I saw on the Tulsa Forum sight under the Sports thread that a post stated that the MAPS 3 passage was typical tax and spend for OKC. The post further stated that Tulsa sets a "better" example than OKC for letting private foundations and "philanthropic people of Tulsa to fund their needs? Question? Did they not vote for their own version for tax increase to fund their arena and ballpark or was it all donated by wealthy Tulsans? The thread went on about OKC will always be a bad city and the only good factor going for it is Norman. The post even called OKC= OK****ty. It sounds to me like once again, Tulsa has this superior attitude and hates to see when OKC progresses. What seems to be the problem?
Bookmarks