Amazon Fulfillment

[BoulderSooner]

Dallas also has the same typography and is even further from mountains and nowhere near a large body of water.

I've said it a million times: Oklahoma should be a prosperous state. We have just as much oil & gas per capita as Texas, which has been fantastic in terms of economic development, education and investing it tons of quality of life areas.

Yet, we are down with Mississippi and West Virginia -- 2 states with deeply embedded economic and social problems -- rather than anywhere close to the one state we are nearest to and most similar in terms of geography and almost everything else.

And here we sit, generally doubling-down on the same failed policies that have put us in this position in the first place. It's maddening.

the texas land office which funds the state permanent school fund is something that makes them very different from every other state . they kept control of all of thier public lands when they joined the country and profit from them

[Dob Hooligan]

the texas land office which funds the state permanent school fund is something that makes them very different from every other state . they kept control of all of thier public lands when they joined the country and profit from them

This is where that "Republic of Texas" description has a real meaning, I think? Story I've always heard is that Texas was a functioning country that voluntarily merged into the United States. So, they maintain a different level of ownership over public lands than other states.

[Pete]

the texas land office which funds the state permanent school fund is something that makes them very different from every other state . they kept control of all of thier public lands when they joined the country and profit from them

Then why are we significantly worse off in every respect than Kansas? Or virtually every other state?

We have more of the most valuable resource available than just about every other state yet we still scrape the bottom of every single measurable category.

Texas may have a unique advantage in some areas, but not all. A huge part of the problem here is our own terrible failed policies.

[Rover]

This is the exact reason why I always harp on development. OKC can’t control what the weather does or how far the beach is. What it can control is the built environment and how livable the city is. Historic preservation, beatification projects, transit, and urban design standards are all tools that can be used to mitigate the geography argument.

Parking lots, strip malls and interstate expansion won’t make OKC a more attractive place for relocations. But there are things we can control that would.

This is a symptom and not a cause. Attractive buildings don't make economic development, but are the result of it. Try attacking things like educating a work force. Try rewarding capitalizing new start-ups. Fund real R&D in significant ways. Build real infrastructure. Reform our taxation system. Find leadership that addresses real issues, not trying to use the government to evangelize. etc, etc, etc.

[GoGators]

This is a symptom and not a cause. Attractive buildings don't make economic development, but are the result of it. Try attacking things like educating a work force. Try rewarding capitalizing new start-ups. Fund real R&D in significant ways. Build real infrastructure. Reform our taxation system. Find leadership that addresses real issues, not trying to use the government to evangelize. etc, etc, etc.

Sure, You will get no argument from me on those points. Its certainly no secret that education is our biggest issue statewide.

And i never said anything about attractive buildings creating economic development. However, Attractive cities certainly do.

[Plutonic Panda]

We could move to the Euro model and make incentives illegal. But that screw over Oklahoma, in a big way. We can't compete with beaches or mountains or mild climates. I'd be real careful bout you ask for.

Are you really insinuating that companies locate only where beaches, mountains, and mild climates exist? If so that is complete bullsh!t. Companies go where the money is. Incentives are corporate welfare and needs to be banned. It will make near zero impact on whether a market gets a store or not.

[Dob Hooligan]

But, I think incentives special and deals have been going on for many decades? My late father, whose working life was 1946-95, told me he thought the reason Dallas overtook OKC in air travel was when Mr. Braniff asked OKC to build him a newer and larger headquarters than what Braniff Airways had at the time. Braniff was an Oklahoma company and Mr. Braniff was an Oklahoma guy, but he was rebuffed. So, he went to Dallas and they agreed. And the rest is history.

I don't think "Corporate Welfare" is anything new. It just has a different name.

[drinner-okc]

I had always heard it was over a 24-hr customs agent at the airport. Braniff had direct flights from Mexico, and well...airplanes weren't so dependable. OKC said a 3rd agent was too expensive, Dallas agreed & Braniff moved. My dad worked for Braniff from 1949 until his death in 1967. (too soon..)

[mugofbeer]

Are you really insinuating that companies locate only where beaches, mountains, and mild climates exist? If so that is complete bullsh!t. Companies go where the money is. Incentives are corporate welfare and needs to be banned. It will make near zero impact on whether a market gets a store or not.

It's a pie in the sky idea. It's just not going to happen.

Mountains, beaches and trees are nice but companies also look to access to airports with good connections and available workforce of the type they need.

[RedDollar]

Are you really insinuating that companies locate only where beaches, mountains, and mild climates exist? If so that is complete bullsh!t. Companies go where the money is. Incentives are corporate welfare and needs to be banned. It will make near zero impact on whether a market gets a store or not.

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

[Stew]

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

That's simply not true. OKC's climate is classified as humid subtropical. That's quite a stones throw away from 'almost desert'.

[Dob Hooligan]

I had always heard it was over a 24-hr customs agent at the airport. Braniff had direct flights from Mexico, and well...airplanes weren't so dependable. OKC said a 3rd agent was too expensive, Dallas agreed & Braniff moved. My dad worked for Braniff from 1949 until his death in 1967. (too soon..)

I would not doubt for a minute your version is correct. You clearly have a better source and it has been over 25 years since I heard the story from my dad.

[HOT ROD]

I too hate incentives, but as long as they are available and expected then OKC must provide them.

Everyone here has made great points, OKC is not a coastal city and doesn't have mountains. OKC is not in a desert but is 400 miles from a large body of water (relatively close so OKC gets plenty of rain, but no cigar). In fact, the ONLY true positive that OKC has on just about every major metro area is our road/freeway infrastructure was designed perfectly to allow for easy access and our "Crossroads-of-America" location (that we don't even promote).

OKC isn't as desirable as other major cities today due in large part to the rural/political mindset of the state holding it back to where it can't compete against its peers let alone larger markets. Add to that, coastal cities and those with mountains ALSO offer plenty of incentives to companies to relocate - Denver or Seattle isn't just sitting there while companies flock to them and we know Dallas wouldn't be what it is without all of the wheeling and dealing since it's similar to OKC geographically/culturally.

The problem for OKC is we never participated until recently. We never had incentives until United Airlines. They told OKC despite the incentives that OKC 'at the time' was not desirable place to live.

So you have to have quality of life AND incentives to attract companies. Sure there will be transient and even a few legit companies that relocate naturally when they experience growth and want to be where there's existing skilled employees. To stand out, particularly when you don't have ocean or mountains as natural, free quality of life amenities; you need to have better incentives.

This is what OKC had to learn and must continue to do, particularly when NOW even though OKC is desirable as a city it's the state that still has the black eye holding us down.

[Dob Hooligan]

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

Please allow me to suggest that much of the placement of population near water is due to the importance of the waterways for shipping and travel prior to the mid 1800s. The locomotive made large scale movement of goods and people more affordable and easy. But navigation of waterways had been the method of movement since man sought to leave the village.

River bank cities and ocean ports have a hundred year head start on the inland portion of the United States.

[Swake]

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

80% is wrong, only 39% of Americans live in coastal counties.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

You have a right to your opinion but 20% of 320 million people is not insignificant and if you were correct in your analysis then coastal or mountain cities would need to offer incentives but they do.

As Stew pointed out, much of Oklahoma is NOT a desert. Oklahoma actually has some of the most diverse climate zones of any state.

[RedDollar]

They've used incentives, not subsidies, not corp welfare .............. incentives

And they have a very scenic beautiful state with lots of water, Charlotte is built around Lake Norman.

From Microbreweries To Biotech: In North Carolina, Business Calls



https://fivethirtyeight.com/sponsore...tent=106860930

[RedDollar]

80% is wrong, only 39% of Americans live in coastal counties.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html

I said 100 miles. And that includes the Great Lakes. And I've not even included rivers and lakes, rivers that did not need mowing three times a year

I'm not gonna argue with you people over details.

[Plutonic Panda]

They've used incentives, not subsidies, not corp welfare .............. incentives

And they have a very scenic beautiful state with lots of water, Charlotte is built around Lake Norman.

From Microbreweries To Biotech: In North Carolina, Business Calls



https://fivethirtyeight.com/sponsore...tent=106860930

Point is those cities you seem to insinuate don't need incentives because of their natural features do use incentives and that debunks your theory that businesses wouldn't locate in areas that lack those features without incentives.

[BDP]

They've used incentives, not subsidies, not corp welfare ..............

Generally, you are correct. It is not corporate welfare. It's basically the opposite of welfare, or at least the motivation of welfare.

The concept of welfare is for government resources / policies to be used to help people achieve a minimal standard of living.

That's obviously not what's happening here. They're just using their market position to extract government incentives to create / strengthen a competitive advantage over their competition.

The conversation about mountains and oceans and whatever is really irrelevant in this case. They just want a distribution center near a population center to achieve a better turn around rate than they already have (which is probably already the best in the market), because they're reaching a market maturity where delivery times are being measured in hours not days, and shareholders need to see incremental gains.

The only way for them to achieve that rate, which would have been considered absurd only 5 years ago, is to get incentives from the government that reduce the cost of doing that. And, the only reason they get those incentives is because of how successful they have been at getting those incentives along the way.

So, it's actually the opposite of welfare. Welfare is usually government giving assistance to those who need it. This is government giving assistance to those who are just threatening to take their football and go play (get paid) somewhere else.

What's interesting is this completely makes sense in 2019. I don't want to speak for you, but this seems like it's totally normal to you. And maybe at this point it makes sense for OKC to give this to them. The irony is, to anyone who has read past the first chapter in economics 101, is that Amazon created the situation.] OKC feels the need to give "incentives", as you call them, I'd call them concessions, to Amazon. The reason malls and large department stores are closing is because of Amazon. And then Amazon comes to the market and asks (actually demands) for government incentives to replace those jobs that weren't incentiveized by government policy (for the most part) to begin with.

Basically, giving incentives to Amazon only makes sense in today's economic norms. A Capitalist model would never prescribe that, as that's government picking a winner, or at least giving a government sanctioned artificial advantage to a market player. A welfare model would never do that, either, as there's no reasonable logical case to be made that Amazon needs incentives to be successful.

It'd actually be more interesting to discuss it in context of whether it's socialism or capitalism, as opposed to whether it's welfare or not. It's clearly not capitalism ( the government used its resources to give them an advantage). It doesn't feel like socialism (especially not Marxism), but, then again, government had a hand in deciding who was going to deliver those good to market... or, at least, gave them an incentive to do so, because, I guess, in the free market, no one ever got what they needed / wanted before Amazon came along and, at this point, we just really, really, need, on a civic level, for Amazon to have a distribution center in our town to deliver those goods and (re)supply the workforce.

If that sounds like absurd logic, it is, but that's what was used to make this happen.

[betts]

Yes, I am.

Something like 80% of the US population, lives within 100 miles of the ocean.

Get a map out and look. Where are the least populated states ?

People like to live near water. OKC does not have any. We're almost a desert.

As ocean levels rise, a lot of those people will be relocating. But we still won’t have a beach. Neither does Dallas though. Dallas’ rise has always been a mystery to me, but success breeds success.

[gopokes88]

Amazon changed the way everyone shops and remade a significant portion of the economy. That’s cool and the way capitalism works sometimes. See Uber vs taxis.

For them to demand the government take less tax money to help them accelerate this change is absurd and unfair to mall and shop owners. Uber didn’t demand incentives when they moved in to destroy/modernize/etc the taxi industry.

I understand and support why okc did it. They didn’t have much of choice, but I also support somewhat of a federal ban on the practice.

[aDark]

Working conditions, turnover, low pay, etc. are all reasons why it will have a long term negative effect. Being non-unionized is one of the main things that contribute to h problem and why getting a center is ultimately bad. I noticed you didn’t note education or other reasons so I assume you are anti union, as is most of OK. That is why these low pay jobs thrive here. Most fail to see any connection. We need them to pay reasonable living wages and have reasonable conditions so we can attract and grow the communities around them with people who can afford to live there and spend money. The okc incentives are the least of our worries about this long term.

I'm not anti-union. I agree that what Amazon's model takes advantage of workers and is *very* detrimental. I agree with you that this is bad for the local economy and especially the immediate surrounding area. I agree that a large mass of low-income workers being injected into a suburban/industrial area is bad for OKC. We are on the same page and likely share political viewpoints.

I hold these opinions while also believing that the highest and best use of this site is when threads stay focused on the discussion at hand. In this case, I believe this thread would be best utilized to discuss the physical building, how it interacts with the area it is being developed in, how/why/what the City did to contribute to it's construction and Amazon coming here, and the immediate effects on the workforce of OKC. I believe the conversation you're wanting to have should be fleshed out in another thread, dedicated to politics, history of unions, etc. Again, I understand where you are coming from and agree with you.

As Pete mentioned above, it's impossible to talk Amazon without this stuff coming up so I'm letting it go.

[progressiveboy]

As ocean levels rise, a lot of those people will be relocating. But we still won’t have a beach. Neither does Dallas though. Dallas’ rise has always been a mystery to me, but success breeds success.

I too always wondered what made Dallas a modern 21st Century city and this article that I am supplying the link to will explain. Dallas has no mountains, beaches, oceans and does not have a modern port but what set it's self apart from other cities it had the philanthropic super wealthy citizens and great leadership to develop it in a thriving metropolis. Dallas has the Perot family (EDS), McDermott family, (co founder of Texas Instruments), The Lay family, (Frito Lay), the Crow family, (Trammel Crow). What really started DFW into becoming a thriving city is in the early 70"s when DFW International Airport took off and attracted American Airlines moving their headquarters from New York.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/bi...opy-13546.html

[HOT ROD]

One thing that Dallas does do is they build BIG and have a CAN DO attitude. This has always been the case, even way back when Dallas was smaller than OKC - they thought BIG, they build BIG and they always dreamed and acted BIG and DID it.

The example in the article didn't really say that Dallas elite shell out $$ of private sector dollars only to make the city better (ala Tulsa). What it said is that the elite PARTICIPATE in the city's vision, helping ensure success. The new freeway cap/park - not just a cap but one with RESTAURANTSSSSS!, auditorium and other big ticket amenities.

Just like OKC, it was the city that had the vision and got the funding (even using state and federal transportation dollars, something unheard of in OKC btw). But it was the rich elite that made sure it gots done in a big way - to me that's what sets Dallas apart from OKC, the rich are involved and help guide a common theme in Dallas - BIG!

contrast that to the 'vision' OKC has for a freeway cap: just a park lawn with no involvement from the elite of OKC. and therefore, still unbuilt ... That's the difference in a nutshell IMO.