Not sure you know what a straw man is. You said "Why would a city make it easier for someone to live outside of them" the opposite of easy is hard, which to the fullest extent is blocking.

You are literally describing a straw man argument.

Actually, that is OKC based on the map on OKC's webstie. The Boeing buildings are also OKC and they run thousands of dollars a day through food trucks. And the Heart Hospital

*There are two OnCues on Sooner near Tinker, one is Del City and one is OKC.



So you don't think the Quail Springs area pays for itself? How about the huge chunk of land south of the turnpike, north of 44, East of 77 and West of 35? Nothing but towers and a dog kennel.

Sounds good to me.

Haha really? I was just using an example of an affluent area to say my east of I-35 example had nothing to do with demographics.

I would de annex everything that lies north and west of the turnpike and Hefner parkway. There is that better? I don’t have any “beef” with an area of OKC. What a strange thing to say. How does someone have “beef” with a neighborhood?
Just curious what neighborhood you live in and how much it costs the city to own. At least Gaillardia is a gated community and thus takes care of its own streets. It takes care of its own common areas. And, I dare say the property taxes more than makes up for their cost of existing. So, what is it that you think makes them a candidate for deanexation?

Just curious what neighborhood you live in and how much it costs the city to own. At least Gaillardia is a gated community and thus takes care of its own streets. It takes care of its own common areas. And, I dare say the property taxes more than makes up for their cost of existing. So, what is it that you think makes them a candidate for deanexation?
Well Rover what you just don’t get is that it’s a rich suburban gated community which means they are evil and don’t pay taxes.

Just curious what neighborhood you live in and how much it costs the city to own. At least Gaillardia is a gated community and thus takes care of its own streets. It takes care of its own common areas. And, I dare say the property taxes more than makes up for their cost of existing. So, what is it that you think makes them a candidate for deanexation?

You’re are completely missing the point. The city collects zero in property tax so that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. How many times does this have to be stated on this thread before people understand this?

Stop taking things personally, I’m not saying any area is bad or any area is better than another. I’m just saying okc is way to large and needs to shrink in order to be financially viable. There are great areas in every corner of the metro. I’m just saying not all of these areas have to be in the city limits. Oklahoma City does not need to be 621 square miles. It can’t properly function at 621 sq miles. It’s not even a hard concept to understand. It’s math. Does that mean the areas on the outskirts are evil? No. Are the people who live there bad? Of course not. What is so controversial about this?

Well Rover what you just don’t get is that it’s a rich suburban gated community which means they are evil and don’t pay taxes.


Straw man

Oklahoma City does collect property taxes:

https://www.okc.gov/departments/finance/taxes

Oklahoma City does collect property taxes:

https://www.okc.gov/departments/finance/taxes

Property taxes finance General Obligation Bonds, which voters approve for specific capital projects. It is a common misconception that property taxes help pay for the City’s core services. Although this is true in many states, cities and towns in Oklahoma are not allowed to levy property taxes for day-to-day operations.

Straw man

It would be if I were being serious.

You’re are completely missing the point. The city collects zero in property tax so that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. How many times does this have to be stated on this thread before people understand this?

Stop taking things personally, I’m not saying any area is bad or any area is better than another. I’m just saying okc is way to large and needs to shrink in order to be financially viable. There are great areas in every corner of the metro. I’m just saying not all of these areas have to be in the city limits. Oklahoma City does not need to be 621 square miles. It can’t properly function at 621 sq miles. It’s not even a hard concept to understand. It’s math. Does that mean the areas on the outskirts are evil? No. Are the people who live there bad? Of course not. What is so controversial about this?

You are wanting OKC to be something its not. You should embrace our city as laid out. Otherwise maybe this is the wrong city for you? You could consider NYC or LA as they are compacted lay outs? This layout diversity is what makes OkC a great city. I don’t understand those who want to reconstruct our city land size. It seems to be some don’t like the folks who don’t live in the core and would prefer a small 10 square mile city.

You are wanting OKC to be something its not. You should embrace our city as laid out. Otherwise maybe this is the wrong city for you? You could consider NYC or LA as they are compacted lay outs? This layout diversity is what makes OkC a great city. I don’t understand those who want to reconstruct our city land size. It seems to be some don’t like the folks who don’t live in the core and would prefer a small 10 square mile city.

OKC is definitely the right city for me. I love OKC. I live in OKC. I should move because I want OKC to reach its full potential? How does that make sense?

Property taxes finance General Obligation Bonds, which voters approve for specific capital projects. It is a common misconception that property taxes help pay for the City’s core services. Although this is true in many states, cities and towns in Oklahoma are not allowed to levy property taxes for day-to-day operations.

That’s a lot of words, none of which say “sorry I was wrong about Oklahoma City collecting zero dollars from property tax”.

That’s a lot of words, none of which say “sorry I was wrong about Oklahoma City collecting zero dollars from property tax”.

Those aren’t my words. Those words are directly copied from the link you posted.

The city collects zero in property tax so that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Your (wrong) words.

The city does, in fact, collect property taxes.

You’re are completely missing the point. The city collects zero in property tax so that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. How many times does this have to be stated on this thread before people understand this?

Stop taking things personally, I’m not saying any area is bad or any area is better than another. I’m just saying okc is way to large and needs to shrink in order to be financially viable. There are great areas in every corner of the metro. I’m just saying not all of these areas have to be in the city limits. Oklahoma City does not need to be 621 square miles. It can’t properly function at 621 sq miles. It’s not even a hard concept to understand. It’s math. Does that mean the areas on the outskirts are evil? No. Are the people who live there bad? Of course not. What is so controversial about this?
There are many non contributing areas much closer in. Should we de-annex them? What is your criteria... only distance from an arbitrary center point? Services used vs revenue generated? Should we de-annex everything east of Broadway Ext because it costs too much to pump water over that distance from Lake Hefner water supply? What exactly is your criteria?

By the way, where do you live again?

You guys are really arguing about nothing. It totally is possible to move in the direction of financial prosperity without deannexing or screwing over anyone who already lives where they live. Incentivize particular development patterns over othes but grandfather in existing developments. Focus on key corridors as nodes of density and pass policy making building there easier. Limit sprawl in the periphery but don't "disinvest" If we enhance areas already primed for density, it will create more revenue to be spent on all areas of the city, including the sprawly parts. We don't have to trim the fat, we just need to stop eating cake and start building lean muscle to be able to support it.

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.
Excellent idea. Isn't this basically how Portland handled growth (the growth boundary)?

There are many non contributing areas much closer in. Should we de-annex them? What is your criteria... only distance from an arbitrary center point? Services used vs revenue generated? Should we de-annex everything east of Broadway Ext because it costs too much to pump water over that distance from Lake Hefner water supply? What exactly is your criteria?

By the way, where do you live again?

I live in Gatewood. RIP Gatewood Elementary :( Where do you live?

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

That is a very interesting idea. A nice way to curb sprawl while keeping the existing boundaries for everyone. You get my vote!

I live in Gatewood. RIP Gatewood Elementary :( Where do you live?
Glenbrook.

That is a very interesting idea. A nice way to curb sprawl while keeping the existing boundaries for everyone. You get my vote!
How do you get the other cities to give up development and the corresponding sales tax? Plus, maybe people actually want to live in outlying areas where there are better schools?

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

Even better: Don't put a "no more permits" boundary. Put a "surcharge" boundary (we can call it an "extension zone". You want OKC Utilities and services...developer pays all upfront capital costs (I think they currently do this anyway), + hefty impact fees, and then residents pay a surcharged rate for all utilities to the area along with increased taxes to cover maintenance in the "extension zone". If rich people want to go live out in the boondocks, let them go live out in the boondocks and pay the true maintenance cost of the area. You don't have to make it inaccessible to have a sensible cost structure to what usually starts out as premium areas. It's not like Deer Creek sprouted up with 1200 square foot homes and 300 unit apartment complexes.

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

How do you decide the line? SW of WRWA isn't really in the boondocks. I live sw of airport at sw104 and MacArthur. My property backs up to airport land. I am 2 miles from FAA, 2 miles from the new Amazon, 4 miles from OKCCC, 3.5 miles to Hobby Lobby HQ, 4.5 miles from the I240 corridor. These are all pretty busy areas and major employers. I am closer to downtown than anywhere on Memorial Road. I have no city utilities other than trash and the road to get to our privately maintained neighborhood road is the same road that that all the FAA employees drive on. I used much more city services when I lived in Heritage Hills.

Excellent idea. Isn't this basically how Portland handled growth (the growth boundary)?

Yep and it’s done wonders for the growth of their neighborhoods.

Even better: Don't put a "no more permits" boundary. Put a "surcharge" boundary (we can call it an "extension zone". You want OKC Utilities and services...developer pays all upfront capital costs (I think they currently do this anyway), + hefty impact fees, and then residents pay a surcharged rate for all utilities to the area along with increased taxes to cover maintenance in the "extension zone". If rich people want to go live out in the boondocks, let them go live out in the boondocks and pay the true maintenance cost of the area. You don't have to make it inaccessible to have a sensible cost structure to what usually starts out as premium areas. It's not like Deer Creek sprouted up with 1200 square foot homes and 300 unit apartment complexes.
I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

This is true. Look at Williamson Farms at SW119 and Meridian. 725 homes closer together than home in Heritage Hills Tiny lots with no yards after building. http://www.wfokc.com/

I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.

In the early 90’s downtown was mostly dead, a ghost town. It was those suburbanites who paid most of the MAPS tax so almost 30 years later folks could complain about those same suburbs. Ironic. Entitlement?

^^^That is the worst take.

Yep and it’s done wonders for the growth of their neighborhoods.
Portland, the white city that claims to be for diversity. Hilarious.

Oh, what’s this? https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/02/portland_neighborhoods_increas.html

Really, using Portland as a model of good city planning? It often feels like many in this board are out of touch with western cities especially the coastal ones. Urban growth boundaries are awful and serve no purpose other than appear to foster an idealized environment that hurts the vulnerable— a group you often claim to be an advocate for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/03/29/portlands-urban-growth-boundary-a-driver-of-suburban-sprawl/amp/

Let’s not also forget—or perhaps learn—that Portland Metro’s urban growth boundary has also prevented the inclusion of Vancouver(WA) into their jurisdiction as they want no part of the urban growth boundary and its has many unintended consequences like delaying the I-5 bridge and the resistance to bringing light rail over the river.

Portland also suffers from traffic issues worse than cities 2-3 times its size because of their anti-freeway stance and the irony being they constantly adhere to the bike lane and streetcar malarkey. Having taken an hour to move a mile or less in that city I’d take DFW or Phoenix any day.

Portland as a model city. Don’t make me laugh. OKC would be better off using LA and LA is sh!t at that. LOL

^^^That is the worst take.
It’s actually a very valid point. Imagine if all the people voting for MAPS were told that their dime is used to build and foster an urban environment that currently is in no way able to sustain itself without it and eventually when it becomes self-sustaining it’s de facto f@ck you.

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.
Again: https://marketurbanismreport.com/portlands-growth-boundary-sprawl/

I suppose makeshift solutions can be had much like many of the anti-sprawl/suburban/car policies almost always require, but how is that more sustainable than what we have now? Just like congestion pricing right?

You are literally describing a straw man argument.

Then what are you trying to say? If a city shouldn't make it easy for people to commute into them, that means they should make it hard. What is the other option? You literally said why would a city make it easy for people to commute into them. That means you think they shoudn't make it easy. Not easy is hard. This is the argument you are making, not a strawman.

So I guess your argument is they shouldn't make it easy for commuters, but also not hard, so medium, huh? Meanwhile, the people that live in burbs decide to just build their own restaurants and stores and keep their money to themselves.

So I guess your argument is they shouldn't make it easy for commuters, but also not hard, so medium, huh?
According to your post, that's not a choice here - "Not easy is hard."

How do you decide the line? SW of WRWA isn't really in the boondocks. I live sw of airport at sw104 and MacArthur. My property backs up to airport land. I am 2 miles from FAA, 2 miles from the new Amazon, 4 miles from OKCCC, 3.5 miles to Hobby Lobby HQ, 4.5 miles from the I240 corridor. These are all pretty busy areas and major employers. I am closer to downtown than anywhere on Memorial Road. I have no city utilities other than trash and the road to get to our privately maintained neighborhood road is the same road that that all the FAA employees drive on. I used much more city services when I lived in Heritage Hills.

I'm not gonna bother drawing a line, because I don't think the city is actually going to set up a boundary. In real life, it would take a lot of careful planning and work, and it would be very political.

The thing is, even if we said no new developments SW of Will Rogers, that doesn't change anything about your neighborhood except potentially making it more valuable. Right now, it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and puts very similar neighborhoods to yours into what is now an empty field. Restrict their ability to do that and houses like yours become a much more limited resource.

The idea of limiting growth in rural areas is done in other parts of the country. The have it in their master plans of keeping areas zoned ag and limiting development to one home per 40 ac, others rural residential with say mine of 5 ac lots. It keeps areas in farm land and also keeps areas where people want to have farm animals or horses of not having to worry about a small lot development coming in across their fence line.

If I were going to do an OKC area master plan, it would be something like this:

Downtown and adjacent areas (maybe go from Penn over to Lincoln, the river up to 23rd) would have the highest density requirements. All commercial developments must by at least 3 stories, no EIFS, everything built out to the street. New residential would be 2+ story townhomes, unless it's in Mesta Park or another existing historic neighborhood. Certain "prestige" places (like next to the new Scissortail Park) would have higher development requirements. Maybe 10+ stories for those.

The "inner loop" of I-44 to I-35 and I-240 up to I-44, would require higher density along major roads, and have to follow higher quality construction rules. In other words, no new sheet metal buildings, limited EIFS, and street-facing storefronts. Parking would be behind the buildings. Obviously existing developments are still okay, we aren't going to make people tear down an existing structure, but all new ones would have to comply. Also step up enforcement of code violations for particularly unsightly businesses. Start pushing out scrapyards and junk yards in this area (that Metal Check place off of I-35 and 59th is hideous).

For the regional transit system, everything with a half mile of one of the train stops gets higher density zoning. We don't want to invest the money in this thing only to see some jackass put in a trailer park or a self storage place nearby. Everything within a quarter mile gets much higher density zoning, effectively the same requirements as downtown. This will create pockets of high density throughout the city.

Then we just wait for like 30 years. Our city is at the extreme end of suburban sprawl. We have basically the lowest cost of housing in the entire country. While there are some positive aspects of that (poor people can afford to own homes here), it also depresses our economy and makes the city look trashy. Oklahoma City isn't going to turn into Manhattan or San Francisco overnight. But we do need to reverse course from the direction we are heading. We could build up our density for a century and still not have the same problems that other cities have. We are simply that spread out right now. Remember, Portland has about the same population as OKC proper, and is less than a quarter of our square miles.

According to your post, that's not a choice here - "Not easy is hard."

I guess from now on when I see someone say we shouldn't make something easy, I should interpret that as "we should make it indifferent!" Considering one of the definitions of "easy" is "Not difficult" and the synonyms are "Difficult" and "hard" and I don't see anything like "medium" in there, I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable to his statement.

While we have the dictionary open, lets look up the word "not" - "a logical operator that produces a statement that is the inverse of an input statement" inverse means opposite, or a synonym, so therefore NOT Easy is HARD by definition.

I guess we can bicker about the English language forever, but at the end of the day he was specifically saying cities should make it harder on commuters than it has to be or than it could be.

If I were going to do an OKC area master plan, it would be something like this:

Downtown and adjacent areas (maybe go from Penn over to Lincoln, the river up to 23rd) would have the highest density requirements. All commercial developments must by at least 3 stories, no EIFS, everything built out to the street. New residential would be 2+ story townhomes, unless it's in Mesta Park or another existing historic neighborhood. Certain "prestige" places (like next to the new Scissortail Park) would have higher development requirements. Maybe 10+ stories for those.

The "inner loop" of I-44 to I-35 and I-240 up to I-44, would require higher density along major roads, and have to follow higher quality construction rules. In other words, no new sheet metal buildings, limited EIFS, and street-facing storefronts. Parking would be behind the buildings. Obviously existing developments are still okay, we aren't going to make people tear down an existing structure, but all new ones would have to comply. Also step up enforcement of code violations for particularly unsightly businesses. Start pushing out scrapyards and junk yards in this area (that Metal Check place off of I-35 and 59th is hideous).

For the regional transit system, everything with a half mile of one of the train stops gets higher density zoning. We don't want to invest the money in this thing only to see some jackass put in a trailer park or a self storage place nearby. Everything within a quarter mile gets much higher density zoning, effectively the same requirements as downtown. This will create pockets of high density throughout the city.

Then we just wait for like 30 years. Our city is at the extreme end of suburban sprawl. We have basically the lowest cost of housing in the entire country. While there are some positive aspects of that (poor people can afford to own homes here), it also depresses our economy and makes the city look trashy. Oklahoma City isn't going to turn into Manhattan or San Francisco overnight. But we do need to reverse course from the direction we are heading. We could build up our density for a century and still not have the same problems that other cities have. We are simply that spread out right now. Remember, Portland has about the same population as OKC proper, and is less than a quarter of our square miles.

This all sounds pretty reasonable to me, except I don't know how affordable housing makes us look trashy. I've seen plenty of trash homes in high cost areas, that are built to much lower standards that what you'd find in OKC.

I know this is a chicken and egg thing, but the OKC school district is a huge hindrance to density in the core. It is a poorly rated school district in one of the lowest rated states, and it is surrounded by pretty good districts. Even for people with money, there is only one secular private school (at least that I know of) and it is on 122nd, the other big name private schools aren't exactly convenient to downtown either.

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.
I would love to see a map of OKC service area showing costs and revenue to see which neighborhoods ACTUALLY pay for themselves and who doesn’t. I doubt it works out strictly on a “distance from city-center” basis. For instance, water from Lake Hefner needs to be cheaper to residents close to the lake. Sorry downtown. How about sewer services? Etc, etc.

The heart is more important than the arm and we can get by with just one arm and save on the cost of material for a sleeve, and for an extra glove. Just amputate. Lol. Seems as though it all works together.

Focusing on only one aspect ignores the benefits brought to this city from its affordability and certain lifestyle. Believe it or not, people enjoy affordable houses with yards and not sharing a wall, floor and ceiling with a neighbor not necessarily of their choosing. Go figure.

I would love to see a map of OKC service area showing costs and revenue to see which neighborhoods ACTUALLY pay for themselves and who doesn’t. I doubt it works out strictly on a “distance from city-center” basis. For instance, water from Lake Hefner needs to be cheaper to residents close to the lake. Sorry downtown. How about sewer services? Etc, etc.

The heart is more important than the arm and we can get by with just one arm and save on the cost of material for a sleeve, and for an extra glove. Just amputate. Lol. Seems as though it all works together.

Focusing on only one aspect ignores the benefits brought to this city from its affordability and certain lifestyle. Believe it or not, people enjoy affordable houses with yards and not sharing a wall, floor and ceiling with a neighbor not necessarily of their choosing. Go figure.

Reducing the size of the city and deannexing the least dense/lowest tax base areas wouldn't suddenly make the entire city an oasis of zero-lot-line development and high rise buildings. There would still be TONS of areas around town with affordable houses with yards that don't share walls with their neighbor. We're talking about cutting off the far flung rural areas, not deannexing 122nd and May. :P

Now, that point made: I do agree with you in that I too would love to see a map of costs vs city revenue. That seems like something that the City should be able to share on data.okc.gov without too much work. It'd be really nice to see actual data to better inform our conversation here.

I would love to see a map of OKC service area showing costs and revenue to see which neighborhoods ACTUALLY pay for themselves and who doesn’t. I doubt it works out strictly on a “distance from city-center” basis. For instance, water from Lake Hefner needs to be cheaper to residents close to the lake. Sorry downtown. How about sewer services? Etc, etc.

The heart is more important than the arm and we can get by with just one arm and save on the cost of material for a sleeve, and for an extra glove. Just amputate. Lol. Seems as though it all works together.

Focusing on only one aspect ignores the benefits brought to this city from its affordability and certain lifestyle. Believe it or not, people enjoy affordable houses with yards and not sharing a wall, floor and ceiling with a neighbor not necessarily of their choosing. Go figure.

Strawman.

Focusing on only one aspect ignores the benefits brought to this city from its affordability and certain lifestyle. Believe it or not, people enjoy affordable houses with yards and not sharing a wall, floor and ceiling with a neighbor not necessarily of their choosing. Go figure.

This model can not and will not be affordable long term, which is the problem.

This model can not and will not be affordable long term, which is the problem.
Rover fails (refuses?) to acknowledge this.

Strawman.
You love to cherry pick posts and conveniently don’t acknowledge ones that I’m guessing proved you wrong.

Also did you just discover the term straw man?

Since the topic of 'houses with yards and not sharing a wall, floor and ceiling with a neighbor' has come up here's something that might be of interest:

Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html).

It doesn't have any OKC data unfortunately, but it does have some really interesting graphics for various other cities about single-family home zoning versus zoning for other housing.

So, this thread is officially "off the rails". We are re-litigating why it is wrong for people to want their own home, yard and privacy. LOL Thought this was a regional transit thread.

It's not like the two are unconnected.

You love to cherry pick posts and conveniently don’t acknowledge ones that I’m guessing proved you wrong.

Also did you just discover the term straw man?

LOl no just a lot of strawman arguments as of late. If i dont respond then "im ignoring something that proved me wrong" and im not going to defend an argument i never made. So how exactly should i reply to meet your approval?

LOl no just a lot of strawman arguments as of late. If i dont respond then "im ignoring something that proved me wrong" and im not going to defend an argument i never made. So how exactly should i reply to meet your approval?Say 100 lane freeways are the GOAT. ;)

So, this thread is officially "off the rails". We are re-litigating why it is wrong for people to want their own home, yard and privacy. LOL Thought this was a regional transit thread.

If we waved a magic wand and suddenly every new home within 5 miles of Devon Tower had to be built as a rowhouse, we would still have zero shortage of houses for people who wanted a front yard.

Say 100 lane freeways are the GOAT. ;)

Haha fair point:p

"Why do you not want people to have a home with a yard"

Because there are already TENS of thousands of these things all over the metro that are in complete disrepair because we build disposably, with EVERY intent for the area to plateau 20-30 years in and begin to slowly die away 10-15 years after the plateau starts. We are literally building these areas to last less than a generation. All because the people with deep enough pockets to build these areas out have the land for cheap and know that the same people they built and sold to 15-20 years ago will continue to consume again without concern for the long term economic, ecological, and infrastructural ramifications to themselves and the rest of the community.

If we don't want to draw a line in the sand, we need to at least establish rules that demand a much higher quality of construction: Houses and roads paid for by developers with 100% reinforced concrete and maintained by special taxes leveled in these areas depending on the cost burden they create on existing city resources. Sensical zoning to account for viable long-term commercial centers. And dozens of other great practices that have been used to develop sustainable communities.

No more throw away.

How would you feel if the streetcar expansion was bundled inside of the regional transit system? What impact would a double track line a la kansas city have on the right corridor in Norman/Edmond? What expansion would you want to see in Oklahoma City? I agree that bus lines are important and that they have the added advantage of being easy to adjust, but rail provides more of a permanent presence that helps impact development. I would imagine that the systems would connect to the main stop in Edmond and Norman. This would put a much heavier emphasis on the last mile aspect of the streetcar as well as create greater connectivity to the region.

How would you feel if the streetcar expansion was bundled inside of the regional transit system? What impact would a double track line a la kansas city have on the right corridor in Norman/Edmond? What expansion would you want to see in Oklahoma City? I agree that bus lines are important and that they have the added advantage of being easy to adjust, but rail provides more of a permanent presence that helps impact development. I would imagine that the systems would connect to the main stop in Edmond and Norman. This would put a much heavier emphasis on the last mile aspect of the streetcar as well as create greater connectivity to the region.

I am pretty well traveled and feel pretty comfortable in strange environments. I have traveled Siberia, Moscow, Cuba (8 yrs ago before it was easy to go) and all over Europe and Hong Kong. What is interesting is that I have no issue jumping on the NY subway, the tube in London, Paris Metro, MARTA. or the mass transit in HK. I never use the bus system in any of the countries I travel to except one time in London where we just jumped on the next bus to see where it would take us (which led to an amazing little neighborhood pub that hadn't been bought out by the beer companies). Even in London, Atlanta or Paris, I will take the subway, tube, marta to the stop nearest and then grab an uber or walk before Uber.

My observation here isn't to brag about my travels but to illustrate that there is ( at least as far as me) a bias against buses. It takes too much effort to figure out the bus schedule and where it runs to and which bus to grab and when it will come along. Most websites for hotels or attractions will give you the nearest tube/subway stop but not which bus line to take. The bus isn't easy and there are other options. I do not think most tourists will take the time to learn our bus system. That doesn't mean it isn't a valuable resource for our citizens but also means that we need things like the streetcar or light rail to move tourists.

(I should get extra credit for trying to put together a cognizant thought after two bottles of rose' with my beautiful bride of 22 years.)

^ excellent example of first hand experience, Jeep.

The psychological connection with rail being more dependable is real. If you are at a station next to rails there is no doubt you are at the right place and a train will be there. If you’re at a bus stop, there’s not the same mental guarantee. Right or wrong, it exists.

How would you feel if the streetcar expansion was bundled inside of the regional transit system? What impact would a double track line a la kansas city have on the right corridor in Norman/Edmond? What expansion would you want to see in Oklahoma City? I agree that bus lines are important and that they have the added advantage of being easy to adjust, but rail provides more of a permanent presence that helps impact development. I would imagine that the systems would connect to the main stop in Edmond and Norman. This would put a much heavier emphasis on the last mile aspect of the streetcar as well as create greater connectivity to the region.

I think most people in this city who are on-board with the RTA are on-board provided that we're following relatively close to this:

http://www.acogok.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Central-OK-GO_Executive-Summary_FINAL-for-PRINT.pdf

I am pretty well traveled and feel pretty comfortable in strange environments. I have traveled Siberia, Moscow, Cuba (8 yrs ago before it was easy to go) and all over Europe and Hong Kong. What is interesting is that I have no issue jumping on the NY subway, the tube in London, Paris Metro, MARTA. or the mass transit in HK. I never use the bus system in any of the countries I travel to except one time in London where we just jumped on the next bus to see where it would take us (which led to an amazing little neighborhood pub that hadn't been bought out by the beer companies). Even in London, Atlanta or Paris, I will take the subway, tube, marta to the stop nearest and then grab an uber or walk before Uber.

My observation here isn't to brag about my travels but to illustrate that there is ( at least as far as me) a bias against buses. It takes too much effort to figure out the bus schedule and where it runs to and which bus to grab and when it will come along. Most websites for hotels or attractions will give you the nearest tube/subway stop but not which bus line to take. The bus isn't easy and there are other options. I do not think most tourists will take the time to learn our bus system. That doesn't mean it isn't a valuable resource for our citizens but also means that we need things like the streetcar or light rail to move tourists.

(I should get extra credit for trying to put together a cognizant thought after two bottles of rose' with my beautiful bride of 22 years.)

I will say I have hardly ridden any buses in US cities. However, for my travels in Europe I found buses to be quite nice and used them just as often as the subway or streetcars (in Vienna). I thought the bus system in London to be one of my favorites, simply because they go anywhere and everywhere! Same goes for Vienna, however they have the added benefits of streetcars which seemed less crowded than buses.

I do agree that bus systems can be daunting, and most often look like a bunch of gibberish when looking at holiday schedules/ construction detours/ and rush hour variances. But buses are integral to the network and it seems that local residents are the primary users of buses when you have a full system of transit options. It seems that tourists and visitors only need the subways and streetcars.

In most large cities, visitors/tourists like busses because it is more helpful for their visual orientation, can almost be like sightseeing, and has more stops. Going short distances on busses is fine, but moving very many blocks is usually easier by subway in most developed cities. Not all cities in Europe or elsewhere have comprehensive streetcar systems, or at least not nearly so as busses. All have their advantages and disadvantages.