Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

One of the actual quotes was indeed "let it rot".


If you want to make the other argument, back it up with facts, tax revenue to the city vs cost to the city, broken down by ward would be fine. I don't think downtown will fair so well with all the propping up we've done lately.

Of course the real gist of your post in the context of this thread is it does prove the point...some vocal downtowners do indeed want to make the divisive fight of Downtown against the Burbs.

If one person has said, "let it rot" then it's a bit of hyperbole to imply that you're hearing it repeatedly from "some". And most people's argument with city services' costs relate to people living on large pieces of land at the periphery of the city.I don't really understand what you mean by "propping up" either. Downtown would fare quite well, I suspect, considering property tax dollars paid relative to density as compared to city outskirts. You too are free to come up with hard facts to support your allegations.

The burden of proof is with the person putting forward the argument. Backpedal from your argument if you want.

Aren't people really saying that people should pay for services relative to density? If you choose to live on more land, especially at the far edges of the city, it stretches city resources more and you should pay more for city services. That doesn't sound like letting anyone rot.

The city could also just de-annex those parts of the city that are on the far edges. I most cases, however, cities do not de-annex those far out areas. Why? One likely explanation is they contribute more in taxes then they require in services.

Of course the real gist of your post in the context of this thread is it does prove the point...some vocal downtowners do indeed want to make the divisive fight of Downtown against the Burbs.

When looking at "fighting" here and on several other threads, it is usually you doing the fighting, I've noticed. Personally, I have lived in Deer Creek, Quail Creek and Nichols Hills before living downtown so I can say I've experienced a lot of different degrees of density. I also, clearly, have no reason or excuse for being anti-suburb. i think there are good reasons for living in the city and in the suburbs, depending on time of life and lifestyle. When I lived in Deer Creek, if someone had said that I needed to pay extra since I lived farther out and was stretching city services, my response would have been, "OK, that makes sense."

The city could also just de-annex those parts of the city that are on the far edges. I most cases, however, cities do not de-annex those far out areas. Why? One likely explanation is they contribute more in taxes then they require in services.

In which case we would be doing them a favor but cutting them lose. Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes. If it did all levels of government would be swimming in cash.

How can that map be right? Deep Deuce has far more than 1000 people in it.

I think the visualization of the color gradient might be off a bit.

In which case we would be doing them a favor but cutting them lose. Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes. If it did all levels of government would be swimming in cash.

Our low density sprawl was swimming in enough cash we could do the maps projects and send umpteen millions to fix downtown. Funny how some would like to rewrite history to advance their own agenda.

Alas, low density sprawl doesn't generate more tax dollars than it consumes.

Then why doesn't the city just de-annex those areas that are not core to the city and that consume more resources then they generate?

Unrelated note: Storms are forming rapidly to the SW of the metro. Be weather aware!

:backtotop

Aww man. We were having so much fun. :)

An interesting commentary by Steve about this subject.

Living and Working by the Tracks ? Without Investment Downtown | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/05/29/living-and-working-by-the-tracks-without-investment-downtown/)

I'm not surprised. More people don't live downtown than live downtown. I doubt many of them analyze the effects of MAPS or why the projects are most effective because they are centrally located. People see things and wish they were closer to home and within easy driving distance in familiar surroundings with no parking issues. I doubt they give it any deeper thought than that.

That's what it started out being and what the citizens of OKC mostly support. That was the vision of Norick, build downtown to serve OKC et al. That is not the "let the suburbs rot" we keep hearing from some on this forum, repeatedly. That's what I spoke to. Not what you spoke to.

You want to kill maps and hamstring downtown subsidy. Keep it up.

I didn't say let it rot and I don't feel that way. I think this idea that it's urban vs. suburbs is manufactured by people like Mr. White or anyone who looks as investment in downtown as separate issue from investment in any other part of the city. I'm saying that we should always look at the opportunity cost of investing downtown vs. in a Ward like Mr. Whites. Dollar for dollar, downtown's going to win that analysis most of the time. I'm saying that continued investment in downtown is what is best for the city as a whole, including Ward 4, including all of its suburban districts. That is not an argument that the suburbs should rot or any kind of position that's going to kill or hamstring anything. It's when people begin to no longer realize the exponential return of investment in downtown, like Mr. White, then there could be problems.

Steve's best words on the subject IMO are actually here:

http://www.okctalk.com/ask-anything-about-okc/33298-downtown-okc-thriving-but-what-about-rest-okc.html#post619234

When looking at "fighting" here and on several other threads, it is usually you doing the fighting, I've noticed. Personally, I have lived in Deer Creek, Quail Creek and Nichols Hills before living downtown so I can say I've experienced a lot of different degrees of density. I also, clearly, have no reason or excuse for being anti-suburb. i think there are good reasons for living in the city and in the suburbs, depending on time of life and lifestyle. When I lived in Deer Creek, if someone had said that I needed to pay extra since I lived farther out and was stretching city services, my response would have been, "OK, that makes sense."

I think your response would have been like mine, show me the OKC numbers.

You've rolled out that unsubstantiated all-inclusive us-them claim several times. Once your response when the subject was at hand was "No one fights for the suburbs." (As you see from Steve's post above, he's not in that camp either.) I can only go on what you post and so far they reflect that you are not " thinking of the city as a singular entity" BDP talked about.

I didn't say let it rot and I don't feel that way.

great! we are on the same page


I think this idea that it's urban vs. suburbs is manufactured by people like Mr. White or anyone who looks as investment in downtown as separate issue from investment in any other part of the city.

And people like JTF who see investment in the suburbs as a complete waste of money. (The post I was responding too when you quoted me.)


I'm saying that we should always look at the opportunity cost of investing downtown vs. in a Ward like Mr. Whites. Dollar for dollar, downtown's going to win that analysis most of the time.

Okay. That may be. But you can't have it both ways, not spending money to improve other parts of the city will lead to decay, so if you make those comparisons and you chose downtown on every single evaluation because the return is better, you will chose decay for other parts of the city.


I'm saying that continued investment in downtown is what is best for the city as a whole, including Ward 4, including all of its suburban districts. That is not an argument that the suburbs should rot or any kind of >position that's going to kill or hamstring anything. It's when people begin to no longer realize the exponential >return of investment in downtown, like Mr. White, then there could be problems.

Agreed. We should continue to invest directly in downtown. We should continue to invest directly in other parts of the city too.

I think you are misunderstanding my basic point mkjeeves. I am not actively seeking the demise of suburbia, I am looking out across America and where the trends are going, seeing the underlying cost of development styles, and having a full knowledge of a government going broke and who won't be able to support the massive subsidies - and I say to myself - suburbia can't go on much longer and when it collapses, it will do it fast. Balloons pop way faster than it takes to air them up; that is why everyone is surprised when it happens.

So if I see suburbia as unsustainable I have to ask myself, what is sustainable? Thank goodness I have access to 10,000 years of Human settlement as a clue of how one has to live in the absence of massive government subsidies. At the end of the day we have to keep the engine of commerce running but that is going to be very hard to do when we spread people thin, requiring them all to drive a car, and then we can't afford to use them or maintain the roads.

Now maybe you look out across the American landscape and don't see any structural problems with sprawl, but I suggest you look again.

I think this thread, as well as quite a few others, is full of unsubstantiated vague generalities. I have seen very little evidence that anyone is "choosing decay" for other parts of the city. I have seen very little evidence that any number of people are saying "let the suburbs rot". That's not good city policy. What we are saying is that the only way the city can control sprawl is to stop annexing outlying areas that are not dense and are difficult to serve because of their distance from the city center. We are saying we think sprawl is bad, and I think that's a fine opinion to have. I think cities can get too big to function well, in terms of land mass. I think living just outside city limits is a choice for almost every person who lives there, and were I making the decisions, I would let them live with their choice. Regardless, this is a message board and all we're doing is expressing opinions. As you might observe, expressing this opinion hasn't really done much in terms of changing city policy.

Personally, I think that a city should support its populace. Everyone who lives within the city limits deserves police and fire protection and water, sewers, roads and sidewalks that meet city standards. I think everyone deserves representation on city council and all the city services available to us as a group. If the city chose to annex an outlying part of the city, then they are obligated to support them with city services. But, anyone who doesn't think focusing more of our investments in our core is key to improving this city didn't see our downtown before MAPS. And, had that MAPS money been spent equally on all parts of the city, I doubt we'd be conversing on this message board today. Pete wouldn't have cared to start this forum and I certainly wouldn't be living here.

However, I'm going to reverse myself a bit and say that our next key investment should be on transit (in my opinion - I think it's important to remember that no one here is doing anything but expressing opinions). And that transit needs to do the best job it can of being accessible to as many people in our city as possible, within reason. We could all stand to walk a bit more, probably a LOT more, so I think a grid system would be just fine.

We should continue to invest directly in other parts of the city too.

And we do. In fact, in 2007, we passed a $835.5 million Bond Issue to improve infrastructure all over the city. That's almost $60 million dollars more than will be spent on ALL of the MAPS 3 projects combined, even those that aren't located in the core. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the allocation of funds from the bonds should be based on if enough money is pledged by the nearby property owners who financially benefit from a given project.

It's a total myth that the city is investing in downtown at the expense of the rest of the city. Again, there is no war on the burbs as Mr. White would have us believe. However, even with over $800 million dollars to spend, it doesn't go very far when you have to spread it out over 600 square miles. That's a LOT of pavement. Naturally, projects like these do not have the splash or wow factor of a new arena or urban canal, but it makes no sense to place a multi thousand capacity venue in every ward of the city. It does, however, make total sense to do those types of projects in the core where it is most accessible. And its these types of investments that have helped shore up the city's economy, which, in turn allows it to do things like pass bonds for hundreds of millions of dollars so it can create and maintain its vast infrastructure beyond the core, even when that infrastructure often serves a fraction of the number of people a similar project in the core would serve.

The real issue here is that instead of applauding the 28 businesses that stepped up to contribute a sizable amount to the quiet zone, Mr. White used it as a platform to say that private property owners should be contributing MORE than that to city infrastructure projects. I just want to know if that is his standard for the whole city, including the millions of dollars the GO Bond will spend in Ward 4, or if it is just a double standard for downtown. The irony is that if it were the standard for public projects, then more money would in fact go downtown at the expense of the rest of the city, because the reality is that no district invests more in itself than downtown.

And we do. In fact, in 2007, we passed a $835.5 million Bond Issue to improve infrastructure all over the city. That's almost $60 million dollars more than will be spent on ALL of the MAPS 3 projects combined, even those that aren't located in the core. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the allocation of funds from the bonds should be based on if enough money is pledged by the nearby property owners who financially benefit from a given project.

It's a total myth that the city is investing in downtown at the expense of the rest of the city. Again, there is no war on the burbs as Mr. White would have us believe. However, even with over $800 million dollars to spend, it doesn't go very far when you have to spread it out over 600 square miles. That's a LOT of pavement. Naturally, projects like these do not have the splash or wow factor of a new arena or urban canal, but it makes no sense to place a multi thousand capacity venue in every ward of the city. It does, however, make total sense to do those types of projects in the core where it is most accessible. And its these types of investments that have helped shore up the city's economy, which, in turn allows it to do things like pass bonds for hundreds of millions of dollars so it can create and maintain its vast infrastructure beyond the core, even when that infrastructure often serves a fraction of the number of people a similar project in the core would serve.

The real issue here is that instead of applauding the 28 businesses that stepped up to contribute a sizable amount to the quiet zone, Mr. White used it as a platform to say that private property owners should be contributing MORE than that to city infrastructure projects. I just want to know if that is his standard for the whole city, including the millions of dollars the GO Bond will spend in Ward 4, or if it is just a double standard for downtown. The irony is that if it were the standard for public projects, then more money would in fact go downtown at the expense of the rest of the city, because the reality is that no district invests more in itself than downtown.

Very well said.

As I mentioned in another thread – a large number of people are living with a world-view that is rapidly disappearing and they seem to have a hard reconciling with that despite all the evidence around them.

The 60 year experiment with suburbia is ending and it will be gone in a generation. A recent magazine article here in Jax points out that 77% of the Millennial generation wants to live in walkable urban neighborhoods. As the baby boomers themselves opt for traditional neighborhoods in their retirement years it is going to leave a lot of housing stock vacant. Throw in the fact that in the next 20 years more than 80% of all families will not have children (50% today) and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the demand for 4 bedroom houses on cul-de-sacs is going to vanish – which happens to be the largest housing inventory in suburban America.

As further proof, gasoline consumption and miles driven peaked 6 years ago and has been declining ever since – which leads to a whole other problem; who is going to pay the maintenance tab for all of the infrastructure we created that made urban sprawl possible? Or do we just let it continue to slowly decay?

Data released last week shows that the suburbs have the fastest growing population of poor and that is a trend that is only going to continue. While some will deny that is happening, we have 10,000 years of human urbanization and the vast majority of the modern world as evidence that sprawl and poverty go hand in hand. America spent vast (and I mean vast) sums of money trying to counter-act human nature and in the end – we couldn’t do it. As Steve pointed out, sprawl is nothing more than rolling ghetto.

So if Pete White thinks that not providing the housing options that current and future generation demand then he is as squirrely as the day is long.

I'm late to this discussion...but where I live is bucking this supposed trend. I live in OKC out in Eastern Canadian County. The burbs. This area has been exploding for the past 3-5 years. Homes going up everywhere, and on cul-de-sacs too. The people building and or buying these homes are not baby-boomers. They are young, 30-somethings with kids. They are not retirees waiting to die. Everywhere I go in the metro on the west, north, and southwest sides, I see new housing developments springing up with large homes. These areas are not "rolling ghettos." Most are large upper middle class/upper class homes. Hundreds have been built in my area. And they are not "spec" homes. They are customs. I'm not going to deny that a segment of our populous wants to live in an urban settings. But to say that suburbia is ending and will be gone in a generation is just nonsense. To say that demand for 4 bedroom homes in suburbia is going to vanish is shortsighted. I guess all the young people building and buying 4 bedroom homes in Piedmont, Deer Creek, Edmond, Mustang, etc didn't get the memo that they were supposed to be eschewing this lifestyle moving downtown. I have no desire to live downtown. I love living out. I love having my own yard with huge trees and a creek and dark at night. My daughter, who is 31 with a young family wants to move even further out. Not downtown. We are not ghetto types. There will always be people who want to have their own yard and trees and space and to be able to see stars at night. And there will always be people who want to live in a high rise condo downtown. To each his own. But to say or argue that one is dying and will be gone in a generation leaving deserted decaying neighborhoods that will become ghettos for the poor and downtrodden is just nonsense.

I'm late to this discussion...but where I live is bucking this supposed trend. I live in OKC out in Eastern Canadian County. The burbs. This area has been exploding for the past 3-5 years. Homes going up everywhere, and on cul-de-sacs too. The people building and or buying these homes are not baby-boomers. They are young, 30-somethings with kids. They are not retirees waiting to die. Everywhere I go in the metro on the west, north, and southwest sides, I see new housing developments springing up with large homes. These areas are not "rolling ghettos." Most are large upper middle class/upper class homes. Hundreds have been built in my area. And they are not "spec" homes. They are customs. I'm not going to deny that a segment of our populous wants to live in an urban settings. But to say that suburbia is ending and will be gone in a generation is just nonsense. To say that demand for 4 bedroom homes in suburbia is going to vanish is shortsighted. I guess all the young people building and buying 4 bedroom homes in Piedmont, Deer Creek, Edmond, Mustang, etc didn't get the memo that they were supposed to be eschewing this lifestyle moving downtown. I have no desire to live downtown. I love living out. I love having my own yard with huge trees and a creek and dark at night. My daughter, who is 31 with a young family wants to move even further out. Not downtown. We are not ghetto types. There will always be people who want to have their own yard and trees and space and to be able to see stars at night. And there will always be people who want to live in a high rise condo downtown. To each his own. But to say or argue that one is dying and will be gone in a generation leaving deserted decaying neighborhoods that will become ghettos for the poor and downtrodden is just nonsense.

I agree with what you are saying, but what you are describing is the "rolling ghetto" scenario. Certainly no one can guess which neighborhoods will take a downturn, but the perpetual demand for and construction of housing on the fringes of a metropolitan area often coincided with declining values for the inner neighborhoods as they fell out of favor and became neglected. This processes recycled many times as people moved farther and farther out. It didn't always happen to every neighborhood, but it was common. There are a lot of less than favorable neighborhoods in Oklahoma City that, when built, were the new middle/upper class neighborhoods. Ghetto is probably a strong word though, imo. Cool thing is that many of these neighborhoods are having a comeback and see great value appreciations.

Either way, that doesn't change that people will always want that lifestyle. I don't think the suburbs are going anywhere either, nor would I suggest they should. And for those that want to live a suburban life, we have it in abundance in just about every varietal you could dream up. What we don't have, but are getting much closer to having, is a fully functioning urban area to meet the demands of many people who choose that lifestyle. What we ultimately should want is to have a city where no one has to compromise on how they want to live if they chose to live in Oklahoma City. Right now, in Oklahoma City, there is very little option other than to live a suburban life. But I think we're on the right path to diversifying our lifestyle portfolio.

There will always be people who want to have their own yard and trees and space and to be able to see stars at night. And there will always be people who want to live in a high rise condo downtown. To each his own.

You identify the two extremes. There is a lot of housing options between those two and they don't exist in OKC in any great amount. What if someone in OKC wanted a 3 story live/work unit. Where does that exist in metro OKC?

I'm late to this discussion...but where I live is bucking this supposed trend. I live in OKC out in Eastern Canadian County. The burbs. This area has been exploding for the past 3-5 years. Homes going up everywhere, and on cul-de-sacs too. The people building and or buying these homes are not baby-boomers. They are young, 30-somethings with kids. They are not retirees waiting to die. Everywhere I go in the metro on the west, north, and southwest sides, I see new housing developments springing up with large homes. These areas are not "rolling ghettos." Most are large upper middle class/upper class homes. Hundreds have been built in my area. And they are not "spec" homes. They are customs. I'm not going to deny that a segment of our populous wants to live in an urban settings. But to say that suburbia is ending and will be gone in a generation is just nonsense. To say that demand for 4 bedroom homes in suburbia is going to vanish is shortsighted. I guess all the young people building and buying 4 bedroom homes in Piedmont, Deer Creek, Edmond, Mustang, etc didn't get the memo that they were supposed to be eschewing this lifestyle moving downtown. I have no desire to live downtown. I love living out. I love having my own yard with huge trees and a creek and dark at night. My daughter, who is 31 with a young family wants to move even further out. Not downtown. We are not ghetto types. There will always be people who want to have their own yard and trees and space and to be able to see stars at night. And there will always be people who want to live in a high rise condo downtown. To each his own. But to say or argue that one is dying and will be gone in a generation leaving deserted decaying neighborhoods that will become ghettos for the poor and downtrodden is just nonsense.

Of course people want it. But you are missing the point. It is not a style of development that can continue indefinitely.

When my grandparents moved to the city, in the late 40s, they bought a house in a brand new neighborhood on the edge of the city. It was the equivalent of where your daughter wants to live. They were young and my grandpa had a good job at Tinker. Their neighborhood still had dirt roads at first, and the occasional people who raised chickens in their yard, but you could look out the kitchen window and see the skyscrapers of downtown in the distance. That neighborhood is now Del City.

When my mother was growing up, in the late 50s and 60s, Del City was a fine middle class neighborhood. It no longer had dirt roads, was no longer considered "the country". There were places to eat, and work, there was a movie theater, and it had lots of things to do. "The country" was further out, in a little known place called Moore. When my mom got married my parents bought the Del City house from my grandparents, who moved out to the middle of nowhere.

When I was growing up in the 80s, Moore was the thriving suburb. They were getting the new stuff. Del City was in a bit of decline. The movie theater had closed down. People with good jobs weren't moving into the area.

What is the reputation of Del City today?

The problem is, if "good areas" keep being farther and farther out, the inner suburbs become ghettos. That is exactly what is being talked about.

1985 Marty (to girlfriend Jennifer): "Hilldale! That's, that's where we live! Err, that's where we're gonna live. Someday."
2015 Cop (dropping off future Jennifer at home): "Hilldale, nothing but a breeding ground for tranks, lobos and zipheads."'
--Back to the Future 2

Of course people want it. But you are missing the point. It is not a style of development that can continue indefinitely.

When my grandparents moved to the city, in the late 40s, they bought a house in a brand new neighborhood on the edge of the city. It was the equivalent of where your daughter wants to live. They were young and my grandpa had a good job at Tinker. Their neighborhood still had dirt roads at first, and the occasional people who raised chickens in their yard, but you could look out the kitchen window and see the skyscrapers of downtown in the distance. That neighborhood is now Del City.

When my mother was growing up, in the late 50s and 60s, Del City was a fine middle class neighborhood. It no longer had dirt roads, was no longer considered "the country". There were places to eat, and work, there was a movie theater, and it had lots of things to do. "The country" was further out, in a little known place called Moore. When my mom got married my parents bought the Del City house from my grandparents, who moved out to the middle of nowhere.

When I was growing up in the 80s, Moore was the thriving suburb. They were getting the new stuff. Del City was in a bit of decline. The movie theater had closed down. People with good jobs weren't moving into the area.

What is the reputation of Del City today?

The problem is, if "good areas" keep being farther and farther out, the inner suburbs become ghettos. That is exactly what is being talked about.

1985 Marty (to girlfriend Jennifer): "Hilldale! That's, that's where we live! Err, that's where we're gonna live. Someday."
2015 Cop (dropping off future Jennifer at home): "Hilldale, nothing but a breeding ground for tranks, lobos and zipheads."'
--Back to the Future 2

I got the point, and I get your point...but it's not as if those areas you describe are vacant and boarded up. True, they may not be the areas you or I want to live...but there will always be lower class folks, and they will need a place to live. I wish everyone could be upper class, but that is not going to happen. There will always be a large segment of the populous that will be lower class. Not everyone can afford a condo downtown or a house in the new additions. My point was and is that the suburbs will always be here. They are not going away. And to argue or suggest they will is just nonsense. People who want newer and better farther out will always be here. And people who want to live in an urban setting will always be here. I think it's great that we are now opening up options for the urban dwellers, but those numbers are finite and always will be. Just as the number of people who want to be out in the burbs.

The only issue is that newer, better and farther can ultimately become unattainable from a practical standpoint. There are limits to how far people are willing to drive. Personally, the thought of spending an hour to 2 hours commuting would remove all the thrill of having my own personal ranchette. In fact, I can say from personal experience that it did. Living in Deer Creek while working at the Health Sciences Center very rapidly lost its charm when I actually had to do the driving every day. That commute is nothing compared to what people will have to experience if they keep looking for newer, because it's going to keep getting farther. Throw in escalating gas prices, which can happen at the drop of a hat, and it becomes even less entertaining. Many cities the physical size of Oklahoma City have mass transit so if you're going to commute a couple of hours each day, at least you can do it with someone else doing the driving. All that driving affects air quality as well.

I am re-reading Suburban Nation and it covers a lot of the same ground that is in this thread. It is a pretty easy book to read and I suggest if you haven't read it that you go to the library and get a copy. They also carry it at Barnes and Noble. Even if you are on the 'other' side I think it is worth reading because you might find out you aren't on the other side after all. One thing I would like to point out though, the new urbanism movement is NOT the environmental movement. The objective isn't to have less choices, it is to have more choices. At least for me, the new urbanism movement is about reducing taxes and returning to a lifestyle that doesn't require so much government interference., manipulation, and support. If that results in a better natural environment then that is icing on the cake.

The only issue is that newer, better and farther can ultimately become unattainable from a practical standpoint. There are limits to how far people are willing to drive. Personally, the thought of spending an hour to 2 hours commuting would remove all the thrill of having my own personal ranchette. In fact, I can say from personal experience that it did. Living in Deer Creek while working at the Health Sciences Center very rapidly lost its charm when I actually had to do the driving every day. That commute is nothing compared to what people will have to experience if they keep looking for newer, because it's going to keep getting farther. Throw in escalating gas prices, which can happen at the drop of a hat, and it becomes even less entertaining. Many cities the physical size of Oklahoma City have mass transit so if you're going to commute a couple of hours each day, at least you can do it with someone else doing the driving. All that driving affects air quality as well.

In the simplest forms. This isn't a simple issue though. You figured it out and moved closer to work. I figured it out and moved closer to my job 30+ years ago moving from downtown to where my job was in the burbs. My next house was in that neighborhood followed by my next job in the same neighborhood where I lived. When I started my business I put in in the burbs next to where I live too. People who live near Tinker live in the burbs. There is no solution to putting Tinker and those employees downtown. Putting everything and everyone downtown is not affordable, not achievable and not desirable.

Live, work, shop local. Keep decentralizing jobs like we have and do everything we can to encouraging that. Boeing and the Outlet Mall are good examples.

I don't think we should put all businesses downtown. I think it's fine if the outlet mall and Boeing don't want to be downtown. My preference would be for people to live near their jobs. I don't think we should encourage or discourage decentralization. But, I'd prefer that any far-flung pockets of decentralization be their own city with their own city services.

I am re-reading Suburban Nation and it covers a lot of the same ground that is in this thread. It is a pretty easy book to read and I suggest if you haven't read it that you go to the library and get a copy. They also carry it at Barnes and Noble. Even if you are on the 'other' side I think it is worth reading because you might find out you aren't on the other side after all. One thing I would like to point out though, the new urbanism movement is NOT the environmental movement. The objective isn't to have less choices, it is to have more choices. At least for me, the new urbanism movement is about reducing taxes and returning to a lifestyle that doesn't require so much government interference., manipulation, and support. If that results in a better natural environment then that is icing on the cake.

This is a good point. Many people simply haven't thought about the cost of suburbia and all the second and third order effects.