Mustang wants to annex OKC land

[Zuplar]

In the paper today it was stated that Mustang is debating about trying to annex land that currently OKC has. The land in question is South of SW89th street along SH4. The landowners apparently have already signed that they would be okay with this and since OKC doesn't have much of any infrastructure in this area, OKC's city manager has seemed receptive of the idea.

Of note apparently Yukon is in similar negotiations with OKC currently. Not sure what land is in question, but that may be a topic for another thread. Attached are the articles from the paper along with a quick map and idea of where this land is for reference.

[Plutonic Panda]

Because Mustang is sure running out of land to develop. That's what we need is giving more land to municipalities who's main source of revenue is tickets. I'm against this.

[bradh]

Because Mustang is sure running out of land to develop. That's what we need is giving more land to municipalities who's main source of revenue is tickets. I'm against this.

no one cares about where you can and can not speed. grow up.

[Plutonic Panda]

no one cares about where you can and can not speed. grow up.

Where did I say I want to speed? You have no idea what I'm even talking about so think before you respond.

BTW, do you have something else to say about my points? Guessing not... It's just the typical "oh plupan just wants to speed" and blah blah blah

[bradh]

Where did I say I want to speed? You have no idea what I'm even talking about so think before you respond.

BTW, do you have something else to say about my points? Guessing not... It's just the typical "oh plupan just wants to speed" and blah blah blah

Because a lot of the time you post like a kid with spare time to troll the entire forum with wildly opposing view points. You don't need to state "I want to speed," you make it pretty clear by humble bragging all over the place about "going 100mph safely" and griping about slow drivers (I get it, I speed too and hate the people driving 10 below).

[Plutonic Panda]

Because a lot of the time you post like a kid with spare time to troll the entire forum with wildly opposing view points. You don't need to state "I want to speed," you make it pretty clear by humble bragging all over the place about "going 100mph safely" and griping about slow drivers (I get it, I speed too and hate the people driving 10 below).

Wow man. Sorry you think that. My point had nothing to do how fast I go. The only reason I say that is to make a point across from idiots who think it's fine to hog the left lane doing 10-15 under the limit. I guess when you come from a real city, where traffic moves and the police are more lenient on speeding because there are bigger things to worry about and they aren't pressed for revenue collection, it opens up a perspective and it's irritating when people act like going faster is not safe.

The point of saying you can go 100MPH safely is not to suggest everyone should be going that fast in the cities. If that's what you're thinking I'm saying, you are incorrect. I guess I don't understand why it can be done in one place but another. Comes down to education I suppose, something Oklahoma lacks.

[Wishbone]

no one cares about where you can and can not speed. grow up.

No to defend him but you have to agree that Mustang cops are over the top on hiding out and giving speeding tickets.

[Zuplar]

No to defend him but you have to agree that Mustang cops are over the top on hiding out and giving speeding tickets.

I've lived in Mustang since like 1998, went to college in Edmond, and hung out in Yukon quite a bit over that time period. Of the 3 I always thought Yukon was the worst. Been pulled over once by a Mustang cop in that time period, and I got a warning. I just don't see that it's that bad.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've lived in Mustang since like 1998, went to college in Edmond, and hung out in Yukon quite a bit over that time period. Of the 3 I always thought Yukon was the worst. Been pulled over once by a Mustang cop in that time period, and I got a warning. I just don't see that it's that bad.

If I had to rank the worst, I'd put it like this

1.Arcadia
2.Mustang
3.Yukon
4.Moore

Edmond, OKC, OKC Sheriff, Logan County, OHP, Norman, etc.. usually aren't that bad. I have no one to blame but myself when/if I've received tickets from any of those police officers. From personal experience, witness, and from what I've heard, the ones on that list as well as a few, are just straight up douchebags.

[Roger S]

Because Mustang is sure running out of land to develop. That's what we need is giving more land to municipalities who's main source of revenue is tickets. I'm against this.

Of course you are.... Hey I have an idea on how we can save that Moore water tower you are so fond of.... You come and drive real fast around town until you get about $100k in speeding tickets and I'll go to the next City Council meeting and propose that source of revenue be used to save the tower.... It's a win-win for you. You get to drive fast and save the tower!

[Plutonic Panda]

Of course you are.... Hey I have an idea on how we can save that Moore water tower you are so fond of.... You come and drive real fast around town until you get about $100k in speeding tickets and I'll go to the next City Council meeting and propose that source of revenue be used to save the tower.... It's a win-win for you. You get to drive fast and save the tower!

i have not received one speeding ticket from Mustang. I could care less about the Water Tower in Moore. Just more bs from you because you are a typical backwards Oklahoman who drives like a 80 grandma coming back from her eye doctor. Get out of here with that crap.

Moore doesn't want to retain their history? Fine with me. It's a crap place to live and with less history preserved it will be even Moore crap(see what I did there ).

Mustang wants to annex land when it hasn't even used the land it has and be like the rest of Oklahoma towns that are sprawled out with 2-4 lane country roads with single family houses butting the roads, fine by me. I never go those places unless I have to and when I do, you better believe I mind the speed limit vs. other cities where the police actually do police work and not hide behind signs like cowards.

Past history has no relevance to the future in this case with me and the fact that you attempted to say as much shows you have nothing else behind he same sh!t you spew every time.

It's laughable at best that your only argument here is I want this small stretch of 12sq. Miles to speed on and that's why I want this land to stay in OKC. Lol

Go back to posting about you little BBQ adventures.

[Jeepnokc]

Moore doesn't want to retain their history? Fine with me. It's a crap place to live and with less history preserved it will be even Moore crap(see what I did there ).
.

Just curious....have you ever lived in Moore? Or, are you just spouting off crap that you have no clue about? Moore has all the basic things a person needs and the people who live in Moore are resilient when faced with overwhelming tragedies. My parents chose to live in Moore and are quite happy. I live in S OKC and my kids go to Moore Schools and although I would like a few more locally owned restaurants, living down here is great. I can well afford to live anywhere in OKC or the burbs and this is where I choose. I lived in Heritage Hills before moving here and have lived 20 different places in two different continents, three different countries and 7 different states so I have a little bit of life experience to be able to know that the people living in the communities are what makes a great community. There are reasons I don't want to live in Edmond, Gallardia, Deer Creek, etc but those are based on my wants, needs, and current lifestyle. It does not make those communities crap communities just because I don't want to live there.

[Roger S]

Just curious....have you ever lived in Moore? Or, are you just spouting off crap that you have no clue about?

He was just lashing out at me egging him on about speeding.... I thought it was pretty funny myself.

[AP]

I wish multiple municipalities would annex parts of land from us. 600+ sq miles is just way too big.

[bradh]

I wish multiple municipalities would annex parts of land from us. 600+ sq miles is just way too big.

agreed, just as long as it's not land that's providing good tax revenue

[AP]

agreed, just as long as it's not land that's providing good tax revenue

Yeah for sure. There is just a lot of land that OKC has annexed for God know what reason and it doesn't really make sense.

[Plutonic Panda]

I wish multiple municipalities would annex parts of land from us. 600+ sq miles is just way too big.

Why? Why not establish a code that governs land use instead of getting rid of land we might need in the future to grow into?

We'll probably need it since half of the people on here don't want tall buildings and instead want smaller buildings that take up more space for urban infill.

[AP]

Why? Why not establish a code that governs land use instead of getting rid of land we might need in the future to grow into?

We'll probably need it since half of the people on here don't want tall buildings and instead want smaller buildings that take up more space for urban infill.

We will never grow into 600 sq miles.

[Plutonic Panda]

We will never grow into 600 sq miles.

You are probably right... but what about other things like solar fields? How about large industrial projects like a Tesla battery plant? Spaceport? Maybe a particle smasher. Racetrack. Football stadium. Theme Park. Maybe market the large swaths of land to Elon Musk(I almost said Nikola Tesla ;P) to build a test hyperloop track. Maybe testing farms for more sustainable farming techniques in drought conditions or urban farming. Maybe lure companies like Google or Apple to build miniature test cities like the one in New Mexico to test different self driving cars among other technologies.

I don't understand why that is too far to reach? A hyperloop test track is being considered literally less than 300 miles to our south, why can't be here?

[dankrutka]

Why? Why not establish a code that governs land use instead of getting rid of land we might need in the future to grow into?

We'll probably need it since half of the people on here don't want tall buildings and instead want smaller buildings that take up more space for urban infill.

Lol. See Washington DC.

[Teo9969]

On the contingency that they agree to sign-on with the RTA...

[Zuplar]

I think one thing to note here is that the land in question hear is directly South of what is quickly becoming Mustang's main corridor of commerce. It has long been a neglected part of OKC (not the only though) and I'm for this. I think a lot of the suburbs should look at negotiating with OKC to annex land that is being underutilized. Most of the people in these areas don't consider themselves Oklahoma Citians anyways and spend most of their dollars in the suburbs, so really OKC isn't losing much IMO.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think one thing to note here is that the land in question hear is directly South of what is quickly becoming Mustang's main corridor of commerce. It has long been a neglected part of OKC (not the only though) and I'm for this. I think a lot of the suburbs should look at negotiating with OKC to annex land that is being underutilized. Most of the people in these areas don't consider themselves Oklahoma Citians anyways and spend most of their dollars in the suburbs, so really OKC isn't losing much IMO.

I understand what you're saying, but I think more is a good thing as long as you use it properly, which sometimes means not using it at all until you need it. If Mustang was completely built out, then I'd understand it a little better, but at this point, I think OKC would be wise not to get of land even if it's just small peices and keep it undeveloped for the next 100 years. We need to be smart about our planning.

[Zuplar]

I understand what you're saying, but I think more is a good thing as long as you use it properly, which sometimes means not using it at all until you need it. If Mustang was completely built out, then I'd understand it a little better, but at this point, I think OKC would be wise not to get of land even if it's just small peices and keep it undeveloped for the next 100 years. We need to be smart about our planning.

The problem with what you are proposing with utilizing current land is that would at some point create sprawl in Mustang. By solidifying the corridor as 'the commerce' corridor, it helps keep development from going elsewhere. Now you can make the argument that just because it's OKC doesn't mean it can't be developed as commercial. The argument there is valid, but the people that want to develop want the development to benefit Mustang directly, not indirectly like what's happened in Yukon. OKC has plenty of land, and realistically aren't going to run out anytime soon, even by giving away some underutilized portions on the outskirts of their city limits.

[Plutonic Panda]

The problem with what you are proposing with utilizing current land is that would at some point create sprawl in Mustang. By solidifying the corridor as 'the commerce' corridor, it helps keep development from going elsewhere. Now you can make the argument that just because it's OKC doesn't mean it can't be developed as commercial. The argument there is valid, but the people that want to develop want the development to benefit Mustang directly, not indirectly like what's happened in Yukon. OKC has plenty of land, and realistically aren't going to run out anytime soon, even by giving away some underutilized portions on the outskirts of their city limits.

You are correct, OKC has tons and tons of land. I'm not disagreeing there.

If anything, Mustang should focus on how to urbanize it's core and worry about developing the land it has and making itself attractive to employers so it can become something more than a bedroom community. The only special suburbs I see are Norman and Guthrie. Those cities are going places and can set themselves apart. Right now, Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Mustang etc... are all bland cities that don't need anymore land and should develop what they have. Sometimes having boundaries that restrict growth make for better quality developments and produce more tax revenue.

Moore is running out of room and it will be interesting to see if better constructed, high dense projects get going there.

I am well aware of the mentality shared by the majority of OKCTalk that the city has too much land. That is well known. I still in this case more is better and OKC should hold onto it. Tons of things can be done with super large tracts of land. I'd start to suggest things, but then I might have PAHDZ come out and say I'm being absurd and childish. I will say, there is more to it than urban development and farmland if OKC can market itself as being more attractive to high-tech companies and research.