5/26 Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Outlet Shoppes Update

[okcpulse]

Interesting that the BEA numbers are so different from the Census Bureau numbers. Any idea why? (FWIW, the BEA numbers show the Houston metro (where I believe you live) with a Per capita income of $46,471)

The U.S. Census Bureau uses per capita income estimates derived from the Economic Census, whose most recent figures are from 2000.

The BEA uses income reported each year during tax return season, which is not just place of work, the only category in which the Economic Census reports. BEA derives data on income collected from place of work, rental income, proprietary income (royalties), dividends and interest income.

Yes, Houston MSA's income is the highest in the Texas-Oklahoma region, and is more reliant on energy than is Oklahoma City. In Montgomery County, where I live, The Woodlands boosts the average significantly.

[Oil Capital]

The U.S. Census Bureau uses per capita income estimates derived from the Economic Census, whose most recent figures are from 2000.

The BEA uses income reported each year during tax return season, which is not just place of work, the only category in which the Economic Census reports. BEA derives data on income collected from place of work, rental income, proprietary income (royalties), dividends and interest income.

Not true.

(1) The Census Bureau numbers I quoted are from the "American FactFinder, which is updated on an ongoing basis. The most recent numbers are 2007 (same as the BEA's, I believe).

(2) "Income" for these purposes is: "‘‘Total income’’ is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income." (As you can see, not just "place of work")

[okcpulse]

Not true.

(1) The Census Bureau numbers I quoted are from the "American FactFinder, which is updated on an ongoing basis. The most recent numbers are 2007 (same as the BEA's, I believe).

(2) "Income" for these purposes is: "‘‘Total income’’ is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or railroad retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income." (As you can see, not just "place of work")

Right, which is the basis of per capita income. I looked on the census.gov website for the source, and that source was from the Economic Census on the QuickFacts page.

But of American FactFinder's source is the BEA, then that makes their numbers disputable, because if you go straight to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page and select State and Local Area Personal Income, the tables are all there, and are significantly different from what American FactFinder made available.

BEA's site releases new income figures each year at the end of April. State per capita income figures are available for 2008, while the counties and metro areas are a year behind in 2007 (BEA takes an extra year to break down the state figures by county).

When I used to research from the U.S. Statistical Abstract book, the Economic Census only reported per capita income from place of work, but that was in the 1990s and probably changed.

Either way, American FactFinder's 2007 figures do not match BEA's 2007 figures.

[Oil Capital]

Right, which is the basis of per capita income. I looked on the census.gov website for the source, and that source was from the Economic Census on the QuickFacts page.

But of American FactFinder's source is the BEA, then that makes their numbers disputable, because if you go straight to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - bea.gov Home Page and select State and Local Area Personal Income, the tables are all there, and are significantly different from what American FactFinder made available.

BEA's site releases new income figures each year at the end of April. State per capita income figures are available for 2008, while the counties and metro areas are a year behind in 2007 (BEA takes an extra year to break down the state figures by county).

When I used to research from the U.S. Statistical Abstract book, the Economic Census only reported per capita income from place of work, but that was in the 1990s and probably changed.

Either way, American FactFinder's 2007 figures do not match BEA's 2007 figures.

The Census numbers I quoted are not from the "Economic Census". They are from the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey is done every year. Its source is not the BEA. Its source is the survey it does every year. You can find all of the tables in the Census Bureau Home Page website, under American FactFinder, then under American Community Survey. Apparently, the BEA and the Census are counting different things as part of income.

Edit: Here's some additional info I found: " Without going into the detailed differences we can say that BEA counts more things than the Census does. The Census asks about your specific income sources. The sources of income counted by the Census are:

* Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs

* Self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnership (Net income after business expenses).

* Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts

* Social Security or Railroad Retirement

* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

* Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office

* Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions — Do NOT include Social Security.

* Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony — Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home.


Apparently, the BEA calculation of income also adds in such things as: imputed income, lump-sum payments not received as part of earnings, certain in-kind personal current transfer receipts—such as Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—and employer contributions to private health and pension funds and to government employee retirement plans....and more.

[okcpulse]

The Census numbers I quoted are not from the "Economic Census". They are from the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey is done every year. Its source is not the BEA. Its source is the survey it does every year. You can find all of the tables in the Census Bureau Home Page website, under American FactFinder, then under American Community Survey. Apparently, the BEA and the Census are counting different things as part of income.

Edit: Here's some additional info I found: " Without going into the detailed differences we can say that BEA counts more things than the Census does. The Census asks about your specific income sources. The sources of income counted by the Census are:

* Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs

* Self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnership (Net income after business expenses).

* Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts

* Social Security or Railroad Retirement

* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

* Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office

* Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions — Do NOT include Social Security.

* Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony — Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home.


Apparently, the BEA calculation of income also adds in such things as: imputed income, lump-sum payments not received as part of earnings, certain in-kind personal current transfer receipts—such as Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—and employer contributions to private health and pension funds and to government employee retirement plans....and more.

That makes sense. Either way, though, I prefer the BEA data because it is dollars you get in your bank account regardless of the source. It is tangible dollars that can be spent. It paints the most accurate picture of our overall well being.

[Oil Capital]

That makes sense. Either way, though, I prefer the BEA data because it is dollars you get in your bank account regardless of the source. It is tangible dollars that can be spent. It paints the most accurate picture of our overall well being.

No, it is not actual tangible dollars that are in your bank account. Read the listings of what is included in the calculations again (the BEA numbers include imputed income, contributions to company and government retirement accounts made on your "account", etc. These are decidedly NOT money that is in one's bank account, not very tangible and cannot be spent, at least in any current short- or mid-term time line.

If what you are looking for is a number that reflects tangible dollars in your bank account, you should prefer the Census Bureau American Community Survey numbers.

[metro]

[geterdone]

Good news drove by Tuscana today, and it looks like they have started on the development again. Two large holes have been dug, probably for the ponds, and also heavy equipment is operating.

[megax11]

I'm more anxious in the ranch so they can get that IMAX put in.

[Patrick]

I actually heard a report today that ponds may be put in, but that the owner of the development may be considering selling the land to homedevelopers, since the retail market may not recover for some time. With Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as strip malls surrounding the area, the place would be hard to sell now as a retail development. The current owner is considering a mix of office and home development instead of retail, so the concept of upscale retail being included may be forever off the table. Also, and IMAX development has been tabled. So, it looks like this land may be put to other uses, as the owner is looking for a quicker return.

[bbhill]

great all we need are more generic suburban neighborhoods!! /sarcasm

[MikeOKC]

I actually heard a report today that ponds may be put in, but that the owner of the development may be considering selling the land to homedevelopers, since the retail market may not recover for some time. With Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as strip malls surrounding the area, the place would be hard to sell now as a retail development. The current owner is considering a mix of office and home development instead of retail, so the concept of upscale retail being included may be forever off the table. Also, and IMAX development has been tabled. So, it looks like this land may be put to other uses, as the owner is looking for a quicker return.

Where did you hear that? Tuscana is helped by having Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as other retail. Tuscana wants to bring a touch of the urban lifestyle to the burbs as an upscale mixed-use development. Having such a variety of amenities nearby is the very reason that particular location was chosen for Tuscana. I have it on very good authority that your information is incorrect.

[Patrick]

Where did you hear that? Tuscana is helped by having Quail Springs Mall nearby, as well as other retail. Tuscana wants to bring a touch of the urban lifestyle to the burbs as an upscale mixed-use development. Having such a variety of amenities nearby is the very reason that particular location was chosen for Tuscana. I have it on very good authority that your information is incorrect.

That info is from some pretty solid real estate developers with Blanton Property group and Price Edwards and Co. I believe Blanton is actually representing the possible sale to a suburban home developer. Developers of Tuscana have come to the conclusion that almost all interest from retailers has dropped off, and thus they're wanting to move to something that will be more profitable and more realistic in this market.

[megax11]

From what I understand, the IMAX wasn't even going to be on that property, but rather on a piece of land a mile or two east of Penn and Memorial.

If Tuscana is not going to fly, that should have no impact on the Quail Springs Ranch, where Dickinson wants to put the IMAX.

And if not, oh well... Maybe they will find a different place to put their IMAX. Maybe closer to southside.

[Dustin]

I just got an email back from Matt Owsley, one of the owners of RCL Development Corp. who is building Tuscana. He said that the project is still a go!

[Patrick]

I just got an email back from Matt Owsley, one of the owners of RCL Development Corp. who is building Tuscana. He said that the project is still a go!

The project is a go but with huge changes. It will be mostly suburban housing and maybe a little office space. Missing from the equation will be any substantial upscale retail space as originally planned to be incorporated into a town center concept. Retailers simply aren't expanding right now, and probably won't be for some time, possibly years. There will be some retail, but mostly local chains, and food extablishments. Don't expect any Saks, Nieman Marcus, Nordstroms, Crate and Barrell, or any other upscale national
retailer like that. The retail concept will be scaled back to nothing much better than Spring Creek Village in Edmond, if that. Also, Dickinson Theatres will not be building their theatre or IMAX as originally planned.

So, in summary, expect an upscale suburban housing development, a few office parks, and maybe a few retailers. Think Gaillardia, only not as ritsy.

[okc_bel_air]

Do they have a home builder in mind? What type of price point?

[Patrick]

Do they have a home builder in mind? What type of price point?

More in line with prices in Rose Creek. I'm not sure if they've selected a home builder yet.

[Puppet]

I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

Case in point... Venture up to Tulsa and their Saks is not even remotely the same store as it would be in Dallas... Quite depressing...

[okcpulse]

I see Oklahoma City supporting an outlet mall better than what's been proposed for Tuscana. Folks at Penn Square have told me that retailers like Nordstrom, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Marcus, Saks, etc. aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Just look at Macy's......our Macy's aren't real Macy's. They've cheapened them to fit in our market. I don't think a lot of upscale retailers want to tarnish their names like that. I still don't think building an outdoor shopping mall right next to an enclosed indoor shopping mall is a good idea. I'm not opposed to a mixed use development there.

I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

[ronronnie1]

^^^There was to be a Nordstroms in Alabama. Yeah, Alabama lol. I think they canned the idea due to the economy though. And don't forget, Tulsa has a Saks. I don't think it's such a stretch to think Nordstroms might consider OkC. Remember, Nordstroms isn't as exclusive as Neiman Marcus or Saks.

[Oil Capital]

I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

Nordstrom goes well beyond the top 20 markets, e.g., Anchorage, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, Norfolk, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Austin, Nashville (under development), Providence, Raleigh-Durham, West Palm-Boca, Richmond (smaller than OKC).

In short, there are not all that many metros larger than OKC that do not already have a Nordstrom.

While we're at it, Saks 5th Ave. has quite a few stores outside of top 20 markets as well. Tulsa, Birmingham, and New Orleans come to mind real quickly.

[OUGrad05]

FYI the Tulsa Saks is given major tax incentives to stay...

[Patrick]

I am beginning to have a hard time buying that upscale retailers aren't interested in OKC because of the demographics. Now, in the case of Nordstrom's, Tiffany and Co, Nieman Markus and Saks, I can totally understand. They only operate in the top 20 markets.

However, for other upscale outlets like Whole Foods, I just don't buy their excuse.

With Whole Foods it's more the liquor issue, right?

[Patrick]

^^^There was to be a Nordstroms in Alabama. Yeah, Alabama lol. I think they canned the idea due to the economy though. And don't forget, Tulsa has a Saks. I don't think it's such a stretch to think Nordstroms might consider OkC. Remember, Nordstroms isn't as exclusive as Neiman Marcus or Saks.

Wha? Nordstroms prices are way higher than Saks or Neiman.