Mayor Cornett acknowledged the disadvantages of sprawl.

[Just the facts]

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.

That's right. If you want to live out near Mustang no problem. Get a well, septic tank, haul off your own trash, and wait 20 minutes for a fire truck. Don't expect a paved road to your front door either.

[rcjunkie]

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.

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

[SoonerDave]

That's right. If you want to live out near Mustang no problem. Get a well, septic tank, haul off your own trash, and wait 20 minutes for a fire truck. Don't expect a paved road to your front door either.

That's part of the consequence of the city having annexed so much land waaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's when it was thought to be such a good idea, because no one lived out there. In retrospect, little ol' Moore turned out to be a bit of a visionary in that they fought the effort to be annexed, and won, maintaining their own identity as a city and their own school system......

[leprechaun]

If the average OKC citizen actually realized the direct and indirect damage caused by sprawl, I think the issue would be at the forefront. The car culture is too deeply ingrained in the conscience of OKC citizens, and without any rules or regulations the sprawl will continue until we run out of land (probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes). I wish people were better educated on this issue, because we are screwing over future generations with our lack of vision. As mentioned previously, a thriving new subdvision inevitably begins to crumble into a ghetto twenty years later. With the evidence right in front of us, what are we waiting for? A sprawl tax just seems like common sense.

[Questor]

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

When I moved to Norman I noticed I have started seeing many more disabled folks / people with physical challenges out and about here. It donned on me recently why that is the case... we simply have better sidewalks and better mass transit because of the university. Putting myself in someone else's shoes, I imagine if I were in a wheelchair that not having a sidewalk might be an incredible impediment. Not having good sidewalks isn't just an inconvenience, it can really be a quality of life issue for some.

[leprechaun]

When deciding on where to build sidewalks, we need not look further than the miles of dirt trails seen in various parts of the city by the side of the road.

[Questor]

I think the two big drivers of sprawl in the city are 1. realtors and home builders would rather sell giant new home developments on the outskirts than a house here and there in the city, and 2. people buying houses would rather have a nice, new-looking house (whether or not it is actually new) and right now it is far cheaper / there is far more bang for the buck in going out to the boonies than there is in buying something in the city core.

#1 is just business right, but probably the scales are tipped in their favor because of strong lobbying and because we have or have had home builders on the council. #2 is largely a feature of our wide-open geography, but I totally agree with Spartan if you want to effect that then quit giving away city services to new developments or subsidizing them in any way (sewer, water, streets, etc.). Realistically that is the only option anyway, a tax on suburban building would just not happen here (and why "punish" someone when you can simply eliminate freebies).

[leprechaun]

I think the two big drivers of sprawl in the city are 1. realtors and home builders would rather sell giant new home developments on the outskirts than a house here and there in the city, and 2. people buying houses would rather have a nice, new-looking house (whether or not it is actually new) and right now it is far cheaper / there is far more bang for the buck in going out to the boonies than there is in buying something in the city core.

#1 is just business right, but probably the scales are tipped in their favor because of strong lobbying and because we have or have had home builders on the council. #2 is largely a feature of our wide-open geography, but I totally agree with Spartan if you want to effect that then quit giving away city services to new developments or subsidizing them in any way (sewer, water, streets, etc.). Realistically that is the only option anyway, a tax on suburban building would just not happen here (and why "punish" someone when you can simply eliminate freebies).

Exactly. Not only is sprawl encouraged, it is delivered to developers on a silver platter. Unless our policies change, sprawl will continue until it is not economically feasible for developers. One possibility as that if enough cities catch on to the standards set by cities like Portland Oregon, OKC will learn from them. We don't seem to learn from our own mistakes, but if we see enough positive effects of anti-sprawl standards in other cities we will be forced to take notice. One of the things that OKC has done well in recent years has been implementing ideas that have worked in other cities.

[ljbab728]

That's part of the consequence of the city having annexed so much land waaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's when it was thought to be such a good idea, because no one lived out there. In retrospect, little ol' Moore turned out to be a bit of a visionary in that they fought the effort to be annexed, and won, maintaining their own identity as a city and their own school system......

I've had this argument several times with Just the facts (Kerry). While I'm totally in favor of urban development and infill, if OKC had not done the annexation many years ago nothing would be different. It just means that the suburbs would have all of that land in their city limits and it would be developed exactly the same way with the suburbs getting taxes from developments there instead of OKC. Nearby examples are Tulsa and Dallas. I know the suburbs would also be paying for infrastructure but that wouldn't change the reality of how it would have developed.

[mcca7596]

Where do we draw the line? What is a reasonable area to stay within and say, "No infrastructure will be paid for if X development company builds past this boundary"? I know the I-240, I-35, and I-44 loop is talked about most often as being the "core". Furthermore, do we confine it to just trying to keep development itself within the urban core or is it feasible to actually try and dictate density based on radial distance from downtown? There are design and historical review districts (mostly around downtown), but I think it would be nice if we extended the reach of these. The biggest thing that jumps to my mind is to shorten the required setbacks for residential and most commercial buildings, perhaps even set a maximum distance for setbacks within a certain area. Of course, I understand there are instances where utility ROW would make this tricky. Just my personal wish to minimize the visual disadvantages of sprawl more than anything.

[Larry OKC]

I've had this argument several times with Just the facts (Kerry). While I'm totally in favor of urban development and infill, if OKC had not done the annexation many years ago nothing would be different. It just means that the suburbs would have all of that land in their city limits and it would be developed exactly the same way with the suburbs getting taxes from developments there instead of OKC. Nearby examples are Tulsa and Dallas. I know the suburbs would also be paying for infrastructure but that wouldn't change the reality of how it would have developed.

But isn't that Kerry's whole point, who ends up paying for it and is it sustainable?

[ljbab728]

But isn't that Kerry's whole point, who ends up paying for it and is it sustainable?

Yes that is Kerry's point but it still doesn't change anything about how the land would have been developed. The development would be the same if OKC had not annexed the land. He lives in an ideal world which doesn't and won't exist.

[OKCJosh]

I had the chance to interview him one on one in 2006 for a public transportation research project while I was in graduate school. We agreed that the interview recordings would not be broadcast because it was for research purposes only which was unfortunate because he was able to step outside of the normal political guard he has to measure his responses with. I was very impressed with him, not because of his public speaking ability but for his absolute commitment to what is logical and best for OKC regardless of politics. My favorite part about the half hour or so that I got to spend with him was how much he taught me about politics.
He essentially said to me, and this is not a quote but a paraphrase: When the people of OKC want a lightrail system, they will get one. When the people of any community want something and are willing to be taxed to buy it, they usually get it. Right now, while some in OKC think a lightrail system would be really beneficial, theres just too many people who live too far away and would have little use for it and don't want tax increases to boot.
I found that to be totally refreshing, logical and completely absent of politics. Plain factual truth about how the political process works in a community; our community. I have been a fan of him every since then. A few years later, when MAPS 3 was passed I was very pleased. He did indicate to me in not so many words that he thought a mass transit for OKC would be beneficial but it was not up to him to decide what the people of OKC would pay for, it was up to them. I like him and I wish he would become a Senator.

[soonerguru]

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

Didn't you used to be a city employee? If so, I'm glad you're a retired city employee, as apparently this was the level of thinking going on in city government for the last 40 years.

[Larry OKC]

When deciding on where to build sidewalks, we need not look further than the miles of dirt trails seen in various parts of the city by the side of the road.

Ding...ding...ding We have a winner!
Absolutely logical to build the path where it already exists (while following proper safety guidelines)

...He essentially said to me, and this is not a quote but a paraphrase: When the people of OKC want a lightrail system, they will get one. When the people of any community want something and are willing to be taxed to buy it, they usually get it. Right now, while some in OKC think a lightrail system would be really beneficial, theres just too many people who live too far away and would have little use for it and don't want tax increases to boot.
I found that to be totally refreshing, logical and completely absent of politics. Plain factual truth about how the political process works in a community; our community. I have been a fan of him every since then. A few years later, when MAPS 3 was passed I was very pleased. He did indicate to me in not so many words that he thought a mass transit for OKC would be beneficial but it was not up to him to decide what the people of OKC would pay for, it was up to them. I like him and I wish he would become a Senator.

Interesting observations. You do realize that what he was saying there isn't reflected with the reality?

He often spoke on the record of the comprehensive mass transit and strongly suggested that would be what we were going to be getting in MAPS 3.

The people have indicated they already want a light rail system and were willing to be taxed on it. This was evidenced by the City's MAPS 3 Survey site indicated that there was strong public support for a Mass transit solution (Light Rail, Streetcars, Commuter Rail, improved Bus System). Keep in mind that Survey was done without a list of items to choose from. It was a blank slate for suggestions. We don't know how those different components broke down in support as they were all lumped together in the Survey (again leading to the presumption that all of them would be addressed in MAPS 3 and not a single component). Not to suggest that the Streetcars aren't a logical place to start but it isn't what we was indicated was to come. He is correct that voters will probably approve it if given the opportunity to do so. However, the voters were not even given that opportunity.

The Mayor and Council collectively decided what would be put before the voters. We weren't given a list of projects (separate propositions) where those that passed got built. We were given an illegal all-or-nothing ballot that didn't include the very things the people already said they wanted and were willing to support. They included a piece here and there and something that the people said they didn't want at all.

I just wish he had followed through with what he said. That has been disappointing. I used to be a fan of Cornett (when he was a Councilman & voted for him twice for Mayor). But shortly after he won relection to a full term, he announced that he really wanted to be a Congressman. Instead of doing the right thing and resigning as Mayor (as Humphreys did before him when he decided to run for the Senate, he kept his day job. That was the turning point for me and after a string of disappointments, I would be hard pressed to ever vote for him again in any capacity.

[soonerguru]

Ed Shadid just posted this on his wall. It's an invitation to a public event at OCU addressing the problems and costs of sprawl in OKC, which will be attended and led by important city leadership. It's about time we had this discussion! We OKCTalkers should make our presence felt.


https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=260628310616128

[Spartan]

September 6. It will be a very huge event.

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

Are you seriously defending our NO SIDEWALKS? You are reactionary toward anything.

[Snowman]

September 6. It will be a very huge event.

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

Are you seriously defending our NO SIDEWALKS? You are reactionary toward anything.

They do not seem to be supporting not having sidewalks built, but having an issue with one way people are dealing with the lack of proper sidewalks.

[bombermwc]

I don't think he is saying "no sidewalks", but rather just because there isn't one, doesn't mean you have to walk in the street.

As others have said, sprawl would have happened regardless of which city owned the land. What the sprawl has done (and is probably why it was done in the first place) is given OKC a chance to keep a diverisifed tax base for the next century at least. Rather than being confied to a suburb sized boundary, there is the opportunity to keep expanding the tax base. Flawed or not (i'm not really taking a side), it has kept OKC from already being an urban hell. The core of the city would have been the entire city. Maps wouldn't have happened because the confined tax borders and the income levels within (thus meaning fewer retail locations to collect from) would NEVER have been able to provide the sales taxes to fund any of the measures. So OKC would have ended up in the true urban world...which i don't think we really are considering what sort of state it would be in right now.

Think about this for a minute...so we all hate sprawl huh. Think about all of the corporations that would be oustide the boundaries if we went back to the old city lines...basically any large company you mention would NOT be in OKC anymore. Hertz, Hobby Lobby, anything on Memorial or the NW Exway, etc. You can't honestly say that one sector just isn't going to ever produce because you don't know. Would anyone have guessed in 1940 that the NW side would look like it does today? Who's to say that the SE sector won't produce as the population there increases (with better income levels every day)?

[Just the facts]

Bomber - you are assuming other towns around OKC would swoop in and take the land. My guess is that they wouldn't. The sprawl is a net money loser for OKC to the tune of $18 million per year according to recent new stories. What other towns around OKC want to sign to lose $18 million? My guess is none.

...and no one is suggesting going back to the City limits of 1950. We are saying reduce them to the current urbanized area. Companies aren't going to locate out in the SE sector if they can't get water, paved roads, and fire protection. They will have to locate where there is already water, paved roads, and fire protection. We are underutilizing the resources already in place and at the same time creating even more underutilized infrastructure.

Go from this.. (dark green) to this.. (bright green)

[okcustu]

Bomber - you are assuming other towns around OKC would swoop in and take the land. My guess is that they wouldn't. The sprawl is a net money loser for OKC to the tune of $18 million per year according to recent new stories. What other towns around OKC want to sign to lose $18 million? My guess is none.

...and no one is suggesting going back to the City limits of 1950. We are saying reduce them to the current urbanized area. Companies aren't going to locate out in the SE sector if they can't get water, paved roads, and fire protection. They will have to locate where there is already water, paved roads, and fire protection. We are underutilizing the resources already in place and at the same time creating even more underutilized infrastructure.

Go from this.. (dark green) to this.. (bright green)

I completely agree. I think a lot of us are talking about the extreme sprawl: the area around Mustang and Yukon, far NE OKC, south of 240, and west of the Kirkpatrick in NWOKC. It would be fine if suburbs took this area. We are not going to be able to convince everyone sprawl is bad. Suburban cowboys will always exist, I'd just rather not pay for their lifestyle and delay services from those of us who live closer in (there's been a gaping hole in my street for 6 weeks now). On the other hand if Mustang wants to grow, we should let it; one of the last things we want is to kill affordable housing in the metro.

[BDK]

The de-annexation of undeveloped areas is probably a good idea, I doubt a change in the property tax scheme to cover the sprawl would gain much traction.

[Just the facts]

... I doubt a change in the property tax scheme to cover the sprawl would gain much traction.

Not only that but it doesn't work either. Lots of states, counties, and cities have tried 'impact fees' and other measures - none of them worked. In fact,a lot of cities ended up encouraging the sprawl just so they could fund their local government with the impact fees.

[okcustu]

Not only that but it doesn't work either. Lots of states, counties, and cities have tried 'impact fees' and other measures - none of them worked. In fact,a lot of cities ended up encouraging the sprawl just so they could fund their local government with the impact fees.

Touche, I didn't even think of that.

[Just the facts]

Touche, I didn't even think of that.

Don't worry, a lot of other people didn't think of it either. A good rule of thumb is, don't try to make money off of what you want to get rid of. Once you start making money off of it you find ways to spend the money, and if you make enough money you become dependent on it. In Florida, Arizona, and other places the impact fees accelerated the sprawl because people traded distance for cost. If impact fees went up $5,000 then builders found land further away that cost $5,000 less per lot. Then the states spent billions building new freeways, state roads, etc. to get these people back into town for work.

Want to shut down a website - launch a denial of service attack. Want to shut down sprawl - launch a denial of service attack. This can be done by de-annexing the land and letting market forces take over or artificially by creating no-growth zones. The no-growth zones don't seem to work well either. Just simply de-annexing the land seems to be the best way. If Norman, Yukon, or Edmond think the path to prosperity is by providing city service to rural populations let them try it.