum members would have posted equally ridiculous remarks.

Both cities are great in different ways. Both cities have people that make ridiculous statements.

Correct.

I'm telling you, name the team Oklahoma City Slickers, and it solves the problem for Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Tulsans are happy the team is the Oklahoma "City Slickers," and Oklahoma City residents are happy the team is the Oklahoma City "Slickers."

I'm afraid the comparisons of OKC to really small towns is lost on me. I'll bet Tulsa has waaay more government employees than Pawhuska and Broken Bow combined! Again, need I even say it, the comparison to Jefferson City is obviously flawed. Following this logic, I imagine you'll also find more government jobs in Washington DC, Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta, or Boston than in OKC.

I also am missing the math in the opening paragraph. Why are non-government service jobs not counted as part of the private employment base?

There is no doubt OKC has a huge governmental workforce. Afterall, it is the State Capitol, the home of two major state universities & a couple medium-sized state universities, the site of Tinker and the FAA. These large installations tend to have lots of workers.

All this only strengthens my belief that many in Tulsa suffer from extreme envy. I have always found it odd how most people in OKC like Tulsa, support it, enjoy visiting it, and genuinely wish it well. However, many Tulsa despise OKC, actually find pleasure in OKC's troubles, and enjoy insulting it whenever possible.

Oklahoma City and the taxpayers built the arena.
Oklahoma City investors purchased the team.
Oklahoma City taxpayers, with a little help from the state, have agreed to upgrade a facility owned by OKC.

It were the citizens of OKC who got the ball rolling. The state is helping out because it realizes the potential marketing power having a major league franchise will bring.

actually, the state aint helping upgrade the Ford Center at all.

the state is just extending tax breaks to the Sonics. And Swake, that IS new tax dollars. These NBA players dont currently live here YET - so who is currently making (and paying) payroll taxes on million dollar salaries right now who will be displaced when Clay Bennett starts paying it?

AGAIN, so you Tulsa people will understand - the STATE IS OFFERING A PAYROLL TAX REBATE on the top portion of PAYROLL TAXES that WILL BE PAID on NBA SALARIES!!!!!!

1) ARE THERE CURRENTLY ANY NBA SALARIES IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA? NO - so it is NEW TAXES!!

And, since it is NEW TAXES, Tulsa has nothing to worry about their tax money being diverted to OKC.

2) WHO PAYED FOR THE FORD CENTER? Oklahoma City residents.

In fact, wasn't it Tulsa residents who were trying to compare the BOK as a better facility recently? Oh, you forgot that OKC always was going to upgrade the Ford Center WITH OKC MAPS MONIES. The STATE is contributing nothing to the Ford Center, it's OKC residents. You Tulsan's dont have to worry about it unless you shop/eat in OKC.

3) WHO JUST FORKED OVER HALF BILLION DOLLARS? Clay Bennett and Oklahoma City investors.

Are there any Tulsa investors? Anybody from Tulsa willing to take a risk - or was everyone up there saying OKC couldn't support it without them.

4) Does OKC NEED Tulsa to support the NBA? NO.

Tulsan's were 'invited' to attend so that the NBA could see what OKC's market is. Truth be told, Tulsa is the 2nd city and is part of OKC's market. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it is reality. OKC has more venues, gets more things to do, is a bigger city and market - so it only makes sense. This is JUST the same way that OKC is a tertiary market for Dallas (although OKC is really starting to hold its own and not rely on dallas as much).

Again, people mentioned that back when Tulsa was arguably more superior 15+ years ago, OKC people would drive up if/when they wanted to experience those amenities. What did Tulsan's do? They rubbed it in OKC's face - snobby, and made sure OKC people "knew where the CITY was in the state". And this despite OKC being the capital and largest city.

Well, those two facts are the same, but OKC is not rubbing it in Tulsa's face - nor is OKC even asking Tulsa for any money. I didn't hear Clay asking for tulsa investors. I didn't see the Ford Center vote extended to Tulsa voters. And, the payroll tax rebate would have passed even if all Tulsa pols had voted no (because the rest of the state would have voted yes since they can see the tertiary benefit of having NBA salaries in this state).

AGAIN SWAKE - TODAY THERE ARE NO NBA SALARIES IN OKLAHOMA, SO THERE TODAY IS NO PAYROLL TAXES BEING ASSESSED. THESE ARE NEW JOBS TO THE STATE, WHICH WILL HAVE THE TOP PORTION OF THEIR PAYROLL TAXES ABATED!

The state still gets 5%, which IS NEW DOLLARS THE STATE ISN'T GETTING TODAY.

Get it?

So now, you can stop being jealous or ignorant to what the State is doing.

Oh, did I mention that OKC is the largest city and metro in the state? So, you should also conclude that IF there was a state contribution - that OKC would be fronting most of it anyways! But I digress, because I have just written so many times that THESE ARE NEW TAXES WHICH A PORTION WILL BE ABATED!!!!!!!!


I hope you will NEVER ever say the STATE is paying for OKC to have the NBA - ever EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!

THE STATE IS NOT PAYING FOR THE FORD CENTER
THE STATE IS NOT PAYING FOR THE NBA TEAM
THE STATE IS NOT PAYING CLAY BENNETT ANYTHING

OKLAHOMA CITY HAS BUILT AND IS EXPANDING THE FORD CENTER
TULSA IS NOT

OKLAHOMA CITY INVESTORS SPENT A HALF BILLION ON THE NBA TEAM
TULSA DID NOT

NOBODY IS PAYING CLAY BENNETT ANYTHING, DEFINITELY NOBODY FROM TULSA
SO CLAY CAN NAME HIS TEAM WHAT HE WANTS (AND CERTAINLY IT WONT BE TULSA OR OKLAHOMA - HE IS VERY PRO OKC YOU KNOW)

Stern mentioned that Tulsa was part of Oklahoma City's market ONLY because most people probably didn't realize that. It is the SAME WAY Spokane is considered part of Seattle's market (yet NOBODY has to point that out anymore) - Seattle has had major league sports for 41 years.

So, since the state of Oklahoma (and Tulsa) is riding on OKC's coat tails and recent successes - stop being bitter about it and be happy that somebody is finally lifting up the state (instead of how Tulsa did in the 80's - using it only as a battering ram against OKC).

Don't get mad that Oklahoma City's mayor is making sure his city is recognized. Perhaps you should vote such a mayor for Tulsa, then maybe you won't be so jealous.


Continue the Renaissance Oklahoma City!

why would i know how the rave scene is... tulsa is the one who's nightlife is stuck in the 90's.
kids in okc are on the cutting edge of the dance scene. electro clash, dance rock, baltimore breaks... our dj's play on both coasts quite often and in other countries. however, i did notice a tulsa dj played in stillwater the other night. oh, i forgot... tulsa djs do make it to fayetteville, arkansas and springfield, missouri as well (hey, at least those are out of state gigs).


MySpace.com - Dance Robots, Dance! - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Electro / Indie / New Wave - www.myspace.com/dancerobotsdancedotcom (http://www.myspace.com/dancerobotsdancedotcom)

Ed, I can vouch for what you're saying by the way.

a few months ago, here in Seattle on our local dance music station c-89FM;

there was a dj from OKLAHOMA CITY who was cutting it up. He was so good, I was quite surprised (as im sure most in seattle who were listening were). I dont rememmber who it was, but the mc kept saying he was from OKC. lol.

Actually, I was surprised nobody called in and started complaining about the Sonics. Then again, Im not surprised since nobody really cares up here anyways - it was just a hit to the pride chops to most people.

anyways, yep - OKC dj's are pretty well known or at least getting there. OKC needs a Dance Music station, BAD!!!! The flava is good now with all of the hip hop and what not (much better than Seattle by the way) but OKC needs a house/techno/hi NRG dance station like c89fm (http://www.c895fm.com).


:yourock:

Man, if Tulsa had half the leadership OKC has enjoyed recently, they'd be the jewel of the Great Plains. Tulsa has so much natural and structural beauty to offer, but the city leaders are too busy looking down on others to learn from their success. I really hope Tulsa gets it together. I'm not bashing them in any way. I really do want to see Tulsa mirror OKC's accomplishments.

I don't. Their arrogance and rude comments about OKC has made me pretty much me dismissive toward them ever getting their crap together.

Tulsa was the oil capital of the world. We get it. But it's not the 1930s anymore. OKC is the king now and has a future and Tulsa has the past.

They need to worry less about what we do and worry more about what places like Wichita, Amarillo, Little Rock and Springfield do. Those are their rivals.

Hi. I'm a Tulsa poster. I know at least one of you from college (hey Mallen!). Just thought I'd get in on the discussion and try to keep it good natured. This is what I posted over there on the Tulsa board:



I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state. I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended. It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be." Anyway, that's where the snark comes from. It's not a jealousy issue--we are quite aware who has more population, who has more interstate highways, and who has more entertainment venues in the central business district.

It's really comes down to the perception that Tulsa has been getting the short end of the stick pretty regularly lately, and when there was the chance to get together as a "Major League State," petty differences intervened at the last minute and submarined the whole thing.

I know the whole issue of "team name" might seem trivial, but then again, you have to realize, like Jerry Seinfeld says--all we're really rooting for is clothes. So what those clothes say matters. Think about it.

Oh please... physician heal thyself!

This "Sonics in OKC" deal was never billed like the Korea/Japan World Cup or something. Tulsa was never in the conversation until the Relocation Committee came to town. That's when we told them that OKC is a de-facto regional capital and that the population numbers of Amarillo, Wichita and Tulsa could definitely be a factor for this franchise.

Tulsa is like part of that old fable... OKC is the hen who is growing and harvesting the grain... but the others (Tulsa) doesn't want anything of the hard work (bettering their city) and when we bake the wheat into bread, y'all come down to our place expecting a handout. Guess what -- it's OUR loaf. There was never a chance this team would be named anything but Oklahoma City.

I hope people from Tulsa, Wichita, Amarillo, Lawton, Ft. Smith and Springfield come to Oklahoma City to see the Oklahoma City NBA team play. But the fact remains... OKC earned this team on its own. I think that's what burns them up most.

And oh, as for the beauty thing... Nashville has y'all nuked in that category. Hills and Trees make for a nice national park but is sand for a city's foundation. Phoenix is ugly as sin out in the desert and it's huge and bustling.

What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade.

Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.

Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.

Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?

Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.

Not to mention, what do you ask of your elected representatives in OKC and Washington? Why do you continue to elect nimrods like John Sullivan and expect things to change?

Tulsa is also extremely segregated, one of the most segregated cities I've even seen. Now, it's a city in three parts: North Tulsa, Midtown, and 'Burbs, and no one in these areas even agrees what the city should do. The Burbies don't even think they should have to pay a shiny red penny to help the city since they don't live there (despite the fact they wouldn't have a job and shiny burb if the city weren't there).

Tulsa has deep problems that cannot and will not be solved by whining about OKC's relative success.


Uhhhh really? I don't know how you can say that when OKC has seen its rise from the ashes under three straight GOP Mayors. And oh, our congressional district has been GOP since Goldwater/LBJ, soooo.... yeah.

If anything, the current Tulsa mindset is of the liberal, Democrat "I need handouts and the government to do it for me." I mean, OKC has to support Tulsa so Tulsa can get stuff done? Why can't Tulsa get up off the floor like OKC did and just get to work? Tulsa is nothing more than a giant welfare case wanting someone else to come in and prop them up.

And yeah I replied to three different things in a row... oh well. That's what I get for not being on this site for a few weeks! lol

I'll close this by saying that if it weren't for the states of Oklahoma and Sequoyah being joined together, OKC and Tulsa would be in two different states.

Post by JWil:
Uhhhh really? I don't know how you can say that when OKC has seen its rise from the ashes under three straight GOP Mayors. And oh, our congressional district has been GOP since Goldwater/LBJ, soooo.... yeah.

Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label. It is a non-partisan government. Nice try, though.

Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label. It is a non-partisan government. Nice try, though.

While that's true, Pulse, the last mayor of Oklahoma City who was a registered Democrat and had Democratic ties was Andy Coates (http://www.law.ou.edu/faculty/administrative/coats.shtml). Norick, Humphreys and Cornett are all registered Republicans, all used their GOP contacts and the usual Republican donors financed their campaigns. The whole non-partisan thing is a tad disingenuous if you ask me.

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

The thing to remember is that the taxes collected were used for public projects(not private), to make the city as a whole more enjoyable for all.

There was not a single group that was not effected by these improvements. Sports, Arts, Education, and entertainment were all included in the original MAPS package.

Current MAPS is improving the schools infrastructure, which was deplorable.

And this add on for the Arena were improvements that were talked about during the original MAPS. The only addition is the practice facility, which would not have been built if the team did not come to OKC.

These are all legitimate city projects no matter what your political affiliation.

Saberman,

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

Tulsa taxes are higher though, so thats why their "anti tax hysteria" is worse than OKC's.

For example if my house were in OKC my annual property tax would be 1950 bucks, in Tulsa its 2112 dollars. Sales tax in Tulsa is already 8.65% they've wanted to tack on another half cent sales penny to that a couple of times since I moved up here in 2005.

Also, dont forget OKC has a pretty good history of spending tax dollars wisely. That helps bolster the public confidence in their government officials. I think Tulsa could easily turn a corner for the positive but its going to take solid leadership and someone willing to take a stand on some core issues and be honest with the people of Tulsa.

What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade.

Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.

Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.

Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?

Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.

Not to mention, what do you ask of your elected representatives in OKC and Washington? Why do you continue to elect nimrods like John Sullivan and expect things to change?

Tulsa is also extremely segregated, one of the most segregated cities I've even seen. Now, it's a city in three parts: North Tulsa, Midtown, and 'Burbs, and no one in these areas even agrees what the city should do. The Burbies don't even think they should have to pay a shiny red penny to help the city since they don't live there (despite the fact they wouldn't have a job and shiny burb if the city weren't there).

Tulsa has deep problems that cannot and will not be solved by whining about OKC's relative success.

Not sure how I missed this, but this is an excellent post. I've noticed the rather odd political nature of Tulsa since moving up here. It seems there isn't much middle ground. There's a TON of far right wing, no tax for anything kinda people and then there's a bunch of pretty far left individuals that think the city/state/federal government should rebuild the north tulsa area as well as other areas of town.

It's kinda wierd actually seeing the two extremes. I've noticed it in discussions with people I work with too. Don't get me wrong, there's quite a few moderates and level headed people but it seems like there's far more at both extremes than I remember when I lived in OKC. Just makes for an interesting experience and it probably makes it difficult on city government as well since the city is divided.

Saberman,

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

I understand, but the Bricktown investments were a direct by product of investment from MAPS, they weren't financed by MAPS.

Granted the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies, but...

1) the Skirvin was a landmark that the people of OKC did not want to loose, where it may have been questionable, we did do something right on this one. We lost a lot of great buildings in downtown because of Urban Renewal, this one felt like the last straw.

2) Bass Pro - leaders felt that they had to bring in a major business that would get the ball rolling in Bricktown, right or wrong, we did it. Would Bricktown have grow as fast without Bass Pro, that's going to be debated for a long time....

I could also bring up some bad moves OKC made in the past, Urban Renewal in the '60's and '70's, or even the String of Pearls along the N. Canadian ditch. Just to name 2. That's why we have the last 3 mayors to thank for bring in the public to monitor MAPS projects, to insure quality and spending.

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though.

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base.

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.

I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though.

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base.

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.


I'm a republican and I am ok with taxes on a local level when they are defined and goals are achievable. I do not like federal tax increases because we almost never see the money and it adds numerous layers of government bull crap that you do not have to deal with on a local level. Local governments are the best at providing and performing vital services, like police and fire as well as infrastructure maintenance.

That doesn' tmean there isn't a place for federal funds, there is, but not for everything.

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.

Oh yes. Like the projected 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS for an unnecessary war with Iraq. In perspective, a full-blown manned mission to Mars from scratch to finish is estimated at 450 billion dollars.

There's even a book out about what we could have done with the money we've already spent in Iraq:

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/4/7/13/f_1401323081m_05fa55e.jpg

tulsa stinks, ou beats them 50 to 0 every time they play them. tulsa does not deserve exposure. that university needs to rid of the football program. all thier good for is someone to practice with untill ou/osu plays a real team. good grief

I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.

Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...

:tiphat:

I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.

Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...

:tiphat:

First of all, Tulsa is not a state university. Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game. Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games. FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well. A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered. I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice. It seems that observation has already been addressed.

However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa. I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.

First of all, Tulsa is not a state university. Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game. Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games. FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well. A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered. I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice. It seems that observation has already been addressed.

However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa. I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.

winner. end of thread.

"Hi, I'm Tulsa." "And I'm Oklahoma City."

"We have hills." "We have growth, momentum, and plenty of opportunity."

"We have trees." "We enjoy lakes and a river that is an Olympic Training Venue, right in our back yard."

"We have the Gilcrease and Philbrook museums." "We have art museums, art districts and an increading number of art galleries."

"We have a fair." "We have a theme park, the state's largest water theme park, all in addition to a fair."

"We have a river." "Tulsa, didn't I already mention water recreation? I guess you can safely walk across the Arkansas River. We have to swim across the Oklahoma River."

"But we have those boats that scoot across sandy banks AND water." "And Oklahoma City has actual BOATS on the river."

"We have TU sports." "And we have the NBA, Big 12 Tournaments and Triple A baseball. Don't forget OU and OSU are closer. Ahh, the choices."

"But we have trees and hills." "Tulsa, you mentioned that already. What do you do with your trees and hills?"

"Well, we look at them." "Oh. I thought your relationship with nature was more interactive."

"Ummm... we have a zoo." [sighs and pats Tulsa on the shoulder]"We get it, Tulsa."

I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?

Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.

Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.

As a violinist, let me just mention this -- playing large ensemble music outside is absolutely miserable. Most serious symphonic pieces have fairly long parts to them -- lots of page turns. Those page turns become a big pain in the ass when you're having to use clothes pins to keep your music from blowing off the stand (and one good gust and your whole stand might be blown over). Then, string instruments and woodwinds to a lesser extent have HUGE tuning issues when exposed to temperature and humidity changes.

I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?

Well, people are gonna get tired of George Strait, Allan Jackson, or whoever always coming in for a concert in OKC, sooner or later. The big names or old big names that the casinoes put on also provide competition.

Notice how Bunty mentions only country music artists. Forget about all of the other non-country music acts that tour Oklahoma regularly.

It doesn't matter anyway. Today's music from every single genre absolutely sucks.

How did this thread get revived? Geez, let's talk about something original... I know what, let's talk about how OU and OSU are rivals. Or maybe OU/Texas...
BTW: You're not seeing many concerts being booked at Ford Center because it's shutting down after NBA season is over for an expansion and remodeling.

Check out Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre at Encore Park :: Atlanta, GA (http://www.vzwamp.com)

Man, you guys are on a roll....I'm going back to the nostalgia group and remember how much fun we have.....Sheesh....when you quit arguing come see us....

I live in Norman, but OKCpulse, to be fair, tulsa has a much better selection of lakes to go and enjoy.

I live in Norman, but OKCpulse, to be fair, tulsa has a much better selection of lakes to go and enjoy.

a) That still doesn't make Tulsa better than us, nor us better than them. I am merely trying to emphazise the beauty of both worlds.

b) Those lakes are not Tulsa assets, they are state assets, but Tulsa is lucky to be so close.

c) You have to drive OUT of Tulsa to get to any lakes. Hefner, Draper and Overholser are right in our backyard, Hefner being the best of the three. You don't need to drive far to get to any of these lakes. If I want to go on a weekend lake trip, I'll drive to any one of our major reservoirs.

Tulsa sees OKC and Tulsa has weiner envy.

Oh did I say that?

The mentality is just different in the two places. I grew up in Tulsa and have a brother that lives in Norman. I think OKC is a lot more open to becoming a modern city. It will never be a sprawling metropolis like NYC but the city is always willing to make improvements. The people of Tulsa frown on new things and only want to help expand things like churches. They don't want it to become a modern city at all. They would prefer less things to do over more.

Mr. K When was the last time you were in Tulsa 1981. YOU CRAZY!!!!!!