This is always going to be a disadvantage of OKC just like New Orleans is always going to have that ever-present risk of being drowned in another Katrina. Central Oklahoma is ground zero for tornado alley and while DFW still does get tornadoes and severe weather, it's typically not as bad down there as it is up here. Their winters are also quite a bit milder than OKC's. It's amazing the difference 200 miles south makes.



But that is an Oklahoma problem. Other states can get roads and interchanges built much faster it seems like. From what I understand, it has to do with the way ODOT is funded and once again that goes back to the state legislature.



Elimination of SQ 640, increased teacher pay, school consolidation, increased higher education funding, allowing ODOT to take on debt to get projects done in a more timely manner, a GPT hike, and a public smoking ban is where I would start. I would also loosen the petition requirements to make it easier to get petition initiatives on the ballot. Candidates aren't talking about any of this. Instead, they are pushing the same old tired right-wing ideology responsible for getting the state into the mess it's currently in. "Cut spending, lower taxes" sounds good to the low-information conservative voter but there's only so far you can go before you start "cutting into the bone" so to speak.

By "candidates" I assume you only mean hard-right conservatives that it seems you think are the only candidates that exist? We have plenty of good candidates running this time around, many of whom are talking about these exact issues and are finding strong support.

No one is choosing Dallas for its weather. Same for Houston and San Antonio. We had a huge corporate presence in both Dallas and Houston, and the absolute consistent view was the weather was miserable in both places. OKC's weather is only incrementally worse than Dallas's, and probably better than Houston's. Most people at work would take Dallas's weather over Houston's when faced with a transfer.

I realize everything is anecdotal, but is there really a huge percentage of the working age population that makes life-changing relocation decisions based on the weather? The group that does that in large numbers are 70 year old retirees that are moving from places like Michigan and Minnesota to places like Florida and Arizona. As much as I respect old people, that's not really an economic development argument. Besides, weather preferences are subjective. I have a friend in Connecticut that misses the thunderstorms in the midwest so much that she posts about it on Facebook almost daily.

How does population grow? It's "births over deaths" and it's "internal over external migration."

As for "births over deaths" that comes from having a younger-than-average population and also from attracting international immigrants since they tend to be younger and have more children.

As for domestic migration, that is largely a function of the employment situation. Quality jobs. However, it's not as simple as it might seem. St. Louis has 10 Fortune 500 companies, 19 Fortune 1000 companies, and dozens of huge private companies, all in wildly divergent industries, and the population here is the very definition of stagnant. I've come to the conclusion that job growth has to be organic, it has to be entrepreneurial and it has to come in a climate of innovation. Lots of small, breakout companies in lots of different types of fields. I'm afraid oil and gas will be largely done by mid-century.

So the conversation has to be around these topics. What is it that OKC can do with respect to skilled international and domestic migration? That's within the city's control. The city can't control the weather and sadly, it can't control the mentality of the rural 70 counties of the state.

Of course, by "internal over external migration" I meant "inbound over outbound migration." Sorry. I hope you caught my drift, though.

I'm not saying they made a decision based on the weather. I'm saying that the weather in Dallas and Houston was not perceived as a particular plus by anyone. When determining why Dallas and Houston are growing, great weather is just not a factor, nor do I believe that weather plays much of a factor in decisions to relocate a business to Dallas over OKC.

Oddly, I found this on the web, reportedly from US News and World Reports. https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/slideshows/the-20-best-places-to-live-in-the-us-for-the-weather?slide=16

That's my point. Tom Brady began with two feet and a full set of teeth and two arms. He worked hard to be the best, but he began just like everyone else.

San Diego and SF have great harbors for shipping and near perfect weather. Miami has unparalleled beaches and warm winters. Charlotte sits in a beautiful area, not overly far from major populations and has mild winters for retirees. They are blessed with natural features that can partly explain why they are so popular. Dallas and OKC are very similar geographically and weather-wise. No one is choosing Dallas for its climate or to revel in its oceans or mountains. Yet for some reason it explodes with growth compared to OKC.

Likewise, it is not the politics of the region. OKC may be more conservative than Dallas, but OKC is up there with Mesa, AZ, Anaheim, and Arlington, TX. Regions that are expanding or have expanded in the past at rates more comparable to Dallas. So it's not the politics that drive growth.

The point of this line of discussion is what keeps OKC from growing faster, and IMO, it's not due to geography, weather, or politics.

Not every place becomes a huge metropolitan area because of beauty or landscapes. Atlanta isn’t Atlanta because of oceans or mountains.

Oceans, mountains, hills, etc are all cherries in top of the sundae. They’re things that help and enhance the QOL in that city or metro.

But again, it was the putting in place, years ago, policies and industries that fostered growth and making sure its airport was a hub that helped Dallas grow. Making sure to be the midway Becca for America, the center point for commerce is why Dallas is the mega monster it is.

As for Mesa and Anaheim, Arlington. Those are conservative suburbs of Phoenix, Los Angeles and Dallas respectively. They’re growth is tied almost exclusively to the city they’re attached to and ideology has nothing to do with it. LA, Phoenix and Dallas all being left leaning cities themselves.

Not to get political but I think a significant chunk of this board will be surprised at the primary results and the general in November.

In my district alone the (R) incumbent is facing a primary from a teacher and the Dem side has two teachers running. Changes are coming. There's some white hot anger out there.

No one is choosing Dallas for its weather. Same for Houston and San Antonio. We had a huge corporate presence in both Dallas and Houston, and the absolute consistent view was the weather was miserable in both places. OKC's weather is only incrementally worse than Dallas's, and probably better than Houston's. Most people at work would take Dallas's weather over Houston's when faced with a transfer.

99% of people aren’t afforded the luxury of choosing where to work based on weather. That is such a ridiculous metric to base things on. If given the choose based on weather, a majority are picking LA or San Diego but weather is the last thing anyone cares about. Salary and pay, cost of living, quality of life are much more essential to one’s motives than weather. Weather is a nice perk, or sometimes terrible aspect, that comes with the city you choose.

I found this interesting. It’s a list by U-Haul tracking all the one way arrivals in the country used by their moving service.

Houston was number 1. My hometown of San Antonio was number 5. OKC was number 36.

Here’s the list. (https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/14384/U-Haul-Migration-Trends-Houston-Ranks-As-No-1-Us-Destination/)

Dallas has milder winters, is marginally more green (though I'm not sure how much of this is due to climate or better beatification),

Dallas has an immense population of Live Oak trees. These trees grow large and stay green (retain their leaves) through the winter, which is why they're called "live." Dallas's canopy is incredibly green compared to Oklahoma City's in the winter because of these trees. It's especially apparent in the older parts of Dallas where these trees are everywhere and quite large.

Oklahoma City does have some of these Live Oak trees present, but not to the extent that Dallas does. I'd bet the most numerous collection of these in Oklahoma are in and around Nichols Hills (check out the OKCGCC entrance for example), with the Great Plains Coca Cola bottling plant having some of the largest ones. Oklahoma City is about as far north as Live Oak trees will reliably grow, but I've noticed them in Stillwater and Tulsa too.

There are two types of these trees. The "Texas" or Fusiformis variety of Live Oaks are the hardier type, and their natural range extends into Southwest Oklahoma (around the Quartz Mountains and Wichita Mountains). They get pretty large, though not quite as large as the coastal/southeastern variety (Virginiana) that are much more famous. Dallas is full of both types of Live Oak trees. OKC still has a few Virginiana trees left, but I think there was a big freeze in the '80s that took a lot of them out.

Anyway, this is all to say that OKC could easily have a greener winter canopy if we planted more Live Oak trees. I'm a tree nerd and biased, but these are gorgeous trees. I see them all over the metro, but I don't see them as densely utilized as they are in Dallas or Texas generally. The trendy trees planted right now in new OKC developments are Baldcypress trees and Chinese Pistache, which are both deciduous. I believe they may have planted some Live Oaks outside of the new Street Car facility, probably because there are a couple of older Live Oaks right next to the old Union Depot.

Man, I am not sure why anyone lives in this dump...that is what I get from the last 30 or so posts on here.

99% of people aren’t afforded the luxury of choosing where to work based on weather. That is such a ridiculous metric to base things on. If given the choose based on weather, a majority are picking LA or San Diego but weather is the last thing anyone cares about. Salary and pay, cost of living, quality of life are much more essential to one’s motives than weather. Weather is a nice perk, or sometimes terrible aspect, that comes with the city you choose.

Counter point,

20 million people live in that corridor.

Dallas has an immense population of Live Oak trees. These trees grow large and stay green (retain their leaves) through the winter, which is why they're called "live." Dallas's canopy is incredibly green compared to Oklahoma City's in the winter because of these trees. It's especially apparent in the older parts of Dallas where these trees are everywhere and quite large.

Oklahoma City does have some of these Live Oak trees present, but not to the extent that Dallas does. I'd bet the most numerous collection of these in Oklahoma are in and around Nichols Hills (check out the OKCGCC entrance for example), with the Great Plains Coca Cola bottling plant having some of the largest ones. Oklahoma City is about as far north as Live Oak trees will reliably grow, but I've noticed them in Stillwater and Tulsa too.

There are two types of these trees. The "Texas" or Fusiformis variety of Live Oaks are the hardier type, and their natural range extends into Southwest Oklahoma (around the Quartz Mountains and Wichita Mountains). They get pretty large, though not quite as large as the coastal/southeastern variety (Virginiana) that are much more famous. Dallas is full of both types of Live Oak trees. OKC still has a few Virginiana trees left, but I think there was a big freeze in the '80s that took a lot of them out.

Anyway, this is all to say that OKC could easily have a greener winter canopy if we planted more Live Oak trees. I'm a tree nerd and biased, but these are gorgeous trees. I see them all over the metro, but I don't see them as densely utilized as they are in Dallas or Texas generally. The trendy trees planted right now in new OKC developments are Baldcypress trees and Chinese Pistache, which are both deciduous. I believe they may have planted some Live Oaks outside of the new Street Car facility, probably because there are a couple of older Live Oaks right next to the old Union Depot.

You know what happens to Live Oaks in an ice storm ? There is nothing left. Probably a pretty good reason for them to be more southern.

You know what happens to Live Oaks in an ice storm ? There is nothing left. Probably a pretty good reason for them to be more southern.

Common misconception!

Live Oaks have some of the toughest wood, and the branches tend to do pretty well in ice storms. However, the fact that Live Oaks retain their leaves mean that there is increased surface area for ice to accumulate, so younger trees are more at risk.

I see local pear trees having a much, much tougher time with ice storms than Live Oaks, and are several times as prevalent.

Man, I am not sure why anyone lives in this dump...that is what I get from the last 30 or so posts on here.

A number of us are deeply devoted homebodies at heart. My family and myself never moved more than a county or two further away than where we were born.

A number of us are deeply devoted homebodies at heart. My family and myself never moved more than a county or two further away than where we were born.

Shoot, my family still has our dugout on our settlement in Perry.

A number of us are deeply devoted homebodies at heart. My family and myself never moved more than a county or two further away than where we were born.

Not saying this applies to you but the most close-minded people I've ever met have never left their hometown/county.

Interesting map showing the transient nature of the West and the less-transient nature of the South and Midwest, although states like Georgia and North Carolina are rapidly changing.
http://thebell.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Stuckbeltnation.jpg

Dallas has milder winters, is marginally more green (though I'm not sure how much of this is due to climate or better beatification), and has a lower tornado threat compared to OKC. The big thing there though is the entire DFW metroplex has over twice the population of the entire state of Oklahoma. Dallas proper, in my opinion, feels like another world compared to OKC. It has a very different culture. It's really hard to believe the two places are only three hours apart. On the other hand, parts of the metroplex, particularly on the Ft Worth side, have an more of an OKC feel to them. DFW is naturally going to have significant draw due to its size, still relative low cost of living, and major hub airport.

In regards to Anaheim, Mesa, and Arlington, first of all those are suburbs of major metro areas and not core cities. Edmond and Norman should be compared to those places, not OKC proper. Most suburbs lean conservative compared to their core cities.

Dallas and OKC are pretty dang similar IMO. OKC just smaller. 70s Dallas is where OKC is now pretty much IMO. Seems like Dallas had it's growth spurt starting in the 70s. But 70s Dallas was very similar to where OKC is today but it was still quite a bit larger and then really started to boom.

Dallas and OKC are pretty dang similar IMO. OKC just smaller. 70s Dallas is where OKC is now pretty much IMO. Seems like Dallas had it's growth spurt starting in the 70s. But 70s Dallas was very similar to where OKC is today but it was still quite a bit larger and then really started to boom.

I’m. Not sure what your end point here is?

Are you saying in 50 years, OKC will have a metro population similar to the DFW metroplex? The DFW metro stands at 7.4 million people.

Between 1970 and 1980, Dallas grew by an average of 60,000 people a year. Between 2008 and 2017, OKC grew by an average of 17,000 a year. In order for OKC to hit 7.4 million at a liberal 20,000 a year, it would take 300 years. Let’s get crazy and say OKC will grew by 40,000 a year, that’s 150 years. For shoots and giggles, 80,000 a year? OKC will be as large as Dallas in 40 years.

Are you simply saying OKC is 50 years behind Dallas so comparisons are nonsensical?

I’m genuinly unsure what you were trying to convey?

I’m. Not sure what your end point here is?

Are you saying in 50 years, OKC will have a metro population similar to the DFW metroplex? The DFW metro stands at 7.4 million people.

Between 1970 and 1980, Dallas grew by an average of 60,000 people a year. Between 2008 and 2017, OKC grew by an average of 17,000 a year. In order for OKC to hit 7.4 million at a liberal 20,000 a year, it would take 300 years. Let’s get crazy and say OKC will grew by 40,000 a year, that’s 150 years. For shoots and giggles, 80,000 a year? OKC will be as large as Dallas in 40 years.

Are you simply saying OKC is 50 years behind Dallas so comparisons are nonsensical?

I’m genuinly unsure what you were trying to convey?

Was saying that OKC was very similar to Dallas back in the 70s just smaller,closer to Ft. Worth. Still similar today in some ways but not nearly like it was back then. I doubt OKC ever has a population explosion like that area has.

Not saying this applies to you but the most close-minded people I've ever met have never left their hometown/county.

Interesting map showing the transient nature of the West and the less-transient nature of the South and Midwest, although states like Georgia and North Carolina are rapidly changing.
http://thebell.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Stuckbeltnation.jpg

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. The one that sticks out to me most is Texas. Perhaps just cause my sister and a bunch of her friends moved there, but I felt like most of the people I met when visiting didn't actually grow up there.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. The one that sticks out to me most is Texas. Perhaps just cause my sister and a bunch of her friends moved there, but I felt like most of the people I met when visiting didn't actually grow up there.

Transplants tend to hang with other transplants. The data probably shows something to the effect of Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio have lots of transplants but every other part of Texas is heavily local.

I’m. Not sure what your end point here is?

Are you saying in 50 years, OKC will have a metro population similar to the DFW metroplex? The DFW metro stands at 7.4 million people.

Between 1970 and 1980, Dallas grew by an average of 60,000 people a year. Between 2008 and 2017, OKC grew by an average of 17,000 a year. In order for OKC to hit 7.4 million at a liberal 20,000 a year, it would take 300 years. Let’s get crazy and say OKC will grew by 40,000 a year, that’s 150 years. For shoots and giggles, 80,000 a year? OKC will be as large as Dallas in 40 years.

Are you simply saying OKC is 50 years behind Dallas so comparisons are nonsensical?

I’m genuinly unsure what you were trying to convey?

20,000 a year would be moderate growth for OKC today. Nothing spectacular, but okay. It's a hair higher than what we're averaging right now. But as the city grows, that 20,000 becomes a smaller and smaller percentage. According to Wikipedia, the Dallas metro population was 1.5 million in 1970. That's basically where we are today. Does that mean we're going to experience the same population boom that they have? No. But it does mean that we're very comparable to where Dallas was in the early 70s.

Transplants tend to hang with other transplants. The data probably shows something to the effect of Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio have lots of transplants but every other part of Texas is heavily local.

Exactly. Texas is a big state with a lot of small towns. And my experience is that a lot of Texans never even think about living outside Texas, even the ones that go to college at OU or OSU. I'm originally from Texas but grew up in OK so I don't really identify as "Texan" but I'm also considered a transplant in OK.

As far as what needs to be done to encourage future growth, there are several things. But it all boils down to two strategies.

1) Quit making bad headlines.
2) Make some good stuff and advertise it.

How do we quit making bad headlines?

First, the state Democratic party needs to pull their head out of their ass (and I say this as a Republican). When legislators like Sally Kern can run completely unopposed, it's because your opposition party is utterly incompetent. Hopefully this election will see some actual serious challenges to bad legislators. Any state rep or state senator who proposes a bunch of idiot bills guaranteed to make national headlines needs to draw a well funded opponent in the next election. It's a sad state of affairs where you have to rely on a sex scandal to get rid of somebody like Ralph Shortey.

Second, we need to get off the "bottom 10" lists. When you're 49th in education funding, you get a bunch of negative press. When you're 38th, nobody notices. The numbers I found are a few years out of date (2015), but some back of the napkin math indicates that if we spent another $1000 per student, we'd go from 49th up to about 37th. We have about 700,000 students, so we'd need about $700M for that. That's about a 10% increase to the state budget. This isn't including the increase we've had in the latest budget. We need to do the same thing with mental health funding, and we need to lower incarceration rates. Stop showing up in "worst places for XYZ group" lists.

None of these problems are insurmountable. In many of these lists, there's not that much difference between #50 and #30. Everybody is bunched up together. But it's a beauty contest and nobody cares about the person who talks about how "unfair" or "superficial" everything is. You just really really don't want to be at the bottom.

As far as good things we're doing, the city is making great progress on that. We are a very business-friendly place, and with the MAPS projects and the planned metro area rail system (if it comes to pass), we are adding significant quality of life improvements. We've got a lot of local investors who really believe in this city, and looking at everything that's been happening downtown proves that. This is just going to continue. Compare OKC today to what it was when I was in college, in the late 90s. In 20 years it has become a far more attractive place to live.

We aren't going to boom overnight. But as our downtown districts begin to grow into one another, and they get connected with the streetcar, it's going to appear as though it's a more vibrant, better connected city. When I can go from Bass Pro up to St Anthony, and the whole area is completely developed, it will feel much more like a "real city" to people from around the country. If we can get a MAPS 4 that is as ambitious and game-changing as MAPS 3, we'll be poised for big things. Then the city just needs to market the hell out of that.

Do all this, we won't have any problem attracting new people to the state.

Trying to be Dallas is a fool's errand. Even most larger American cities cannot be Dallas. Not from a land use standpoint of course, but as an economic engine, it is easily comparable to cities like LA, NYC, Chicago. It is not replicable here for a number of reasons. Dallas' economic success is to some extent a result of happy accidents or coincidences:


American Airlines moving to Dallas from NYC in 1979
Subsequent changes to the airline industry which created the primacy of hubs and which also caused many mergers and left American on top of the heap. Being the home city and largest hub of the largest airline in the world simply cannot be understated as something which attracts business.
Formation of Texas Instruments (which originated in the oilfield, by the way). After years of seismic and communications/defense work, in the 50s one of their employees, Jack Kilby, invented the integrated circuit and essentially overnight created the tech industry in Texas.
Being the most dynamic city in a state full of a substantial number of other dynamic cities. This is why we need to root for Tulsa instead of see them as competition. But at the same time we need about 5 more Tulsas.
Inertia. The law of things in motion tending to remain in motion while stationary objects tend to remain stationary. Dallas attracts companies and business simply because it is Dallas.
Frankly, good old fashioned Texas bluster. For 150 years they have crowed to anyone who would listen that Texas is something special. Bigger. Better. More Texas-ier. Even when it wasn't always true. It's annoying AF but it is some pretty powerful self-talk and if you say stuff like that often enough someone is going to believe it. Culturally Oklahoma has been modest to a fault for its century+ of existence. Almost apologetic for being here. These things DO make a difference.

Regarding the point on tech, by the way, TI and subsequent companies and partners supercharged the electrical engineering program at Texas A&M and the computer science program at UT. Ripples of this are still being felt, even in Austin, which benefits from UT's readily-available graduates and from the success of their own homegrown company, Dell, which happened to peak as the larges CPU manufacturer in the world at the height of the Windows-based personal computing explosion.

This in turn lured a huge presence from Microsoft, which brought other companies. I got a major education on Austin a couple of weeks ago on a ULI trip, and once again it is a situation perhaps less random than a lightning strike, but not much. Downtown Austin didn't begin to show signs of life until 1998. That's a DECADE after there was some concerted effort in OKC's downtown. Five years after MAPS passed here. They had like 4 downtown projects in 1999 (if memory serves). Their population was comparable to OKC's and the population was actually SMALLER than OKC's in the early 90s. Now DIRT in Austin's CBD is going for $1000 sq/ft. In many ways that city's economy has more in common with places like Seoul or Singapore than it does with OKC or even Dallas (which is much more diverse than Austin economically). It is mostly a one-industry town. Except their industry is only expanding. Tech has no forseeable end, and due to a number of well-timed coincidences they are now 20 years into their version of a supercharged oil boom, in an industry that may not have a bust in our lifetimes.

These things aren't replicable. All you can do is tend to your garden, invest in education and higher education, make quality of life investments to keep your homegrown talent, HOPE that someone innovates and strikes gold in your back yard, and then nurture those homegrown businesses as much as possible. We need to nurture the Paycoms, and hope someone here invents the next thing that changes the world as much as the integrated circuit did. That's it. There is much work involved, of course. But there is also some luck required to be a freakish success like Dallas or like Austin.

I think we'd be much better off if we try to pattern ourselves after and base our expectations on cities like Nashville, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Denver, even Omaha. Even those cities, as successful as they are, can't hope to be Dallas. It's like wishing to be NYC or LA. It's like me as a fat 50 year old guy trying to get into shape. I can strive to be in great shape, have six-pack abs, whatever. But it would be pretty silly to aspire to be Mr. Universe or a Calvin Klein model. I think our proximity to Dallas makes it an obvious aspirational target, but doing this also belies a misunderstanding of just how massive that city's economy is.

Good points Urbanized. I would also add that the major infrastructure improvements undertaken by planners and local/state governments in DFW greatly contributed to growth there, and has been a major factor in continuing to enable high growth and expansion.

As far as what needs to be done to encourage future growth, there are several things. But it all boils down to two strategies.

1) Quit making bad headlines.
2) Make some good stuff and advertise it.

How do we quit making bad headlines?

First, the state Democratic party needs to pull their head out of their ass (and I say this as a Republican). When legislators like Sally Kern can run completely unopposed, it's because your opposition party is utterly incompetent. Hopefully this election will see some actual serious challenges to bad legislators. Any state rep or state senator who proposes a bunch of idiot bills guaranteed to make national headlines needs to draw a well funded opponent in the next election. It's a sad state of affairs where you have to rely on a sex scandal to get rid of somebody like Ralph Shortey.

Second, we need to get off the "bottom 10" lists. When you're 49th in education funding, you get a bunch of negative press. When you're 38th, nobody notices. The numbers I found are a few years out of date (2015), but some back of the napkin math indicates that if we spent another $1000 per student, we'd go from 49th up to about 37th. We have about 700,000 students, so we'd need about $700M for that. That's about a 10% increase to the state budget. This isn't including the increase we've had in the latest budget. We need to do the same thing with mental health funding, and we need to lower incarceration rates. Stop showing up in "worst places for XYZ group" lists.

None of these problems are insurmountable. In many of these lists, there's not that much difference between #50 and #30. Everybody is bunched up together. But it's a beauty contest and nobody cares about the person who talks about how "unfair" or "superficial" everything is. You just really really don't want to be at the bottom.

As far as good things we're doing, the city is making great progress on that. We are a very business-friendly place, and with the MAPS projects and the planned metro area rail system (if it comes to pass), we are adding significant quality of life improvements. We've got a lot of local investors who really believe in this city, and looking at everything that's been happening downtown proves that. This is just going to continue. Compare OKC today to what it was when I was in college, in the late 90s. In 20 years it has become a far more attractive place to live.

We aren't going to boom overnight. But as our downtown districts begin to grow into one another, and they get connected with the streetcar, it's going to appear as though it's a more vibrant, better connected city. When I can go from Bass Pro up to St Anthony, and the whole area is completely developed, it will feel much more like a "real city" to people from around the country. If we can get a MAPS 4 that is as ambitious and game-changing as MAPS 3, we'll be poised for big things. Then the city just needs to market the hell out of that.

Do all this, we won't have any problem attracting new people to the state.

This exactly. Getting Oklahoma off the bottom 10 (or even bottom 5) lists where it consistently stays alongside states like Mississippi and Louisiana will go a long way towards improving the national perception of this state. Most people don't know a lot about Mississippi but they tend to have a negative perception of it because it's at the top of every bad list and bottom of every good list. Oklahoma, along with Arkansas and a few others, is one of the "Thank God for Mississippi" states. Increasing Oklahoma's ranking up into at least the 30s would do wonders.

Elimination of SQ 640, increased teacher pay, school consolidation, increased higher education funding, allowing ODOT to take on debt to get projects done in a more timely manner, a GPT hike, and a public smoking ban is where I would start. I would also loosen the petition requirements to make it easier to get petition initiatives on the ballot. Candidates aren't talking about any of this. Instead, they are pushing the same old tired right-wing ideology responsible for getting the state into the mess it's currently in. "Cut spending, lower taxes" sounds good to the low-information conservative voter but there's only so far you can go before you start "cutting into the bone" so to speak.

These are all issues worthy of discussion, but notice how they had nothing to do with the reasons you gave in your previous post where I asked for specifics. If you know me, I disagree with Oklahoma's conservative bent, but Oklahoma politics are not drastically different than most other states... largely because ALEC writes legislation for legislators in all these states (which by the way is such a threat to the very idea of federalism and state control. Most of these legislative proposals are hatched half way across the country. It's such a threat to our democracy.) However, the issues you actually raised here are fair game. For me, Oklahoma has shown less of a commitment to public education (K-12 and higher ed) than other similar states and it's really hurting the state on multiple fronts. However, even this isn't unprecedented as Oklahoma is basically following in the footsteps of Kansas' failed tax cutting that gutted public education funding until recent responses. But North Carolina has huge education problems and despite the good pay we often hear about for teachers in DFW, Texas has a number of education problems and controversies too.

Anyway, my big point is: these discussions are more productive if we can identify specific areas where Oklahoma is failing compared to other states and then use them as examples to advocate for changes.

Incredible post, Urbanized. As always. Your expansive knowledge on so many topics and then convey those ideas here always impresses me. Just wanted to say that.

I don’t post much on here (sorry!) but I guess I’m not understanding the point of this whole current discussion. Population growth is a lagging indicator of economic performance and the economy was quite poor in this area from 2015-16, so population growth in 2016-17 is going to be soft. It’s actually pretty impressive OKC grew as much as it did, and from all observations, at least from a now-outsider, it seems that the economy is doing much better. I like to look at BLS statistics to get a snapshot of an area. Job growth in this area is now above the national average and, pertinent to this thread, the labor force has grown about 2.6% between April of this year and last (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUMT403642000000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true). For comparison sake, the metro labor force grew by 0.4% from April 2016-17. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that growth was underwhelming but it already seems that things are turning around.

I have never understood the comparisons to DFW on here. I doubt you’ll see folks in Nashville or Charlotte hyperventilate about Atlanta, nor do you see Indy constantly bemoaning Chicago. Y’all, can I burst some of your bubbles? I’ve lived in Dallas for four years and I want out. Beyond having a good job here and being close to my family, it’s really not that great. The growth you are seeing here is because of jobs…that’s nothing to scoff at. This area in terms of business growth is wildly successful for reasons Urbanized laid out (and DFW did things in the past that I’m not so sure can be pulled off in today’s more global-oriented economy).

But some of the thoughts of this place are laughable. I loathe the Oklahoma legislature just as much as anyone but I have honestly *never* heard anyone reference Dallas some sort of open minded utopia. Where are you all getting that? Dallas County votes more “blue” because it is majority-minority. Move outside 635 that and the attitudes are no different than what you see in most of OK. There’s a lot of social blind spots here that would never be tolerated in most large cities; lately, there’s been a spade of physical attacks in Oak Lawn against gay couples (http://www.newsweek.com/dallas-lgbtq-community-edge-after-string-new-attacks-around-gayborhood-921345)and “progressive” Dallas had to be shamed to do anything about it. Texas has had multiple rounds of education funding cuts and teachers haven’t seen a raise here in years. Also, the politics are atrocious. It’s already been touched on here so no need to rehash it. Sometimes I remind myself that I traded OK’s embarrassingly bad legislature for noted homophobe Dan Patrick stomping around in his cowboy boots and “dad jeans” and Greg Abbott being a twitter troll. Not an improvement, in my opinion.

More detrimental than that, this area is just becoming a pain in the ass to live in. Namely, it has gotten very expensive here…I have coworkers commuting 1.5 hours *each way* on very pricey toll roads because that’s how far they had to drive to find a home under $300K. Note that property taxes on a $300K home down here are going to run you about $6K or more, depending on the city. High property taxes means the incoming SALT limitations are really going to hurt a lot of people here, sadly. At least by one measure I’ve seen, Dallas is currently the least affordable big city housing market in the nation that is not on a coast. At least once every other week, there’s an article in the DNM from local leaders fretting about this area’s rapidly declining affordability. And they should. I can just say personally, I make a pretty nice living and I am priced out of anything livable within 15 miles of me. It’s depressing.

The future of Dallas is something that looks a lot like Seattle, Denver, or Austin (minus those cities livability and amenities). All three of those cities now act as repositories of coastal-generated equity. If you have it, then you're great! If not (or not the doctor/lawyer/RE agent/CPA to these people) then you are screwed. I am using those three cities because they have all seen their growth slow markedly in the past few years as housing prices have surged in all 3 places. If OKC were smart, it would adopt the Boise/Salt Lake City model, who are currently drawing people from Seattle and Portland, who in turn are being priced out from people moving in from California. As an aside, I’d like to see OKC market itself much better than it has in the past. It can counter a lot of foolishness that comes from the state capitol.

Like I said, the l am no fan of the lawmakers here, but should not be the excuse that some make it out to be. Case in point: Nashville TN. Awesome, growing, thriving city (I am actually considering it myself) despite having no airline hub, crappy weather, a location in what is a somewhat poor state, and subject what may be the worst legislative body in the United States. Sound familiar? I was in Nashville last month and, oddly enough, they consider OKC to be a “peer metro” so go figure. Now it is true that they have a cultural niche in country music recording that other places don’t have. But they’ve had it for years and only in the past decade or so has the city really taken off. Also, most people moving there wouldn’t be caught dead listening to country and western. Look to Nashville, OKC.

I found this interesting. It’s a list by U-Haul tracking all the one way arrivals in the country used by their moving service.

Houston was number 1. My hometown of San Antonio was number 5. OKC was number 36.

Here’s the list. (https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/14384/U-Haul-Migration-Trends-Houston-Ranks-As-No-1-Us-Destination/)

Metrics like this are bad. A number that says how many people rented one thing from one company tells us nothing.

Counterpoint--Houston's growth have slowed considerably, and Harris County is actually experiencing net outflow. No surprise as Houston was hit just as bad as OKC by the energy downturn.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2018/04/10/houston-suburbs-are-booming-harris-county-not

This does not even factor in the several thousand people who have left the gulf coast after Harvey (although to be fair, I don't know how many people actually left Houston vs. Beaumont or Port Aransas). LOTS of people from that area around me in Dallas now.

I don’t post much on here (sorry!) but I guess I’m not understanding the point of this whole current discussion. Population growth is a lagging indicator of economic performance and the economy was quite poor in this area from 2015-16, so population growth in 2016-17 is going to be soft. It’s actually pretty impressive OKC grew as much as it did, and from all observations, at least from a now-outsider, it seems that the economy is doing much better. I like to look at BLS statistics to get a snapshot of an area. Job growth in this area is now above the national average and, pertinent to this thread, the labor force has grown about 2.6% between April of this year and last (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUMT403642000000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true). For comparison sake, the metro labor force grew by 0.4% from April 2016-17. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that growth was underwhelming but it already seems that things are turning around.

I have never understood the comparisons to DFW on here. I doubt you’ll see folks in Nashville or Charlotte hyperventilate about Atlanta, nor do you see Indy constantly bemoaning Chicago. Y’all, can I burst some of your bubbles? I’ve lived in Dallas for four years and I want out. Beyond having a good job here and being close to my family, it’s really not that great. The growth you are seeing here is because of jobs…that’s nothing to scoff at. This area in terms of business growth is wildly successful for reasons Urbanized laid out (and DFW did things in the past that I’m not so sure can be pulled off in today’s more global-oriented economy).

But some of the thoughts of this place are laughable. I loathe the Oklahoma legislature just as much as anyone but I have honestly *never* heard anyone reference Dallas some sort of open minded utopia. Where are you all getting that? Dallas County votes more “blue” because it is majority-minority. Move outside 635 that and the attitudes are no different than what you see in most of OK. There’s a lot of social blind spots here that would never be tolerated in most large cities; lately, there’s been a spade of physical attacks in Oak Lawn against gay couples (http://www.newsweek.com/dallas-lgbtq-community-edge-after-string-new-attacks-around-gayborhood-921345)and “progressive” Dallas had to be shamed to do anything about it. Texas has had multiple rounds of education funding cuts and teachers haven’t seen a raise here in years. Also, the politics are atrocious. It’s already been touched on here so no need to rehash it. Sometimes I remind myself that I traded OK’s embarrassingly bad legislature for noted homophobe Dan Patrick stomping around in his cowboy boots and “dad jeans” and Greg Abbott being a twitter troll. Not an improvement, in my opinion.

More detrimental than that, this area is just becoming a pain in the ass to live in. Namely, it has gotten very expensive here…I have coworkers commuting 1.5 hours *each way* on very pricey toll roads because that’s how far they had to drive to find a home under $300K. Note that property taxes on a $300K home down here are going to run you about $6K or more, depending on the city. High property taxes means the incoming SALT limitations are really going to hurt a lot of people here, sadly. At least by one measure I’ve seen, Dallas is currently the least affordable big city housing market in the nation that is not on a coast. At least once every other week, there’s an article in the DNM from local leaders fretting about this area’s rapidly declining affordability. And they should. I can just say personally, I make a pretty nice living and I am priced out of anything livable within 15 miles of me. It’s depressing.

The future of Dallas is something that looks a lot like Seattle, Denver, or Austin (minus those cities livability and amenities). All three of those cities now act as repositories of coastal-generated equity. If you have it, then you're great! If not (or not the doctor/lawyer/RE agent/CPA to these people) then you are screwed. I am using those three cities because they have all seen their growth slow markedly in the past few years as housing prices have surged in all 3 places. If OKC were smart, it would adopt the Boise/Salt Lake City model, who are currently drawing people from Seattle and Portland, who in turn are being priced out from people moving in from California. As an aside, I’d like to see OKC market itself much better than it has in the past. It can counter a lot of foolishness that comes from the state capitol.

Like I said, the l am no fan of the lawmakers here, but should not be the excuse that some make it out to be. Case in point: Nashville TN. Awesome, growing, thriving city (I am actually considering it myself) despite having no airline hub, crappy weather, a location in what is a somewhat poor state, and subject what may be the worst legislative body in the United States. Sound familiar? I was in Nashville last month and, oddly enough, they consider OKC to be a “peer metro” so go figure. Now it is true that they have a cultural niche in country music recording that other places don’t have. But they’ve had it for years and only in the past decade or so has the city really taken off. Also, most people moving there wouldn’t be caught dead listening to country and western. Look to Nashville, OKC.

So what you’re saying is, the OK legislature acts as a buffer against okc growing too fast? So it grows but not too much and stays fun. Great!

(That’s a joke before anyone melts down)

The state should allow Oklahoma cities to be in better control to shape their own destinies. The law that bans all Oklahoma cities from raising minimum wage should be repealed. Omaha and Lincoln don't appear to be hurt from their minimum wage of $9 an hour with both having a somewhat lower unemployment rate than Oklahoma City. It would probably be more fair to Oklahoma cities, if the state min. wage was raised to $9. At the same time the law banning Oklahoma cities from raising min. wage could remain, if desired. I would expect any change in the min. wage to require a successful petition for a vote.

The law that bans cities from banning fracking should be repealed. There probably is a bunch of other laws that go against cities that need repealed. Repealing such laws might help towns in rural areas to do better.

This would need a constitutional rewrite I believe. However, that could become a careful what you ask for situation.

Yep, what Jerry said. OK is a Dillon's Rule state, and that is most likely enshrined in the Constitution. I don't like that theory, but can kind-of, sort-of, somewhat, maybe see the point of it sometimes. And there is no way in hell that we want any kind of rewrite of our constitution, not in this environment/atmosphere. If we could just amend the constitution to make OK home rule, that would work, but there's no way that will ever happen.

Interesting stats.

http://bloom.bg/2H3sVwD

Here are the cities that saw the biggest gains in the percentage of the population under 18:

- Austin (7.9 percent)
- Oklahoma City (5.8 percent)
- Houston (5.5 percent)
- Raleigh (4.9 percent)
- San Antonio (4.3 percent)

Interesting stats.

http://bloom.bg/2H3sVwD

Here are the cities that saw the biggest gains in the percentage of the population under 18:

- Austin (7.9 percent)
- Oklahoma City (5.8 percent)
- Houston (5.5 percent)
- Raleigh (4.9 percent)
- San Antonio (4.3 percent)

Really expensive cities cost a lot for a reason -- a lot of people want to live there. There are cool things to do and that attracts people. But eventually they hit the point where you can't afford to live there anymore. No matter how cool they are, the cost is prohibitive and you have to look for somewhere else to live.

Being on the other end of the extreme isn't necessarily a good thing. For a long time Oklahoma City had one of the lowest costs of living in the nation. But part of that is because nobody wanted to live here. There was nothing to do, so you didn't have people coming in and buying property. We don't want that either. I think the fact that we're second in this "biggest gains under 18" category shows that this is beginning to change. We've got some people moving here, and hopefully we can keep them here. This city is changing, becoming a place that has opportunities, has good jobs, has fun things to do. And yet we're still affordable.

I wouldn't want to live in New York City. Way too crowded, way too expensive, and the people always seem pissed off. Now I wouldn't mind living in TV New York, where people have unrealistically large apartments that they can afford on their barista salary, everyone lives in a trendy cool area, and the neighbors are quirky and endearing. You can always find a parking spot, it doesn't take four hours to drive across town, and you can actually afford to do fun things and go to nice places even when you're a struggling young person fresh out of school. That wouldn't be bad at all.

Personally, I think that should be our goal with OKC. Build a place that lets people experience something like the "TV big city" lifestyle. Oh, sure, we're not going to be able to mandate that everyone be attractive and interesting, but we can make walkable streets, build to moderate density, give good job opportunities, and keep prices affordable. If recent OU grads can move into Oklahoma City and get 90% of the fun stuff that New York or Chicago could offer, at 1/3 the price, why wouldn't they stay?

If you think about it, a growth in the percentage of population under 18 means the percentage of 18+ is shrinking as a percentage.

Makes sense for OKC where it's affordable to have kids and have a bunch of them but then we have to keep them here.

If you think about it, a growth in the percentage of population under 18 means the percentage of 18+ is shrinking as a percentage.

Makes sense for OKC where it's affordable to have kids and have a bunch of them but then we have to keep them here.

How so? If the overall population increased, it could be the same % overall, just the total <18 has gone up compared to the PY. Or am I thinking of it wrong?

I would think under 18 growth has more to do with birth rate. I could be wrong, but that’s the most likely factor as most under 18 would either be births or kids moving with their parents.

To have a burgeoning 18 and under you have to have fairly young families having kids. That means that those families are locating/staying here in increasing numbers. I doubt we are suddenly just more fertile.

To have a burgeoning 18 and under you have to have fairly young families having kids. That means that those families are locating/staying here in increasing numbers. I doubt we are suddenly just more fertile.

Doesn’t that support my theory? Without a breakdown of which age groups under 18 saw the largest gains, it’s all breaks down to either news births or people moving to said cities having kids with them when they move.

Or young people staying and having their families here instead of moving after graduation. If we stem the flow out we are retaining the young families and that is good.

^^^
Could you be more specific on the differences? What is different between the legislative focus of Oklahoma and the states you mentioned? All those states have recently made national news for the exact legislation you just criticized. I live in Texas and think the legislature is worse on the issues you mentioned. Also, can you provide more specific legislation those states have passed you’d like to see passed? Thanks in advance.

Texas has Austin and Dallas. Texas pays teachers more than a living wage. Texas has international airports and a coast. I think bchris was pointing out that while the states he mentioned have dumbass politicians, too, they have many other positive attributes that are well-known to the nation. Georgia has Atlanta and will probably be a blue state within ten years. North Carolina has the Research Triangle, a coast, a very modern city that is bigger than OKC, and world-class academic institutions.

Your post borders on pedantry. Do we really need to rehash the dumb **** that is happening in our state legislature that makes national news? And we sure export some quality leaders, like Scott Pruitt, possibly the most venal and corrupt member of the Trump Syndicate.

We were on every major international news organization for nearly a month with tale after tale about four-day school weeks, decayed, outdated textbooks, and impoverished teachers. You think that's good for business?

Texas has Austin and Dallas. Texas pays teachers more than a living wage. Texas has international airports and a coast. I think bchris was pointing out that while the states he mentioned have dumbass politicians, too, they have many other positive attributes that are well-known to the nation. Georgia has Atlanta and will probably be a blue state within ten years. North Carolina has the Research Triangle, a coast, a very modern city that is bigger than OKC, and world-class academic institutions.

Your post borders on pedantry. Do we really need to rehash the dumb **** that is happening in our state legislature that makes national news? And we sure export some quality leaders, like Scott Pruitt, possibly the most venal and corrupt member of the Trump Syndicate.

We were on every major international news organization for nearly a month with tale after tale about four-day school weeks, decayed, outdated textbooks, and impoverished teachers. You think that's good for business?

BChris always lays major blame on our state legislature for being a leading detractor for companies/people in deciding whether to relocate here over another city/state and Dan made the point that all the other, more economically successful, states that BChris mentioned have equally crazy elected officials that have equally stupid agendas but that it hasn’t had the negative impact on those states that you would expect it to if it was the primary deterrent to corporate relocations here . He asked him to provide examples of how the LEGISLATIVE FOCUS was any different between those states and OK since you would expect it to be if that is what’s truly differentiating our economic success from the states he mentioned. Dan’s point is the one you mention as being BChris’...the elected officials are crazy in other states too, but it hasn’t had the major negative effect on them that BChris acts like it does on OK.

Bchris is also a poster who has lived in cities that trump OKC and he makes good points that are seemingly always shot down on this board just because of his posting history which offends posters here just because they don’t align with the small town mentality of “if you don’t like it leave.” Sorry, but that’s the truth. Bchris also did answer Dans questions as to specifics yet for some reason they weren’t good enough. I don’t know what other answers he or you are looking for.

I am running the risk now of upsetting Pete which I don’t want to do because I like him, but this website just has an army of posters who jumps on anyone’s case when they make the slightest remarks of anything that isn’t less than praise of OKC unless it comes from certain “Golden” posters whom I won’t name or it is about bitching about car lanes usually.

Regardless, everything I’ve read and I’ll call out Rover here, just seems to be the complete opposite of what I’ve experienced in big cities when it comes to the quality of development and the culture in OKC. It just sucks. Yeah, it’s getting better, but that is so relative. What a joke to a compare the city to how it was in the 90s. It’s time to stop that crap.

Even in another thread Scott was hammered for just merely saying the fonts on Steelyard were a joke which they are. Again, it just seems that no matter what, so many posters here want to justify nearly every little thing that happens in Oklahoma and compare the states best to the worst of other states. There always seems to be some excuse as to why Oklahoma can’t change.

Even worse, it seems every other place has the perfect ingredients for being what it is but again, Oklahoma just be like that because... it’s f@cking bullsh!t honestly and Oklahoma could be so much better if more people would drop the apologist mentality and open their minds to the harsh reality that plagues the state such as it being probably the most stereotypical, conservative cowtown in the US.

If you knew a single thing about me, you’d know that is the last thing I want to say about the place. But time and time again I find the thoughts people have about OKC is just a giant truck stop. Obviously that’s wrong and there is so much amazing about OKC. It’s so much more and can be so much more. OKC is my favorite city and I am always so exited when I visit it. There is just a persistent small town mentality that is so frustrating to see.

Posters like DCSooner and Bchris are often spot on the money with their posts yet are always disregarded and discredited as being overly negative because they don’t feel a need to fulfill some sort of expected qouta by some here of “positive” posts.

I love this site to death mostly because I always get so f@cking excited to see progress in my city, but I won’t post much here anymore if at all because I am a very opinionated person. I will let my voice be heard when I see something proposed for OKC or its metro that is less than standard in true cosmopolitan cities that are dominating where people want to be. What I won’t do is accept opinions by posters such as Rover who have a catalogue of bull**** excuses why OKC is what it is or why developers here are doing what they’re. While there a few examples of amazing work, they don’t compare to what other major cities are getting and I’m even talking of cities like St. Louis. But there always, always, always seems to be some perfect excuse for Oklahoma because it’s such a special state. Unfortunately for me, I have suffer from a bit of Autism so sometimes I am unable to formulate things into words right or I have some knee jerk reaction and say things I shouldn’t. Both of which I’m working on.

But this isn’t about me anyways and about the city. The good thing is, progress is unstoppable and OKC appears to be getting the attention of national and international developers now who really know what quality and amazing developments are made of. Developments in OKC don’t have to be either Lower Bricktown or the Grove. Unfortunately a good number of the developments proposed or underway are still incredible underwhelming compared to what’s happening in many other cities and acting like OKC has it now because there are a handful of good(even at that is arguable) developments happening and dismissing other people’s criticism because it points out issues won’t help anything and further delay the city truly becoming cosmopolitan.

As for the state legislature, it seems that they push more bad stuff than they do good. More of the bad stuff gets through and for whatever reason seems to be in the news more than other states, which, yes, if we want to lump Oklahoma in them, they are there. But the fact we have posters here who continue to point out, well, Texas does this, North Carolina does that, Georgia did those things... okay, so compare Oklahoma’s best to their worst, because those states obviously have more progressive and forward policies coming out than Oklahoma and it’s evident by what they have to show for it.

Next time you want to complain about socially regressive crap coming out of the Texas legislators, a trip down to Austin, Houston, Dallas, for a few days to really explore those cities should show you how many more progressive policies come out because a regressive government like Oklahoma wouldn’t foster cities like those. Tulsa is also a case in point. A hidden gem waiting to be discovered yet loosing population or barely gaining it. At some point you need to open your eyes and realize how sh!tty the state government is. If your argument is to compare it with Mississippi and Alabama, then I honestly don’t know what to say.

Or young people staying and having their families here instead of moving after graduation. If we stem the flow out we are retaining the young families and that is good.

Then that would be new births. Which was my original point.

Texas has Austin and Dallas. Texas pays teachers more than a living wage. Texas has international airports and a coast. I think bchris was pointing out that while the states he mentioned have dumbass politicians, too, they have many other positive attributes that are well-known to the nation. Georgia has Atlanta and will probably be a blue state within ten years. North Carolina has the Research Triangle, a coast, a very modern city that is bigger than OKC, and world-class academic institutions.

Your post borders on pedantry. Do we really need to rehash the dumb **** that is happening in our state legislature that makes national news? And we sure export some quality leaders, like Scott Pruitt, possibly the most venal and corrupt member of the Trump Syndicate.

We were on every major international news organization for nearly a month with tale after tale about four-day school weeks, decayed, outdated textbooks, and impoverished teachers. You think that's good for business?

Exactly, continued mediocrity only exacerbates the State's natural disadvantages and illuminates the shortcomings in areas that if ranked more towards the top 1/3 to 1/2 of State's COULD lead to greater economic and by extension population growth.

Again, I ask, why would anyone live in the dump that is Oklahoma? /s

Oklahoma is far from perfect. I hope no one is trying to say it is. But it is also not the worst state, either. I don't care what the rankings say. I have been to neighboring states, and most are dumps (Kansas and Arkansas), and Missouri is not exactly great either (their state university has been embroiled in race issues for decades). Oklahoma has a chance to improve with the next election, just by losing Mary Fallin. But who we vote for to replace her will have a lot to do with the course the state takes.

Cheap housing, low cost of living for us that are retired. Also go look at the tax break for those who get a pension or have an IRA. $10K not taxable. Helps when on a fixed income. I don't know why the realtors in the state don't push this and try to get more retired people to move from high tax/high cost of living states. I don't think our weather is that bad. Winters are not harsh and long. Sure summers can be brutal but hey, there is AC in most homes today.

One of the things that brought me to Oklahoma from Ohio is the weather. I don't mind snow, but absolutely hate the cold. Winters here can be annoying if they last too long, but they don't last nearly as long and are nowhere near as cold as up north. I don't mind the heat though. I have a high heat tolerance, so I don't get all freaked out when I see a forecast for 90-100 degree weather. And if we're going to talk about heat, look at Phoenix and Dallas, they have fast growth rates and they get much hotter than OKC. Some people have a very wrong view of tornadoes, and that's the only weather related thing that I can see slowing us down. It seem some people assume you have violent tornadoes wiping out the city every year.

I have to say the weather in Oklahoma absolutely sucks. I didn’t realize it until I moved back. If it’s hot, there’s no wind. If it’s 70 degrees there’s a 25 MPH wind which makes it unbearable. If it’s cold it is of arctic intensity. The tornadoes don’t even matter to me - I enjoy the severe weather season.

North Carolina has very similar weather with more humidity and it doesn’t seem to slow it’s growth.

North Carolina has very similar weather with more humidity and it doesn’t seem to slow it’s growth.

Sorry, I should have added that I don’t think it is a deciding factor as to whether or not people will move here or from here. I was just commenting that the weather here is pretty harsh compared to other places.

I have to say the weather in Oklahoma absolutely sucks. I didn’t realize it until I moved back. If it’s hot, there’s no wind. If it’s 70 degrees there’s a 25 MPH wind which makes it unbearable. If it’s cold it is of arctic intensity. The tornadoes don’t even matter to me - I enjoy the severe weather season.

This is very true. The wind in this state is a major issue and it is the worst when the temperatures are the best. I am honestly surprised there isn't even more attempts to harness the energy potential from it. Western KS is very similar weather-wise to the majority of OK and it hardly has anyone living in it.

The mentions in this thread about North Carolina are interesting. Right now their residents are either celebrating or complaining about the idea of both a new Apple HQ and Amazon HQ moving in. That is a predicament I would love to have anywhere near OKC.

Well, we know the legislature is to blame for the crappy weather in Oklahoma. /s People on here blame them for everything else, so I am waiting for the first person to truly do something like that. OK can't control the weather, so if someone uses that as a reason to leave or not come, there is not a single, soiltary thing the legislators can do.

Sorry, I should have added that I don’t think it is a deciding factor as to whether or not people will move here or from here. I was just commenting that the weather here is pretty harsh compared to other places.

Try Chicago in the Winter, Houston in the summer, Orlando in the summer, St. Louis in the winter, Seattle in the rainy season, Phoenix in the Summer. We have a lot of good days here that many ignore. Like today...90 degrees, low wind, sunny skies, 50% humidity. Everybody (but San Diego ��) has good and bad days. We have our share, but so do others. Sometimes it’s just preferences.

The state needs to make a significant investment in OU. Boren did a great job, but we need to build momentum and keep making improvements. It needs to become a top technical school and start churning out a bunch of science and math graduates. With Tinker being what it is, perhaps OU should really push their aerospace engineering program. More graduates in that area could lead to more aerospace companies moving jobs here.

OKC also needs to work with OU to set up some sort of "tech business incubator" system around the HSC. The Innovation District isn't gonna work without OU's cooperation. They seem to like their manicured lawns, but if the school felt like it was intimately involved with the project and that there was a direct benefit to students (i.e., something to boost their profile with potential students), they might get on board. Perhaps a residential tower for med students, with an attached office building that could lease space to startup companies founded by recent graduates. Even have faculty advisers set up to teach them how to set up a business like that. Maybe even have a degree program specifically for people who want to start their own tech business -- a combination of business and engineering. Maybe graduate programs where you can get your MBA along with a Masters in computer science or something.

And if we could build a better connection between the Oklahoma School of Science and Math, that may help too. Funnel really smart high school kids directly into an OU program, and from there they've got a clear path to starting their own business. Most of the startups won't be successful, but some of them might be. Now these kinds of developments would take some time to pay off -- a kid going into OSSM wouldn't be starting a company for about a decade, but we'd have a lot of potential in the pipeline, and this seems like the natural way to encourage this. While we're at it, let's increase the size of the OSSM. It's a great school, and I think we need to get more students there as long as we can maintain the same level of quality.

MAPS needs to continue, with roughly a 50/50 mix of quality of life improvements and economic development. Convention centers are needed, but so are parks and museums and things like that. When people visit OKC they need to think that we've got a lot of fun things to do. This will make companies more willing to consider a move here.

90, humid, and no wind. That doesn’t sound like a fantastic day to me unless I’m on the beach :)

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Those cities have their seasonal troubles, but they also have more pleasant days outside of those seasons. It seems like we have summer and winter, with 2 weeks of springs and 2 weeks of fall. And when it’s summer it is HOT HOT HOT and winter is COLD COLD COLD. The 4 weeks of transition a year go by very quick.