Mayor Cornett acknowledged the disadvantages of sprawl.

[okcustu]

I was at a political seminar yesterday; the luncheon speaker was Mayor Mick. Whatever your opinion of him, the man can speak (years of broadcast experience). It was refreshing to hear him expand his normal talking points. His usual mantra is that he, as a mayor, has no real control over many issues, so his goal is to create more jobs. At this luncheon he admitted that it takes more than just jobs to make Oklahoma City better. Very interestingly, he did criticize sprawl as a barrier to making OKC a great city. He advocated for density and "giving the inner city a chance to compete". He also said the city needs to ease off it's overreliance on the car. Now he just just has to follow through this. I do have to wonder what the "compete" statement means?

[mcca7596]

Nice to hear; I figured he would advocate having both options (strong suburbs and inner city). I really hope that some tangible planning changes, that can help mitigate sprawl, come from PlanOKC. Was there a palpable reaction to his comments among the audience?

[okcustu]

Yeah especially among the students I was sitting with. I want to participate with the PlanOKC process, it sounds like fun actually.

[Larry OKC]

Don't take this as a slam at all as something a politician says is always news to someone who hasn't heard it before. The Mayor has been saying such things for several years now in his State of the City speeches, comments during Council meetings etc. He is following through (especially with the car issue), he seems committed to it with the transit portion of MAPS 3 as the first step.

[OkieDave]

He also said: We have a huge sprawling city, the engineers have made the city work well for the car and move traffic around fast but it is unsustainable, and that it is no coincidence we have a 30% obesity rate, we will need to increase density.

[Spartan]

I was at a political seminar yesterday; the luncheon speaker was Mayor Mick. Whatever your opinion of him, the man can speak (years of broadcast experience). It was refreshing to hear him expand his normal talking points. His usual mantra is that he, as a mayor, has no real control over many issues, so his goal is to create more jobs. At this luncheon he admitted that it takes more than just jobs to make Oklahoma City better. Very interestingly, he did criticize sprawl as a barrier to making OKC a great city. He advocated for density and "giving the inner city a chance to compete". He also said the city needs to ease off it's overreliance on the car. Now he just just has to follow through this. I do have to wonder what the "compete" statement means?

What he means is that you have to level the playing field for the inner city to be able to compete with the suburbs, which have built up so much inertia. Do we ever talk about when a suburban developer builds hundreds of spec homes out in the burbs at once? No, of course not. All of this attention that downtown is getting is kind of like affirmative action in terms of competing for development resources and activity. We want downtown to succeed, usually.

But he has always "talked this big game" on urbanism, or at least once he shifted his focus to downtown.

[betts]

It would be nice if he could change the weather as well. It's hard to walk anywhere after 9 in the morning or before 2 a.m. when the heat is like this.

[okcustu]

No, I know what the idea means I just how is he going to do that. The top thing that comes to mind is something that I saw on this board, a sprawl tax included in property tax if a new house is too far from existing infastructure. However I don't see a free market conservative Republican going for that.

[okcustu]

Don't take this as a slam at all as something a politician says is always news to someone who hasn't heard it before. The Mayor has been saying such things for several years now in his State of the City speeches, comments during Council meetings etc. He is following through (especially with the car issue), he seems committed to it with the transit portion of MAPS 3 as the first step.

None taken, I'd say I'm say I'm above the average citizen in my knowledge of local politics (by no means an expert). I haven't him speak a few times before and never heard him mention sprawl or say it's about more than just jobs, that's all. I will definitely give him point for championing the streetcar.

[Edgar]

does the Mayor actually have any cred left with anyone?

[Just the facts]

If you look at past comments from City officials you will see that most city spending is on the fringe - new roads, new water lines, new sewar lines, new fire stations, new police stations. We are spending a lot of money to keep building further out, and what does all that spending accomplish? Nothing, because the developers just keep building further out. Imagine if all the spending on sprawl for the past 20 years was concentrated in the already urbanized part of OKC. It would be so much better. The tax savings alone would be huge.

[okcustu]

Agreed. I've always said there's something wrong with sidewalks being built at 178th and Penn when the sidewalks are crumbling at 10th and Penn. Also you have to imagine that the heat has really been stretching city crews; I believe I heard an average of half a dozen water main breaks a day?!

[Larry OKC]

GASP...there are sidewalks at 10th & Penn? (I kid)

For whatever reason, sidewalks weren't a priority but that has changed in the past few years (they are required in new development, which might explain why they in 'sprawl" areas) and they are slowly adding them whenever they widen the streets (in the 2007 general obligation bond issue). Then there is the relatively small $10 million included in MAPS 3 to add more.

[Pete]

The Mayor knows the evils of sprawl just from his personal experience living in OKC.

I went to high school with him at Putnam City and at that time (late 70's) the PC district was the best in the state and a great source of pride for the City of OKC. This was especially important after many fled the OKC school district after all types of problems in the 60's.

He now lives in Lansbrook and the PC North district which was the better part of the PC district for a while, but has now faded fast just like the rest of the area.

So now, virtually everyone that Mick & I went to high school with lives in far, far north OKC or Edmond and has their kids in the Edmond schools. And of course, the neighborhoods where we grew up are now not so hot (and I'm being very kind here).

Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.

Anyone that went to Northwest Classen in the 60's, Putnam City in the 70's or Putnam North in the 80's can see these trends clear as day and it's very, very depressing.

[okcustu]

The Mayor knows the evils of sprawl just from his personal experience living in OKC.

I went to high school with him at Putnam City and at that time (late 70's) the PC district was the best in the state and a great source of pride for the City of OKC. This was especially important after many fled the OKC school district after all types of problems in the 60's.

He now lives in Lansbrook and the PC North district which was the better part of the PC district for a while, but has now faded fast just like the rest of the area.

So now, virtually everyone that Mick & I went to high school with lives in far, far north OKC or Edmond and has their kids in the Edmond schools. And of course, the neighborhoods where we grew up are now not so hot (and I'm being very kind here).

Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.

Anyone that went to Northwest Classen in the 60's, Putnam City in the 70's or Putnam North in the 80's can see these trends clear as day and it's very, very depressing.

That's one of the downsides to sprawl that people don't think about. Instead of investing in PCO and PCW new families take the taxes and, almost as important, the interest out of district. Sadly it will probably take problems on the same level of OKCPS before people start to taking interest in the inner ring suburban school districts.

[Just the facts]

Building a new city five miles away every 20 years gets expensive.

[Pete]

Instead of investing in PCO and PCW new families take the taxes and, almost as important, the interest out of district.

And now increasingly, outside the city limits. Most the people I knew growing up in Oklahoma City that still live in the area are in Edmond. And Moore, Norman, and Mustang are all growing much faster than the city.

That's even more shocking when you consider OKC is one of the largest cities geographically.

[Midtowner]

Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.

Re: NW OKC, I'm not sure I agree. Even though my NW OKC neighborhood is bounded on the North and South sides by what I can only assume are Section 8 houses, my neighborhood, which contains homes in the $120-$150K range is actually mostly very well kept up (except for the occasional rent house) and full of great folks. The houses, if kept up, have held their value just fine.

Now, whether my neighborhood continues to be nice remains to be seen. A lot of the folks on my street are original occupants and now in their 80s. We'll see who replaces them.

NWOKC, especially the area around Lansbrook has a lot going for it. Lake Hefner is (and should be) a huge draw. We have some great restaurants, plenty of entertainment options, decent shopping nearby, etc. I'm sure the glut of Section 8 housing in the area has been a huge problem, but on the bright side, those properties look like they ought to be condemned (and let's hope they are!).

[Just the facts]

It is for this very reason we are living in our last subdivision. My wife is tired of have to move every 10 years to stay ahead of the dilapidation wave. I guess the one good thing about the housing collapse is that it stalled urban sprawl for a while (at least in most cities).

[Pete]

Midtowner, there are pockets of good areas on the NW side but for the most part the over-arching and very strong trend has been downward.

I know several families that specifically moved out of Lansbrook with school-aged kids to go to Edmond.


I keep the database of my high school class (Putnam City 1978) and the huge majority have moved to Edmond. And these were people that had generally a fantastic experience in the Putnam City Schools. Most will tell you they don't want their kids in those schools any more -- any of them.

Whether things have actually gotten a lot worse is opinion but that perception is driving lots of behavior.

[okcustu]

The percieved "ghetto-ness" or poor quality of PC, Mid-Del, and similar school districtsis very overstated. If you're a good parent and your kids are in advanced classes and extra-curricular activities they will excel just as much as someone in Deer Creek or Norman. Problems, such as drugs and poor teaching can and do happen at schools in all districts (I know parents who decry the state of Sante Fe and left for the greener pastures in Deer Creek).
And funding issues are only exacerbated by flight, and an inability to organize support for bond issues. The cure for these districts are people like Just The Facts who dig in and say I'm going to make an active effort to make the school district better.

[Pete]

I know parents who decry the state of Sante Fe and left for the greener pastures in Deer Creek

Yep, just a matter of time before people went even further out for the same reasons they've been doing it for decades. And the way the city is developed and managed not only allows it, it encourages it. We continue to build roads, highways and other infrastructure out in the middle of nowhere and it's not long before subdivisions, fast food and Wal-Marts start springing up.


And I agree with what you say about the poor conditions in those schools being exaggerated. I have nephews and nieces that are still in the PC schools. However, there is the perception that things are much worse and it drives the sprawl, which is absolute reality.

[okcustu]

Oh like the Turnpike to no where? I still don't understand how it helps. It's on the periphery of the city with means you still have to take 74 (murder) or 77/235 (bloody murder) to go anywhere.

[Spartan]

No, I know what the idea means I just how is he going to do that. The top thing that comes to mind is something that I saw on this board, a sprawl tax included in property tax if a new house is too far from existing infastructure. However I don't see a free market conservative Republican going for that.

You can simply introduce the tax in the form of... not putting in the infrastructure. Live far out, okay, don't expect A+ city services or infrastructure. That's the problem we have here.

[Spartan]

GASP...there are sidewalks at 10th & Penn? (I kid)

It would be shocking, I know. I see people nearly get run over on the side of the road every day on the south side.