Tulsa hates you.

[Architect2010]

Are you saying that they're moving to Bixby because they can't afford the BOK Center? Theres no other venue for them in Tulsa? Thats ridiculous.

Of course, I'm not saying that you are. Just asking.

Also. I think it should bear OKLAHOMA CITY. OKC has taken the brunt of this all. We are the ones that passed taxes, we are the one that really went for this. Sure, the rest of the state helped. But we did a majority of it by ourselves. It should be "Oklahoma City". And to think that other towns get mad because its not "Oklahoma" is stupid. We can't win for losing. Everyone should be glad that the capital of OKLAHOMA has a NBA Team. ONE OF OKLAHOMA CITIES just got a major league franchise, but you don't wanna support them because "City" is added onto Oklahoma. Its just plain ignorant.

[soonerguru]

I will be outraged if the team name does not begin with "Oklahoma" and end with "City." It would be the biggest squandering of international brand development this city ever did. I know we've shot ourselves in the foot repeatedly over the years, but I don't think the owners are dumb enough to pass this opportunity for OKC to grow in the public consciousness....at least I hope.

[Pete]

The "Oklahoma City" vs. "Oklahoma" thing has been settled for months. The ownership group said the name will start with OKC, and it's already being called that in the summer league that started today.

[HOT ROD]

I know this Pete, I just don't know why some Tulsan's keep trying to pick on anything OKC to make themselves feel better.

And as for the Texas Longhorns vs. Texas Rangers - Texas has a HUGE brand that Oklahoma can Never have. You've heard of Texas - its like a whole other country. Well it's true.

In all honesty, I don't think of Texas Longhorns as a top 5 football draw like OU is. Top 10, sure - but not perinneal top 5.

Those two points being said, I think Texas is sort of like Florida - LOTS of people know those states and the cities inside (the major ones at least). So it doesn't matter whether the city uses the state name for those BIG states.

Oklahoma is NOT a big state. 4M people - yes. But Texas has how many times that? Florida has what 15M at least. ...

And like I said, I don't think Florida Gators or Texas Longhorns carry as much international prowess in the NCAA Football as OU Sooners does. I mean, aside from Notre Dame and USC, who are both private schools by the way, OU has got to be a NCAA Football program that almost everybody knows about, and thinks of highly.

I don't see Texas or Florida in the same league, sure they have good teams and recruitment - but OU has better, definitely in Football. So why destroy what 'little' name recognition Oklahoma has - especially when Oklahoma City is DYING for some recognition and went through hoops and hurdles of over 15 years to do so. ...

We tried the AFL, it was major-league but didn't get OKC anywhere. We tasted the NBA with the Hornets, and our second major-league team sealed the deal for OKC. The league also loved OKC, and that was BEFORE Tulsa was even mentioned.

Including Tulsa in the marketing of the team was icing on the cake - it was NOT what closed the deal though. What did was 1) Oklahoma City's metropolitan population (largest metro in the world without a pro team) 2) OKC doing well day in and out with the Hornets 3) Oklahoma City's humble nature (something Tulsan's need to learn about). OKC accepted and rallied behind a team that was most likely going to leave - just imagine how well OKC will support thier permanent team. Would Tulsa do the same? Or just use a team to add to their elitist attitude against OKC. ... 4) OKC has been through WAY MORE tragedy and turmoil than Tulsa (or probably any other major city really) YET OKC still has a growing economy that is the biggest in the state, has the most people and still rapidly growing, and is the centre of every economic and entertainment sector in the state (OK, Tulsa has ballet, but that's it).

Of course, people in OKC know this - so there's no need to brag. In fact, that is what sets OKC apart and more attractive than Tulsa; OKC doesn't have to brag.

Like I said, Humbleness and Action speaks much louder than HATE!

[Dave Cook]

To be honest, I've never understood this incessant hostility ('rivalry' as you call it) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Oklahomans claim to be the nicest people in the country......but act like imbeciles in regards to their fine cities.

And let's be honest.....we're talking about Oklahoma City and Tulsa, for Christ's sakes. Do people in North Dakota bicker between Fargo and Bismarck? Who cares!

Enjoy life.

[dcsooner]

I agree this supposed rivalry is ridiculous. It does neither city justice and certainly continues to make the State look like the Hatfields and McCoys. I was really pleased to see Tulsa leaders rally around the State team regardless of the name. The citizenry of both cities would do well to follow suit and stop this petty feud and comparisons.

[okcustu]

yeah as far as the prettier argument goes I don't see it the art-deco buildings downtown are beautiful but the downtown closes at like 9. While utica area is nice its no better than Nichols hills and the Arkansasmight be a real river but how many regottas have they hosted?

[AFCM]

While I think the rivalry is taking a bitter direction, I think the unrest in Tulsa can finally lead to some changes for the better. Tulsa is a city with a lot of potential. Suppose they take a page out of OKC's book, assuming they can humble themselves enough to do so, they'll be on their way to putting up a fight as a regional powerhouse.

[okcustu]

To be honest, I've never understood this incessant hostility ('rivalry' as you call it) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Oklahomans claim to be the nicest people in the country......but act like imbeciles in regards to their fine cities.

And let's be honest.....we're talking about Oklahoma City and Tulsa, for Christ's sakes. Do people in North Dakota bicker between Fargo and Bismarck? Who cares!

Enjoy life.

Perhaps but the entire state is seeing a major renassiance and both cities want to have the spotlight. While we're all one there's real competition (Tulsa would've killed to have the Hornets and now the Sonics). Everytime there is a company or a restuarant/retail outpost looking to build one location in the state it breeds pride and jealousy. There be no infighting in ND but, nothing is happening there for them fight over

[sgt. pepper]

i just don't like how tulsa bad moths OKC, but they are always copying us. we get a bass pro, they get one. we get an arena, they get one. we get a downtown ballpark, they get one. we get a skyscraper, they will get one.

as far as tulsa being blessed with lots of green trees and hills, OKC can't do much about that now can we? i think OKC has done a good *#@ job over the last 100 years of turning a flat prarie field into what it is today.

[TStheThird]

The Tulsa vs. OKC rivalry is crazy. It divides people almost as much as bedlam. You can get on OU and OSU message boards and watch Tulsa and OKC go at it. It is funny how certain topics can divide the most united people.

[Pete]

In fairness, the rivalry is only bitter on message boards and is somewhat the nature of Internet discourse, where everything is taken to the extreme and made personal.

In the real world, Tulsa politicians and leaders helped entertain the NBA selection committee and openly campaigned for OKC to get a team. And also in the real world, plenty of people from Tulsa will come to town for NBA games and spend their money at local restaurants and hotels.

I think the average Tulsa citizen is glad to see OKC doing so well and the average person in the Metro hopes Tulsa can get their act together.

[BDP]

I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state. I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended. It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be."

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

[Jesseda]

UMMM Thre really is no comparing tulsa with okc, okc has moe hands down.. It is sad that tulsa gets upset when we get something they dont have, but hey just think we now know for a fact other cities look up to us and are jealous, that should give okc something to feel proud of.. I rather have a top 50 city talking about us (even if it is out of jealousy) then not taking about us at all.. Wow seattle is jealous of us and tulsa whose next, okc is becoming the popular one lately it seems

[sgt. pepper]

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

EXACTLY!

[Swake2]

I for one am very glad that Oklahoma City got a team. It’s exciting and will do great things for your city. You want to name the team “Oklahoma City”, fine, that is what is best for Oklahoma City. But to do that while acting like its “the state’s team” and then going and grabbing between $60 and $100 million in state tax dollars for the team while some very basic needs are unmet in Tulsa and that changes everything.

It’s not about the name, it’s about the money and disparity of state support.

Tulsa is the largest metro without non-toll interstate access (OKC has two)
Tulsa is the largest metro without a public four year college (OKC Metro has two)
Tulsa is the third largest without Amtrak access (OKC is about to add a second line)
Tulsa is the largest city without a public hospital, one has actually been offered to be donated but the deal can’t be completed because the state won’t provide any ongoing funding for operations (OKC has one of the largest in the nation)
Tulsa’s main interstate through the middle of the city is in middle of what was supposed a five year widening project that began in 1984, 24 years ago. There is currently no construction happening on the project and none scheduled so that funding could be moved to the Crosstown, despite the section that is still not done being called by ODOT “the most dangerous stretch of highway in the state”. The lowest rated major bridge in the state isn’t the Crosstown, it’s the I-244 bridge in downtown Tulsa over the Arkansas river and no one is even talking about replacing that.
Oklahoma City has the third highest percentage of government jobs of any metro in the nation, Tulsa is one of the lowest. Oklahoma City has more government jobs than the entire workforces of the capitals of Missouri and New Mexico and if you include indirect government employment you can also include Kansas in that list. That’s half the states surrounding Oklahoma.

I know some are going to claim that the state taxes going to the Sonics are new taxes, but that’s false. These taxes are generated from entertainment spending that would have been spent somewhere in the Oklahoma economy. If you don’t believe me, check out the Sonic’s own testimony about the impact of the team on the Seattle economy. That money was enough to bring Amtrak service to Tulsa, it was enough to fix the OSU Medical Center deal saving the OSU School of Medicine and ensuring that the state has enough rural doctors. It was almost enough money to complete funding for I-44 in Tulsa. But where did the money go? To pad the bottom line of the sport team owned by the son in law of the Gaylords. It’s not jealousy you are seeing, it’s anger over very real needs not being met while the NBA is funding for OKC.

I saw that Tulsa should be more humble and elect better representatives. That’s a great attitude. Oklahoma City reps fight Tulsa tooth and nail for everything and simply outnumber Tulsa reps. At some point it’s Oklahoma City that needs to wake up and see that supporting Tulsa is good for the state, because what’s really happening is that Oklahoma City is succeeding due in no small part by using the state as it’s personal piggy bank. Oklahoma City gets funding from the state for luxuries like NBA teams and heritage centers while Tulsa goes without basic levels of state support for education, roads, health care and transportation.

[Floyd]

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

You're justifiably proud of what your city has accomplished. But don't get upset when Tulsans sees it as YOUR team, not OUR team. There are two large cities in this state, and suddenly Tulsa feels treated like a suburb. Folks were sure acting like Tulsa was very important to the effort to land the team, and this got Tulsans interested in said effort. But then we realized it was just for expedience--so, you're welcome for our support in your efforts. Enjoy your NBA team. Hopefully there will be enough fans statewide to support it.

[Pete]

I doubt very seriously if any significant number of people will stay away from games because of the name of the team.

On the other hand, having "Oklahoma City" said and written thousands of times every time a game is played is priceless.

And since the state name is also part of the city name, the whole state benefits from that exposure as well.

[okcpulse]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even the "Tulsa is prettier" argument can be debated.

Certainly, when discussing the areas within the respective city limits, Tulsa has more hills and trees.

However, Edmond is every bit as nice as south Tulsa and certainly nicer than Broken Arrow, Jenks or Owasso. Same can be said about Norman.

Personally, I feel that far northwest Oklahoma City blows the state away. It is covered by lakes, a nature park, gorgeous real estate and the best views of downtown OKC and the sunset that no one in Oklahoma can compete with... except for Mt. Scott in the Wichitas. But that is just my opinion.

Swake2, the state funding issue between OKC and Tulsa is a debate that can be thrown in every direction. Looking at the big picture, OKC has the biggest grab of the pie. But does Tulsa's dollars physically go to OKC banks to pay for our ongoing renaissance? One could argue that rural Oklahoma pitches in for OKC's projects. One could argue that OKC holds its own when it comes to the tax dollars the OKC metro generates for itself.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Swake, you have a good case. I'm just saying it's good to approach this from other directions. The best way to figure out where the money is really going is to do the following:

Research state and federal funding for the past 20 years (we need a good window) for OKC, Tulsa and rural Oklahoma.

Find out how much state and federal taxes each area generated over the last 20 years.

Create per capita figures on each area based on taxes received. Set a baseline and run the comparisons (I am writing an analysis tool for Windows that will do this on the fly and map the results).

Only then can we physicaly see if Tulsa is getting more or less than it should vs. OKC.

That being said, I have to ask, Swake, where are Tulsa's reps? Anytime the budget passes, I don't see them pitching a fit over any projects in OKC. Why?

[Karried]

A side note, just got off the phone with my nephew who came to Tulsa a month ago.. he told me he can't take it and has a flight booked home to California on July 25th. He said he likes OKC and Edmond but Tulsa is soooo boring. I've never really been for more than a day but I thought that was sort of telling.

[Swake2]

Here's some numbers, these are Oklahoma Employment Commission numbers I looked up last year.

Oklahoma City metro had an estimated 2005 (the year I have both real job and population numbers) population of 1,156,812 with 574,800 people employed. But only 458,200 of those are employed privately outside of government. Non government service jobs for Oklahoma City were a shocking 383,300. Total government/service industry jobs were 499,300. Total government Jobs were 116,600. That leaves only 75,500 jobs in non-service or government jobs out of nearly 575,000 workers. That is your private business workforce. That also means that with contract jobs and employment “roll-over”, 60.7% of Oklahoma City’s jobs are directly or indirectly related to government. That’s a stunning 348,903 employed people.

As comparison, Tulsa (metro) has 887,715 estimated for 2005 with 417,400 people employed (in November ’06). 374,200 people were privately employed with only 12,300 people employed by the federal or state governments, a mere fraction of Oklahoma City's total. With local government that makes for 55,500 government jobs. Non government service jobs for Tulsa was 297,400. Total government/service industry jobs were 352,900. Tulsa with only 77% of the population of Oklahoma City actually has more non-service jobs than OKC. Tulsa has 76,800 jobs in non-service or government jobs in November ’06 compared to Oklahoma City's 75,500.

And then there's Tinker with approximately 27,000 military and civilian employees, Tinker is the largest single-site employer in Oklahoma. The installation has an annual statewide economic impact of $3.4 billion, creating an estimated 30, 865 secondary jobs.

These 30,685 secondary jobs aren’t even counted as government jobs, but they are outside support jobs and indirect employment of the base. So knock another 31,000 jobs out of Oklahoma City’s “private” industry total. That lowers direct private employment not in the service sector and not related to government from 75,500 jobs a minuscule 44,500 jobs compared to Tulsa’s 76,800.

So, of Oklahoma City’s 191,500 non service sector jobs 77% are supported by tax money. Compare that to Tulsa’s 120,000 non service sectors jobs with only 36% support by taxes.

Business are corporate taxes are going to follow the exact same pattern. Now you tell me which city is SUPPLYING the tax revenue for the state and which city SPENDING the tax revenue?

Oklahoma City has more people employed directly or indirectly by the state than Jefferson City Missouri has total residents, and Jefferson City is the capital of our neighbor to the northeast with twice as many people as Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City has more employees that rely on government (direct and indirect) than the entire workforce of Topeka Kansas, our neighbor to the north.

Oklahoma City has more state workers than the entire workforce of Santa Fe, NM, our neighbor to the west.

Add to that the fact the average income is 10-15% higher (with subsequent higher tax contribution) you tell me which city pays more (per-capita and overall) and which city gets much more tax money back. Even taking into account the capital being in Oklahoma City the disparity is egregious.

[jbrown84]

Topeka and Santa Fe are tiny cities.

[Swake2]

And yet they are the capitals of states that have only slightly smaller populations than Oklahoma

[jbrown84]

And while Im on this note, I can not understand - for the life of me - why the NBA-DLeague team Tulsa 66ers are NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THE NEW BOK CENTER..... I can NOT understand this. What is going on in TULSA???? Do they just sit on their asses complaining and don't even take care of what they have??????? You have a new arena and yet you don't even seat your TOP ENTERTAINMENT DRAW there?

Wichita has the same problem. They are building a downtown arena, but their arena football team will play in a new arena way out in the boonies on the north side. There is not cooperation.

[AFCM]

Tinker, which has been in operation since 1941, has a lot to do with those figures. Why fault OKC for decisions made at the federal level, especially when they benefit the surrounding communities so well?

Suppose BRAC helps Tinker gain more jobs. Is that OKC's fault?

I didn't favor the GM aquisition under the proposed vote, but here's something else to consider: Suppose, as a result of the GM aquisition, Tinker does add more positions. Wouldn't that be the effect of the OK county voting public?

As for the state jobs, that's a different story. All I can say is, be careful throwing Tinker around in those numbers. The federal government chose the site over 60 years ago and OKC has embraced and supported the base in every way. If, as a result of BRAC or the GM aquisition, Tinker does gain new jobs, it's not because the state is choosing OKC over Tulsa.