That's great for us. New residents.

Or for Edmond, or wherever they live..

For you guys sure, but in the Tulsa area we can't really continue to bleed good middle class and upper middle class jobs :(

There's also the possibility that, at least in the short term, many of the transfer'ees could commute to the city but still live in tulsa. They could 'easily' purchase an apartment or condo downtown and stay during the week, but go home for the weekend. There's even some who might even drive or bus daily back and forth for what I would assume to be a very short time.

Anyways, sorry it had to happen but I am glad SandRidge and OKC is growing. Maybe we can get some of that Tulsa spirit and change some of OKC for the better. Again, OKC is good at building big boulders, but we need more small pebbles that Tulsa is good at - which will make OKC a much more attractive and competitive city.

I mean, really - as Artist on TulsaNow put it; OKC should have always been ahead since it is much larger. This is no offense to Tulsa, it is just a realism that OKC had started to realize only 15 years ago.

This is a rational approach to comparison, and I appreciate someone saying something other than, "OMG OKC > Tulsa no contest."

Just like urbanism is without a doubt OKC's biggest issue right now, I think you correctly identified Tulsa's big issue..jobs. Economy. More practical things, things OKC isn't worrying about right now.

Tulsa is steadily hemorrhaging major corporations, one by one. And it's been a really bad last two months up in T-Town. They lost Arena Energy (bought by SandRidge, 500 jobs moving to OKC), HBSC Accounting or whatever (500 jobs lost) and TPD laid off a thousand officers..one of the hardest police layoffs in the country. Look at it in the grander scheme of Downtown Tulsa.. downsizing at IBM, WilTel, Williams, losing Parker, SemGroup going bankrupt, and elsewhere in the Tulsa metro.. Great Plains Airlines going bankrupt, Whirlpool leaving, WorldCom going bankrupt, CITGO leaving..I could go on and on. It's been bad.

But somehow it hasn't been that bad. Overall in January, OKC added 6,000 new jobs remarkably. Top category: Government. Does Tulsa get any government jobs? Of course not, one in almost four (over five) jobs in OKC is government..nowhere near that in Tulsa. However while Tulsa added 6,000 jobs, Tulsa added 2,000--more modest, but it is ALL private jobs in small companies that can grow. Also Tulsa sustained 2-3 years at the beginning of the decade with population loss, but has since backed back and currently Tulsa's population is at 399,000...so it will probably finally go over 400,000 in the 2010 census. The difference though is all of Tulsa's ankle-biting suburbs which are also Oklahoma's 3 fastest-growing cities..Bixby, Jenks, and Owasso, and Jenks has everyone in Oklahoma in its dust in terms of retail development. Broken Arrow is also newly Oklahoma's 3rd largest city, recently eclipsing Norman, and Lawton a few years ago.

So Tulsa isn't "loosing jobs" it's just not adding any high-profile companies, and those high-profile companies are absolutely essential to building community support for downtown. I think for Tulsans, seeing all of the corporations leave left and right, has played a huge role in somewhat turning Tulsans against downtown. What's interesting is how in Tulsa private benefactors, like the Hamm family, Kaiser family, etc etc..keep supporting the local causes, like the river, the ballpark, the arts, etc.

In fact Tulsa has these some sort of resemblances to France, in my opinion, in this way. It's remarkable how Tulsa can basically not "create" economic wealth, not add innovative jobs at the same pace as the competition, and basically be economically stagnant and still retain and even continue to enhance its aesthetic and cultural edge. Why is Tulsa continuing to clean up its inner city, now focusing on the downtown, and still maintaining its excellence elsewhere in the inner city? Simply because that's the way it's always been. Just like how France is economically stagnant and still somehow maintains its high standard of living and cultural "superiority," Tulsa in my opinion is similar in this regard..so they're still a trendsetter culturally and aesthetically even if they're definitely not a trendsetter economically. Economics is Tulsa's shortfall, even if they have a significantly higher average income than OKC (and slightly lower cost of living, actually).

If i were from tulsa, I would not want to be compared with france. That is degrading.

a HUGE mistake on OKC's part. ....

I totally disagree. This was the most farsighted thing that has ever occured to protect Oklahoma City's future.

how, by letting statistics prevent OKC from ever hosting any big league retail?

tell us of your infinate wisdom lj, just how OKC has benefitted from the annexation of 300 square miles of absolutely nothing......

how, by letting statistics prevent OKC from ever hosting any big league retail?

tell us of your infinate wisdom lj, just how OKC has benefitted from the annexation of 300 square miles of absolutely nothing......

Lol, in my infinite wisdom, it has benefitted OKC by preventing all of it's suburb's from surrounding it and taking all of it's future tax base. I've already had this argument previously with Kerry. You're only looking at short term gains not for the future.

what suburbs have ever encroached on OKC's taxbase? What retail corridors have established at the boundaries of any suburbs in the OKC metro area?

Looks to me that all of the retail is already inside of OKC and not in the rural areas that were wrecklessly annexed.

The ONLY area I agree with you somewhat is the Edmond corridor along Memorial, but then again - it is difficult to say that if OKC didn't annex it whether it would be as successful.

And I also point out, where are the high end stores if this land grab was such a success? Wouldn't it have been better idea to have a dense center and have the tax base there?

what suburbs have ever encroached on OKC's taxbase? What retail corridors have established at the boundaries of any suburbs in the OKC metro area?

Looks to me that all of the retail is already inside of OKC and not in the rural areas that were wrecklessly annexed.

The ONLY area I agree with you somewhat is the Edmond corridor along Memorial, but then again - it is difficult to say that if OKC didn't annex it whether it would be as successful.

And I also point out, where are the high end stores if this land grab was such a success? Wouldn't it have been better idea to have a dense center and have the tax base there?

Hotrod, again you're only looking at the short term. Where will OKC be in 50 years without it's land area. Just look at all of the retail being developed now in Moore. Do you think the suburbs won't take over deannexed areas eventually and develop them. Who will get the tax benefits then?

Lol, in my infinite wisdom, it has benefitted OKC by preventing all of it's suburb's from surrounding it and taking all of it's future tax base. I've already had this argument previously with Kerry. You're only looking at short term gains not for the future.

I am gonna agree with the annexation moves for two reasons. 1. Sales Tax 2. Water. In 50 years water will be huge and OKC will have plenty. As far as sales tax look no further than up the Turner Turnpike to see why this is such a good idea. Yes we might miss out on some stores, but I'll take being able to fund city services any day. In the last 10 years Tulsa has gone from representing 84% of metro sales tax to 60%. That explains why they had to lay off over 100 officers. In ten years it will only get worse for Tulsa as all the raw land was used up. While many will preach density, honestly in OK when land is cheap, it will take really expensive gas for that to happen. People just love their stink weed patches too much.

I am gonna agree with the annexation moves for two reasons. 1. Sales Tax 2. Water. In 50 years water will be huge and OKC will have plenty. As far as sales tax look no further than up the Turner Turnpike to see why this is such a good idea. Yes we might miss out on some stores, but I'll take being able to fund city services any day. In the last 10 years Tulsa has gone from representing 84% of metro sales tax to 60%. That explains why they had to lay off over 100 officers. In ten years it will only get worse for Tulsa as all the raw land was used up. While many will preach density, honestly in OK when land is cheap, it will take really expensive gas for that to happen. People just love their stink weed patches too much.

Exactly, Nick. As in my previous discussions with Kerry, I contend that dexannextion will do nothing to help realistic density in OKC. It only means that the suburbs will control suburban sprawl instead of OKC.

annexation has encouraged sprawl.

look at what Quail Springs has done to OKC. OKC had to spend millions/billions to get infrastructure to that area. And look at what followed - housing. Instead of focusing on the inner core of the city - developers said "oh wait, it is still in OKC" and the city sat on their butts because "well, we have plenty of land."

I agree, we can't split off the Quail area now, it is part of OKC's urban area. And we also can't split off the Edmond and Moore/Norman lines, again - that is OKC's urban area.

But, is having 200+ square miles of rural impacting OKC's tax base? I argue, it is negatively impacting.

And Nick, again - what sales tax does a city collect from houses/rooftops? OKC's revenue comes from sales tax (mostly) that is assessed on goods and services inside it's city limits. I argue that very little of this comes from the far suburban and rural areas (some 200+ square miles) because there is NO retail in those areas.

So, again - how does deannexing that reduce OKC's tax base?

And to salivate jl, I agree that we need to have future growth. But we can follow models of other cities (like Dallas) and reinvest in our inner core. The suburbs might grow but they will still come pouring into the city to shop.

And again - Tulsa's mistake was they failed to reinvest in their infrastructure. OKC had also been making the same mistake - as the inner city was crumbling while all investment went to the fringe.

Only recently has this begun to change, and it has taken a host of 'special' taxes to get SOME of the inner core infrastructure back.

I agree, damage has been done and there are some areas we definitely need to keep. But I dont think we will lose anyting with a 200 square mile reduction and the implementation of a water district that ACOG regional government manages (the city of OKC doesn't need to do it anymore, we're metropolitan enough and would get more money by having a regional authority do it).

Hot Rod - you may not agree, but I'll offer a different point of view for the sake of argument on the de-annexation front.

One could argue that keeping the large footprint for the city will help ensure that the city will have a better tax base for longer. The more room there is, the longer it will take to fill it in. Tulsa isn't really a good comparison, but it does have some of the problems starting. Think of a larger city....the core would be the smaller footprint city, while the burbs are where the tax dollars flow. The inner core starts to deteriorate and loses value...tax dollars start going down. While the burbs continue to grow and the tax dollars flow like a river.

Keeping this large footprint will ensure that won't happen any time soon. Think about in the last 30 years, how much has developed (whether it's sprawl or not)....if it wasn't in the limits of OKC, it would have been some other city and those tax dollars because who knows what burb would have formed there....it wouldnt have stayed county, thats for sure. So OKC did have to spend a hefty amount to get the land ready, but it's also reaping the benefits.

MAPS is what helped bring downtown back from the depths of crapness. No one went down there because there wasn't anything to do...the flight had started 20 years before MAPS. But that's all changed now. You'll find as many people complaining about all the attention being focussed downtown as there was in the past about the fringes. Yes, it's a lot to manage, but I think it will be better for the city in the end.

---------
I do agree that things need to be divided up in terms of management though. If not to a county type system, at least so that the tax dollars get spent proportionally to the population of a sector. That may be a bad idea too, but hey, we have to start somewhere. A huge improvement would be for the next MAPS...repave the major streets all across the city. Fix those freaking pot hole rides!

I still am not getting the logic for you supporters of expanded OKC city limits. If large undeveloped tacks of land are the answer then why isn’t OKC City Hall swimming in money?

What happens in 50 years when OKC is built out?

50 yrs. LOL. More like 150 years.

Annexation wouldn't have been such a bad thing if it would have included strict or at least moderate development controls from the outset.

Annexation wouldn't have been such a bad thing if it would have included strict or at least moderate development controls from the outset.
What that can also do is create artificial inflation in housing prices so people move out to the areas outside the city limits and their controlling of the marketplace. Which pushes sprawl even further out, we have had some of that here in Austin even though we have plenty of land in the city limits to the east of I-35. In many cases they moved out to the smaller cities because they didn't have the same hurdles as the CoA itself on development. When cities grew in the 70's it was suburban in nature, that was due to land costs in many cases and a general abandonment of the core. Many of the property owners priced the core out of market for most people/businesses and a big cause of why people moved out. So it made sense for OKC to annex all that land in attempt to grow the city.

There is no "right" answer, sprawl is going to happen no matter how you try to control it because some are going to move out further because of cost, schools (or perception of), and most restrictions on controlling sprawl generally backfire.

The complication is that if you don't annex, someone else incorporates and either creates a parasitic suburb of your city, or, as in the case of Midwest City, directly steals the benefit of your city's economic development efforts. I guess that's still parasitic, though I'm not villifying MWC or W.P. Atkinson. The "stealing" I'm referring to is past-tense anyway.

MWC actually is what caused the OKC annexation spree. Bill Atkinson bought land speculatively during the OKC Chamber-driven effort to turn the Douglas Aircraft factory field into what is now Tinker. The Chamber succeeded in the effort, but much of the economic benefit was realized outside of the corporate limits of OKC. Basically, annexation was a "never again" response that had massive unintended consequences.

So you're right; there is unfortunately no "right" answer, unless you are a city that has immovable natural boundaries provided by things like mountains or massive bodies of water. Portland Oregon is an example of how natural barriers to development can bolster efforts to choke down on sprawl through no-build zoning. Unfortunately our closest natural development barriers are mostly a day's drive away. Hence, Sprawlville.

Portland is also a pretty expensive place to live due to those restrictions on development and somewhat creating an inflationary bubble for housing. Sure those who already own property love it because it inflates the existing home stock value while those trying to buy a home may despise it. There needs to be a good balance between the two extremes.

I think one potential "fix" can create a multitude of problems the other way, in pretty much every direction.

Here's an interesting blog post about sprawl.
Mother Jones - Zoning and Sprawl (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/zoning-and-sprawl)

I am gonna agree with the annexation moves for two reasons. 1. Sales Tax 2. Water. In 50 years water will be huge and OKC will have plenty. As far as sales tax look no further than up the Turner Turnpike to see why this is such a good idea. Yes we might miss out on some stores, but I'll take being able to fund city services any day. In the last 10 years Tulsa has gone from representing 84% of metro sales tax to 60%. That explains why they had to lay off over 100 officers. In ten years it will only get worse for Tulsa as all the raw land was used up. While many will preach density, honestly in OK when land is cheap, it will take really expensive gas for that to happen. People just love their stink weed patches too much.

Because Tulsa has gone from 84% to 60% you think that offers proof that annexation was right.. but consider this, OKC is worse off on the retail front than Tulsa. At least Tulsans buy all their clothes in Tulsa. People living in OKC only buy 52% of their clothing purchases in OKC city limits. That's much lower than 60%, by the way.. and clothing is your main retail subdivision. Of course Tulsa is going to have a disproportionally larger percentage of office supply purchases, art purchases, event purchases, etc..

Because Tulsa has gone from 84% to 60% you think that offers proof that annexation was right.. but consider this, OKC is worse off on the retail front than Tulsa. At least Tulsans buy all their clothes in Tulsa. People living in OKC only buy 52% of their clothing purchases in OKC city limits. That's much lower than 60%, by the way.. and clothing is your main retail subdivision. Of course Tulsa is going to have a disproportionally larger percentage of office supply purchases, art purchases, event purchases, etc..

If this is the case why does Tulsa's financial situation seem to be worse? Is there a scientific pole giving this information? I have never in my life found it necessary to go outside of OKC to buy clothes. There may be a small segment of upscale shoppers who do so for prestige reasons but that is really insignificant to the big picture. The shoppers who buy clothes at Walmart make a much larger impact on the economy than any who might go to Neiman's.

If this is the case why does Tulsa's financial situation seem to be worse? Is there a scientific pole giving this information? I have never in my life found it necessary to go outside of OKC to buy clothes. There may be a small segment of upscale shoppers who do so for prestige reasons but that is really insignificant to the big picture. The shoppers who buy clothes at Walmart make a much larger impact on the economy than any who might go to Neiman's.

Well have fun shopping at Wal-Mart then, and yeah, you just lost any credibility on an OKC/Tulsa reference..

Well have fun shopping at Wal-Mart then, and yeah, you just lost any credibility on an OKC/Tulsa reference..

Spartan, I have never bought clothes at Walmart but I still contend that those who do are much more important to Oklahoma City's economy than the Neiman shoppers. I am a professional business man who buys my business dress clothes and leisure wear in OKC and have never gone anywhere else because I didn't need to. In fact, I have sometimes used a local business to have tailor made business suits. You're sounding like an elitist who isn't in touch with 95% of the population of OKC. I'm not saying there isn't a market for more upscale stores, just that it isn't the major problem that you're making it out to be.

If I'm out of touch with 95% of OKC, does that put me in touch with 95% of people that WOULD come to OKC if we improved?

Just wondering. And I'm not trying to belittle anyone or sound elitist, but I simply have to scoff that the Wal-Mart shopper is relevant AT ALL to the local economy. Simply a fallacy.

WOW

"...I simply have to scoff that the Wal-Mart shopper is relevant AT ALL to the local economy. Simply a fallacy."

When you put all of those Wal-Mart shoppers together are they still not relevant? If every Wal-Mart in the metro area were to suddenly vanish, it wouldn't be a good thing for sales tax revenues. Just ask any of the smaller communities what happened to their sales tax revenues when a Wal-Mart comes or goes. Have read many a news story in the Oklahoman over the years where some official was quoted to explain the sharp increase or drop in revenue (from year ago) and not uncommon for them to mention that a Wal-Mart had come or gone.

Then there is the factor Wal-Mart has on development. Time after time, when a Wal-Mart goes in the development around it increases exponentially. Take the Memorial/Penn location. While somewhat developed with Quail Springs mall, development really increased with all of the other retail that sprang up around it. Even caused Target to build a new Super Target. Oddly Target insists they aren't in competition with Wal-Mart. Hah!

If every Wal-Mart in the metro suddenly vanished it would be the best thing ever for the city's retail offerings. I understand that for a dinky town to get a Wal-Mart is a big deal, and that's great for all the little ankle-biting suburbs. When you buy furniture at Wal-Mart as opposed to Bruno's or even Mathis Bros., you're not doing the community any good. When you buy clothes at Wal-Mart instead of at one of OKC's like..5 locally-owned clothing stores that are decent, you're not doing the community any good. And so on.

You're debating from a sales tax revenue standpoint. Unfortunately a lot of cities are so shortsighted that's all they're going to look at. Wal-Mart has been proven to absolutely decimate locally owned businesses, which reinvest 65% on average of their profits back into the community. Chains reinvest 35% on average of profits back into the community and Wal-Mart is much, much lower than that. Plus there's the jobs..locally-owned businesses are decent jobs for some people, chains simply aren't unless you're the main manager or you oversee like 5 Wal-Marts.

I would have almost thought that the economic disadvantages of Wal-Mart didn't even require mentioning..sorry if I've continued to explain it badly. You can probably good a google search for Wal-Mart and local economy and get much better explanations than that. I just sort of take it for granted that everyone realizes how bad Wal-Mart is.

Well said Spartan, well said.


"Unfortunately a lot of cities are so shortsighted that's all they're going to look at. Wal-Mart has been proven to absolutely decimate locally owned businesses, which reinvest 65% on average of their profits back into the community. Chains reinvest 35% on average of profits back into the community and Wal-Mart is much, much lower than that."

Hey! I love Wal Mart!!!!!!!!! it is fun to go and people watch there!

Spartan, you and ljbab were talking about Walmart shoppers and their effect on the economy...if that doesn't relate to sales tax revenue, my apologies for misreading.

No--it's a really valid point you brought up, Larry. I'm not quite sure what ljbab meant, and I'm not sure he knew what I meant--I clarified my point, I hope he'll do so as well.

No--it's a really valid point you brought up, Larry. I'm not quite sure what ljbab meant, and I'm not sure he knew what I meant--I clarified my point, I hope he'll do so as well.

I'm saying that while of course there is a market for upscale shopping in OKC, I think that the economic impact from those kind of shoppers going out of the area is really insignificant compared to the average OKC shoppers who may use Walmart, or Dillards, or Macys and, as I do, see no need to go elsewhere. I'm not an advocate for Walmart as opposed to local businesses. I'm just talking about the population demographics who shop there. If you were trying to make a point that trying to attract more high profile businesses to relocate to OKC could be affected by the kind of shopping available, I would be more open to that argument.

Ljbab, not everyone is as plain as you are. Believe it or not there is actually a huge demographic in OKC that supports out-of-town stores, and would support such stores in OKC. Believe it or not, yes, OKC really DOES need these stores...

Ljbab, not everyone is as plain as you are. Believe it or not there is actually a huge demographic in OKC that supports out-of-town stores, and would support such stores in OKC. Believe it or not, yes, OKC really DOES need these stores...

Spartan, I'm not sure what you mean about "plain" and I'm not arguing against having more upscale stores at all. I'd like to know what you define as a "huge demographic" and where you get that information? I still don't know anyone personally who goes out of OKC specifically to buy things but I'm sure that many would like more diverse shopping opportunites here. I'm also sure that some people do shop out of town but I contend it's not the significant problem that you make it to be.

It is more significant of a problem than I am making it out to be because it's part of OKC's identity crisis, plain and simple. This is what you don't realize. Every city NEEDS a "healthy" supply of snobs and high-end UNIQUE businesses. These are the kinds of things that give a city its identity, even if its identity is not high-end. Believe it or not .. Austin's "local" places like Book People, etc--all very high-end today, but still have that "cool, hip" image--somehow. Graffiti furniture is incredibly popular in places like Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, DC, etc. Native American stuff available in Oklahoma is kitschy crap for the most part, but in Taos and Santa Fe it's very good. You need the support of a certain demographic for image sake, and the demographic that can't buy furniture at Crate & Barrel or clothes at Sak's, Urban Outfitters, etc -- there's still Wal-Mart and Quail Springs, for now.

You're not building a unique local image with more Wal-Marts than any place has a right to have, EVEN if we all know that's where most people do their shopping.

It is more significant of a problem than I am making it out to be because it's part of OKC's identity crisis, plain and simple. This is what you don't realize. Every city NEEDS a "healthy" supply of snobs and high-end UNIQUE businesses. These are the kinds of things that give a city its identity, even if its identity is not high-end. Believe it or not .. Austin's "local" places like Book People, etc--all very high-end today, but still have that "cool, hip" image--somehow. Graffiti furniture is incredibly popular in places like Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, DC, etc. Native American stuff available in Oklahoma is kitschy crap for the most part, but in Taos and Santa Fe it's very good. You need the support of a certain demographic for image sake, and the demographic that can't buy furniture at Crate & Barrel or clothes at Sak's, Urban Outfitters, etc -- there's still Wal-Mart and Quail Springs, for now.

You're not building a unique local image with more Wal-Marts than any place has a right to have, EVEN if we all know that's where most people do their shopping.

As I said, I'm all in favor of having more high end, unique shopping experiences for OKC and if you're talking about using that to attract businesses or employees from out of state here, I won't argue. I just don't think it's currently a major impact on our economy for a few people to go out of the area to go shopping.

I just don't think it's currently a major impact on our economy for a few people to go out of the area to go shopping.

I don't think you're in the demographic of people that do that.

There are a TON of people in the 18-30 age group that buy clothes and furniture when they go to Dallas or they get it online from places that we don't have here. It's more than you think.

Hey! I love Wal Mart!!!!!!!!! it is fun to go and people watch there!

Kinda like going to the zoo.

Because Tulsa has gone from 84% to 60% you think that offers proof that annexation was right.. but consider this, OKC is worse off on the retail front than Tulsa. At least Tulsans buy all their clothes in Tulsa. People living in OKC only buy 52% of their clothing purchases in OKC city limits.

Do you have a source for your statements that "Tulsans buy all their clothes in Tulsa." or "People living in OKC only buy 52% of their clothing purchases in OKC city limits"??

FWIW, I guarantee you do not have a reliable source for the first statement, having been a Tulsan for some 11+ years and knowing of a lot of Tulsans who buy a lot of their clothing outside of Tulsa.

Do you have a source for your statements that "Tulsans buy all their clothes in Tulsa." or "People living in OKC only buy 52% of their clothing purchases in OKC city limits"??

FWIW, I guarantee you do not have a reliable source for the first statement, having been a Tulsan for some 11+ years and knowing of a lot of Tulsans who buy a lot of their clothing outside of Tulsa.

I would say more people in Tulsa buy upscale items in Tulsa because Dallas and Kansas City are both 4 hours away, while OKC has Dallas just over 2 1/2 hours to the south. It is easier to get to Dallas from OKC than it is from Tulsa. Also remember Tulsa draws some customers from the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers-Bentonville metro of nearly 500,000 in NW Arkansas which is just 2 hours to the east. Lots of money in that area that may occasionally shop in Tulsa.

I don't think you're in the demographic of people that do that.

There are a TON of people in the 18-30 age group that buy clothes and furniture when they go to Dallas or they get it online from places that we don't have here. It's more than you think.

What is a TON? 50 people? 1000? How is that defined or measured? Are there any reliable market surveys? I still contend that it isn't a signficant economic problem for OKC. I'm not in the 18 - 30 age group now but when I was I still never saw any reason to shop outside of OKC. I know that when people go to Dallas shopping is a favorite activity but it's usually just a sideline and not the main reason for going. That's true for most people who live anywhere and traveling out of their area. I'm sure that people who live in Dallas love to shop in New York City and people who live in New York City love to shop in Paris.

What is a TON? 50 people? 1000? How is that defined or measured? Are there any reliable market surveys? I still contend that it isn't a signficant economic problem for OKC. I'm not in the 18 - 30 age group now but when I was I still never saw any reason to shop outside of OKC. I know that when people go to Dallas shopping is a favorite activity but it's usually just a sideline and not the main reason for going. That's true for most people who live anywhere and traveling out of their area. I'm sure that people who live in Dallas love to shop in New York City and people who live in New York City love to shop in Paris.

I believe the chamber's study was succinct and declarative that this is a problem for OKC. How is it you don't seem to understand the importance of OKC keeping the sales tax receipts here instead of sending them to Dallas by offering its citizens a wider array of options?

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? This really is a losing debate for you.

I believe the chamber's study was succinct and declarative that this is a problem for OKC. How is it you don't seem to understand the importance of OKC keeping the sales tax receipts here instead of sending them to Dallas by offering its citizens a wider array of options?

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? This really is a losing debate for you.

Sooner, of course keeping sales taxes is important and I keep telling you I'm not arguing against having more upscale shopping in OKC. This is a problem for every city everywhere, not just OKC. No city is going to prevent it's citizens from shopping elsewhere no matter what they do. Can Dallas offer everything that New York offers or can New York offer everything that London or Paris offers? You are never going to get 100 percent of the tax dollars. I still contend that having a few of the upscale stores that people are desiring will be insignificant in OKC's tax receipts even if it would be nice to have.

I know that when people go to Dallas shopping is a favorite activity but it's usually just a sideline and not the main reason for going.

I guess we know different people. I'm a college student and I know a lot of people who take day trips to Dallas specifically and solely to shop- usually for clothing or furniture. I'd bet that a majority of people I know in my age group have purchased an article of clothing in Dallas at stores that we do not have in Oklahoma City.

I understand that many people don't feel the need for items that can't be found in OKC, and that's fine, but there are also many people who would appreciate the availability of nicer groceries and more options for fashionable clothing. Don't know what the numbers for economic impact on the city are, but we're probably losing a significant chunk of sales tax revenue when people buy expensive items online or in Dallas.

...Don't know what the numbers for economic impact on the city are, but we're probably losing a significant chunk of sales tax revenue when people buy expensive items online or in Dallas.

It depends if the items purchased online are charged sales tax or not (if the seller has a physical presence in the state, they are supposed to be collecting OK sales tax and the appropriate City sales tax. If that money is not being collected by the Seller (and the other State isn't collecting their own sales tax on the items), it falls under the category of the Use Tax and is supposed to be reported on your OK income tax form. If you don't have your receipts, the State as a formula you can use that works out to be a certain percentage of your income. Or you can check that you didn't buy anything out of state that might be subject to the Use Tax.

I have many family members and friends that live out of state (Minneapolis, New York, Denver, D.C., and Chicago) and whenever they visit Okc they rarely want to shop here. In fact more than one occasion we have driven to Dallas strictly for
shopping day trips.

I have the opinion like others being Okc does have the market but we do not have an upscale area that retailers want.

Just like real estate, location, location, location. If a developer would build it they (upscale retailers) would come.

We have the people here, we have the shoppers
with the money, and we have the market. We don't have a venue that could provide what upscale retailers are looking for. Tulsa has it Okc doesn't.

Sooner, of course keeping sales taxes is important and I keep telling you I'm not arguing against having more upscale shopping in OKC. This is a problem for every city everywhere, not just OKC. No city is going to prevent it's citizens from shopping elsewhere no matter what they do. Can Dallas offer everything that New York offers or can New York offer everything that London or Paris offers? You are never going to get 100 percent of the tax dollars. I still contend that having a few of the upscale stores that people are desiring will be insignificant in OKC's tax receipts even if it would be nice to have.

Gotcha. I must have read you wrong. I don't think anyone believes we'll keep 100% of the tax dollars here. Surely we can diversify and improve our retail offerings, though.

we dont have the location - YET.

Look for the new boulevard downtown to be the location of OKC's premier shopping district.

we dont have the location - YET.

Look for the new boulevard downtown to be the location of OKC's premier shopping district.

I know that is the Mayors hope but the ULI folks said that is unlikely to happen. IIRC correctly, they said that to get a major retailer to locate here it would require a taxpayer subsidy in the $40M range(?) Will have to go back and review the tape to verify.

Dillards and Target are the only large retailers in Midtown Atlanta and St Johns Johns Town Center here is Jax (home to dozens of high end retail stores) is anchored by Taget and Dillards. A nice Dillards and Target in downtown OKC would do well as anchors. To save space the Target in midtown Atlanta is built over its parking lot. It's nice in the summer because every parking space is in the shade.

I guess we know different people. I'm a college student and I know a lot of people who take day trips to Dallas specifically and solely to shop- usually for clothing or furniture. I'd bet that a majority of people I know in my age group have purchased an article of clothing in Dallas at stores that we do not have in Oklahoma City.

I understand that many people don't feel the need for items that can't be found in OKC, and that's fine, but there are also many people who would appreciate the availability of nicer groceries and more options for fashionable clothing. Don't know what the numbers for economic impact on the city are, but we're probably losing a significant chunk of sales tax revenue when people buy expensive items online or in Dallas.

Yes, I guess we do know different people. I was in college at OU and never remember anyone in my fraternity or anywhere else that went to Dallas just to go shopping.

I have many family members and friends that live out of state (Minneapolis, New York, Denver, D.C., and Chicago) and whenever they visit Okc they rarely want to shop here. In fact more than one occasion we have driven to Dallas strictly for shopping day trips.


People visiting from New York or Chicago find it necessary to go to Dallas to go shopping? lol. Dallas must have much better shopping than anything I'm familiar with if they can't find it at home.

People visiting from New York or Chicago find it necessary to go to Dallas to go shopping? lol. Dallas must have much better shopping than anything I'm familiar with if they can't find it at home.

I think it is more of a commentary on how bad the shopping choices are in OKC.

I think it is more of a commentary on how bad the shopping choices are in OKC.

I'm sure that's what the commentary was meant to be, but in reality people from New York or Chicago aren't going to come to OKC or Dallas to go shopping unless they're just looking for some kind of souvenirs or momentoes to buy, so using that to make a point isn't the best example.

I'm young and I know a lot of my friends and their parents shop in Dallas for more upscale apparel and furniture. Frequently too. I also have driven to Dallas with friends numerous times just to shop.

I don't know what to tell you ljbab728. My sister-in-law lives in Chicago and when she comes to visit she used to go Orlando (when staying with us) or to Palm Beach (if she stayed with her parents) to do her vacation shopping. Now with St John's Town Center she doesn't have to leave Jax.

Women operate differently than men. Everything I need/want is at Lowes and Best Buy. I don't need anything else. I can go to one shoe store and find ten pairs of shoes I like. My wife can go to ten shoe stores and not find one pair.

I'm young and I know a lot of my friends and their parents shop in Dallas for more upscale apparel and furniture. Frequently too. I also have driven to Dallas with friends numerous times just to shop.

I'm sure there are many things that can be found in Dallas that we can't get here, but I'm convinced that many people just think it's "chic" to shop in Dallas and go home to brag about it. They go there more for an weekend outing with shopping as an excuse.

My wife and I spend the weekend in Dallas every 6 months, primarily to shop at IKEA.

Same here, as well as a few clothing stores that OKC doesn't have.

My wife and I spend the weekend in Dallas every 6 months, primarily to shop at IKEA.

ljbab728 is no longer debating that people go to Dallas to shop. His last post seems to conceed that point. However, he thinks you only do it to brag about it. I guess his point is that if OKC had all the stores you go to Dallas for, you would still go to Dallas so you can brag.

I'm sure there are many things that can be found in Dallas that we can't get here, but I'm convinced that many people just think it's "chic" to shop in Dallas and go home to brag about it. They go there more for an weekend outing with shopping as an excuse.

It's really great that you can divine the intentions of hundreds of thousands of people who leave our state to go shopping.

who needs to go to dallas when you can shop online :bright_id