Why The Next Great Cities Aren't What You Think.

[mkjeeves]

Holy cow - so much work still to be done. Let's start with this basic fact. Property taxes don't collect enough money to buiild and maintain the infrastrucutre needed to support low densisty suburbia. If it did OKC wouldn't have nearly a billion dollars in bonds to be paid by people in the future fund maintenance and expansion or just the roads needed today. 4 miles of I-40 cost $600 million dollars. If not for a cash infusion from an increasingly bankrupt federal government we could never afford to fix 4 miles of I-40. OKC has how many thousands of miles of streets whose first life-cycle was paid for with cash, and whose second life-cycle was paid for with bonds going 10 to 20 years out. How do we pay for the third life-cycle?

The hard part of funding growth through debt is that at some point you max out the debt. Then what?

Someone needs to fish or cut bait. Define the core of OKC, the (52K people and their property I presume) and deannex the rest of us, along with our taxes/costs (the other 650,000 of us.) Or move on. What's it going to be?

[betts]

This is an argument without a simple solution. I really don't know who can argue for sprawl, except developers. But sprawl we've got and no one is de annexing 650,000 people. We would actually do quite well financially by doing so, but it's beyond silly to imply that it could happen. What we should try to do, though, is limit future sprawl, by not annexing anything else, unless its on the inside of existing city limits.

It's quite clear that more people in the upcoming generation have different values and we will see more people valuing living closer to the core. We can encourage that by improving mass transit in areas within a reasonable radius.

[Just the facts]

It is really pretty simple, the economy of scale comes in the density. A stretch of road 500' long cost X number of dollars to build and maintain. That cost can be shared by 5 homesowners or by 15 homeowners. Which do you think makes better financial sense? If 5 people choose to live along the road shouldn't their property taxes equal the same amount of money as the 15 people who choose to live a higher density road to cover the cost of the road? If the fire station that serves the first group only has 10,000 homes in it and the second fire station serves 20,000 homes shouldn't residents in the first group pay twice as much taxes for fire protection?

But we don't pay property taxes based on the cost of providing the service, we base it on the value of the house, and that is when we start running into the problem as the densities decline and home values go down, the further out people get the cost to provide the service goes up, and the revenue generated goes down. How long can that model last?

[CaptDave]

Someone needs to fish or cut bait. Define the core of OKC, the (52K people and their property I presume) and deannex the rest of us, along with our taxes/costs (the other 650,000 of us.) Or move on. What's it going to be?

I think the most practical solution is to deincentivize greenfield development and provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate the numerous brownfield areas roughly bounded by the Kilpatrick, I-35, and I-240. Maybe develop a hierarchy of incentives based on proximity to the city core - higher/better incentives closer in, and some sort of sliding scale as you move farther away. Take into consideration existing utility and street infrastructure and the ability of emergency services to provide adequate coverage for the site under consideration. The Core to Shore area should be given higher priority for development before another subdivision in a former pasture. Consider a moratorium on extending city utility coverage past existing limits of service until a certain benchmark for redevelopment within those boundaries is met. Just a couple quick ideas.....

[Just the facts]

I think the most practical solution is to deincentivize greenfield development and provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate the numerous brownfield areas roughly bounded by the Kilpatrick, I-35, and I-240. Maybe develop a hierarchy of incentives based on proximity to the city core - higher/better incentives closer in, and some sort of sliding scale as you move farther away. Take into consideration existing utility and street infrastructure and the ability of emergency services to provide adequate coverage for the site under consideration. The Core to Shore area should be given higher priority for development before another subdivision in a former pasture. Consider a moratorium on extending city utility coverage past existing limits of service until a certain benchmark for redevelopment within those boundaries is met. Just a couple quick ideas.....

I suspect this is where Sid takes issue with the 'New Urbanist' vs the old urbanist. Half of all 'New Urbanism' developments are in greenfields, and if you look at a lot of those all they did was relocate the sprawling surface parking lots from the front of the buildings to the back of the buildings. Nothing else changed. To combat this the Congress for the New Urbansim help create the LEED Neighborhood certification. Not only do builders need to have an energy efficient building, but they now have to put in on an energy efficient piece of land.

Neighborhood Development | U.S. Green Building Council

[BoulderSooner]

Holy cow - so much work still to be done. Let's start with this basic fact. Property taxes don't collect enough money to buiild and maintain the infrastrucutre needed to support low densisty suburbia. If it did OKC wouldn't have nearly a billion dollars in bonds to be paid by people in the future fund maintenance and expansion or just the roads needed today. 4 miles of I-40 cost $600 million dollars. If not for a cash infusion from an increasingly bankrupt federal government we could never afford to fix 4 miles of I-40. OKC has how many thousands of miles of streets whose first life-cycle was paid for with cash, and whose second life-cycle was paid for with bonds going 10 to 20 years out. How do we pay for the third life-cycle?

The hard part of funding growth through debt is that at some point you max out the debt. Then what?

OKC can afford its current spending and future needs pretty much forever ... if we keep the very conservative way that we run the city budget ..

[Just the facts]

OKC can afford its current spending and future needs pretty much forever ... if we keep the very conservative way that we run the city budget ..

You mean we can make the debt payment.

[Just the facts]

Before we discuss prioritizing city spending in certain parts of the city, with such distinct boundaries, we still must remember where that money is coming from. Arguably, I would suggest most of it comes from outside those very interstate boundaries, outside the loop. North, South and West there's a ton of property taxes and sales tax generated versus the inner core. Look at where the money is and where it's spent. Just something to chew on because I AM a big supporter of the inner core of our city. But it's a tough argument to counter.

Outside the interstate boundaries are also where the biggest expense is. It's not about revenue, it is about 'profit margin' (for lack of a better word). If you lose money on every transaction you can't make up for it in volume.

[BoulderSooner]

You mean we can make the debt payment.

debt is not inherently bad ... especially when money is cheap

[Just the facts]

Meanwhile - this just aired on CNBC.

Boomers a Boon to Urban Home Builders

[mkjeeves]

I think the most practical solution is to deincentivize greenfield development and provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate the numerous brownfield areas roughly bounded by the Kilpatrick, I-35, and I-240. Maybe develop a hierarchy of incentives based on proximity to the city core - higher/better incentives closer in, and some sort of sliding scale as you move farther away. Take into consideration existing utility and street infrastructure and the ability of emergency services to provide adequate coverage for the site under consideration. The Core to Shore area should be given higher priority for development before another subdivision in a former pasture. Consider a moratorium on extending city utility coverage past existing limits of service until a certain benchmark for redevelopment within those boundaries is met. Just a couple quick ideas.....

Mostly good ideas. Living further away does not necessarily mean it cost the city more. If I have a work/live/shop center that generates lots of economic activity it's no different than being downtown. Probably better actually, depending on where it is. There are no water supplies or sewage treatment facilities in downtown OKC for example.

The model needs to be that each area contributes. Decentralized jobs, shopping and services that don't require commuting are key. So incentives for locating those in areas with existing homes and low activity and less so for building new homes in areas without.

We have a lot of decentralized jobs and economic activity now. Most OKC economic activity does not happen in downtown and most of the jobs are not downtown.

We also have way to many people commuting.

[mkjeeves]

This is an argument without a simple solution. I really don't know who can argue for sprawl, except developers. But sprawl we've got and no one is de annexing 650,000 people. We would actually do quite well financially by doing so, but it's beyond silly to imply that it could happen. What we should try to do, though, is limit future sprawl, by not annexing anything else, unless its on the inside of existing city limits.

It's quite clear that more people in the upcoming generation have different values and we will see more people valuing living closer to the core. We can encourage that by improving mass transit in areas within a reasonable radius.

I'm arguing for reality.

While I'm the one trying to force facing that and used the rhetoric to de-annex the 650,000. The truth is really the other way around. The 52K would be a small minority of people with little representation in city hall and scant resources, seceding from the City of OKC proper. But you could keep city hall building and the name if it came down to it since that building is on your turf. Most of the council would be without wards so no need for them to show up anymore. Don't know where Mayor Mick lives, if he would still be a resident and thus still qualify as your mayor or not. : )

[ou48A]

yep

Yep x 2

In 30 years it will still be the old same story…..just as it’s always been, follow the money.
People have been trying to reinvent basic human nature for centuries but no matter how hard they try money and what it brings to life will always win out no matter what else happens in a free society.

[hoya]

Clearly your average person is not going to choose to give up their car anytime soon. People like living in suburbia, especially if the cost is subsidized. People aren't going to choose a more spartan existence when they don't have to. Much as I like Sid, his earlier rant about eliminating subsidies and changing property taxes and making people live more sustainable lifestyles... it's a pipe dream. People won't agree to that. They'll look at you like you're an urban snob and ignore everything you say from that point forward.

I would suggest that this state implement an Urban Growth Boundary. Urban growth boundary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OKC should stop expanding farther out. I have an aunt and uncle who have continued to move farther and farther out. When I was a baby they lived near my parents in Del City. Before I can remember they moved farther out. When I was in grade school they lived in a new, very nice development in Moore. When I was in college they moved to a newer house in a newer neighborhood in Moore. A few years ago they moved south of Norman on Highway 9. My dad did the math once, and said that they've moved to a new house about every 5 or 6 years. They keep getting farther and farther out into the country, except it's not really the country because development just keeps sprawling out. It used to be the country.

So no problem right? Good for my aunt and uncle right? The problem is, a year or two ago I drove back through their old neighborhood, the one I remember when I was in grade school in the 80s. It had been a very nice, expensive neighborhood, full of doctors and lawyers. Now it's kind of run down. It's not horrible yet, but the home values have dropped because the people who used to live in that neighborhood have continued to move farther and farther out. We're creating a ring of rot within our city. What used to be nice 30 years ago is trashy now. There's no reason that has to be the case. There's no reason why their old neighborhood couldn't be like Heritage Hills or Mesta Park, where the homes have retained their value. The only reason it is the way it is is because it's so easy to move out farther away.

We should set a hard limit on expanding the city. Set new neighborhood design requirements as well. Sidewalks, park space, street width restrictions, etc. After that we can sit back and wait. We'll have stopped the bleeding and then we can let private developers fill in spaces within the city. Land values will stop falling. Neighborhoods will last longer. Infrastructure costs will start going down. Maybe we can actually keep our roads in good condition if we quit building hundreds of more miles of them.

And the best part to all this is, nobody has to change the way they are living. We aren't talking about de-annexing anyone. We aren't blaming my aunt and uncle for wanting their little country mansions. Nobody has to feel bad and nobody feels targeted by the new regulations. We're trying to prepare for population trends in 30 years anyway. That's plenty of time for more sustainable neighborhoods to develop on their own. As we stop being a city that has huge chunks of empty land undeveloped within a mile of our downtown, our property values will rise and we'll get better developments.

[BoulderSooner]

the problem with an urban growth boundary is that for OKC that ship as sailed on the east houses are on the okc border (choctaw along I40) on the south houses go to the moore and norman borders on the west and north it is the same .. .

at this point if we were to limit new housing on the edges of okc .. it will chase residents to peidemont choctaw yukon edmond and moore even more so then is happening now

[hoya]

It's got to be a statewide rule. Yukon and Choctaw have to implement one too.

[hoya]

Oh, and in response to a much earlier point, the reason we're experiencing good growth now is not because of our suburban sprawl. Our growth is more related to high paying jobs in energy, combined with our trying to create a city worth living in. If all you needed was cheap land, you'd be seeing a boom in tiny towns out in the middle of nowhere. People want to live either in or close to vibrant cities.

[Just the facts]

Yep x 2

In 30 years it will still be the old same story…..just as it’s always been, follow the money.
People have been trying to reinvent basic human nature for centuries but no matter how hard they try money and what it brings to life will always win out no matter what else happens in a free society.

Finally, you understand what we have been saying. I didn't think we would ever get here. What was the final straw that convinced you?

[mkjeeves]

Finally, you understand what we have been saying. I didn't think we would ever get here. What was the final straw that convinced you?

He was agreeing to agreement with this post:

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post634889

[mkjeeves]

Oh, and in response to a much earlier point, the reason we're experiencing good growth now is not because of our suburban sprawl. Our growth is more related to high paying jobs in energy, combined with our trying to create a city worth living in. If all you needed was cheap land, you'd be seeing a boom in tiny towns out in the middle of nowhere. People want to live either in or close to vibrant cities.

Energy jobs (or similar), reinvented late developing downtown, decentralized jobs, cheap housing at the fringes, houses with yards with short commutes, were all reasons stated in the article. We have all of those. That is why we are growing too.

[hoya]

Energy jobs (or similar), reinvented late developing downtown, decentralized jobs, cheap housing at the fringes, houses with yards with short commutes, were all reasons stated in the article. We have all of those. That is why we are growing too.

Reasons stated in the article, but with no sources to back him up. I can write an article and say that OKC is developing because the spirits in an ancient indian burial ground are happy with casino profits right now. Doesn't give it any validity. Just because he claims it, doesn't mean I believe him.

I am saying that cheap houses with yards are not a factor in why we are experiencing strong growth. We've had cheap houses with yards for decades and haven't seen the type of growth we're seeing now.

[Dubya61]

the problem with an urban growth boundary is that for OKC that ship as sailed on the east houses are on the okc border (choctaw along I40) on the south houses go to the moore and norman borders on the west and north it is the same .. .

at this point if we were to limit new housing on the edges of okc .. it will chase residents to peidemont choctaw yukon edmond and moore even more so then is happening now

So what, if that happens? OKC can build strong city centers in the CBD and others, luring growth back into OKC while Piedmont, Choctaw, Yukon, Edmond and Moore begin to sprawl out themselves, gaining those who want it and losing those who want to live in a vibrant city. Then, at some point in the future, OKC will have a vibrant city ALL over and Piedmond, Choctaw, Yukon, Edmond and Moore will start to think, "Wow, how did we become unable to fund our selves the way that OKC can fund themselves? Although I think Moore is landlocked and would someday have to learn to (re)develop itself to be self-sustaining.

[mkjeeves]

Reasons stated in the article, but with no sources to back him up. I can write an article and say that OKC is developing because the spirits in an ancient indian burial ground are happy with casino profits right now. Doesn't give it any validity. Just because he claims it, doesn't mean I believe him.

I am saying that cheap houses with yards are not a factor in why we are experiencing strong growth. We've had cheap houses with yards for decades and haven't seen the type of growth we're seeing now.

Pardon me for my assumptions. I've read his credentials but had no idea you were his peer.

Certainly everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions and beliefs.

[OKCDrummer77]

... Piedmond

Are you expecting Piedmont and Edmond to grow together in one huge suburb?

[RadicalModerate]

Has anyone yet published the book regarding The Great Nichols Hills vs. The Village Wars of the '50s?
The lesson learned, even way back then, is that The Developers Always Win.
Thankfully, since local hostilities have ceased, one can proffer the suggestion that Nichols Hillsians could probably place their unwanted stuff at the house of a friend in The Village on account of Nichols Hillsians are deprived of Big Trash Day.

I have a feeling that Brittonians are still fuming about stuff like this.
Maybe even grinding axes.