OKC Population Density

[GoGators]

So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes.

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

[OKC Guy]

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

Not true.

The cost of services per square mile for those outer areas is les than the cost per square mile of inner city - in relation to taxes.

Even though the tax base is higher in the inner city the cost is even higher in relation.

These numbers are only to provide perspective. So if it costs $100 per square mile of services in outer area the cost per square mile in the inner city would be $2,000. Those are not exact numbers just for talk. But the amount of taxes per that $100 in outer city is higher in relation to taxes in the inner city in relation to $2000 cost. The outer city costs less per square mile but tax rates are the same as inner city. They don’t get a tax break for less cost per square mile.

So the outer city has a higher tax going to inner city in relation to costs for that outer square mile.

This is not to discount image. OKC likely never has the Thunder in a smaller OKC population. Yes, metro TV is used to decide how large audience is but city is as well for image. The perception of OKC would be different if you chopped off 150,000 in population.

Anyways, outer city supports more inner city in relation to costs of each area in services and taxes paid. Another way to look is inner city gets more bang for the buck because of the outer city helping pay an higher share per.

Regardless, it will never happen so is moot. I just hate that over 3/4 of this posting board is so anti outer city and wants all money spent in the inner core and the rest be damned. I like “all” of our city. All 600+ square miles of it.

[Plutonic Panda]

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

Except in the real world it doesn’t work that way. Just a small problem with your logic: reality.

[onthestrip]

Link to all these cities giving away land recently

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.

The cost of services per square mile for those outer areas is les than the cost per square mile of inner city - in relation to taxes.

Even though the tax base is higher in the inner city the cost is even higher in relation.

These numbers are only to provide perspective. So if it costs $100 per square mile of services in outer area the cost per square mile in the inner city would be $2,000. Those are not exact numbers just for talk. But the amount of taxes per that $100 in outer city is higher in relation to taxes in the inner city in relation to $2000 cost. The outer city costs less per square mile but tax rates are the same as inner city. They don’t get a tax break for less cost per square mile.

So the outer city has a higher tax going to inner city in relation to costs for that outer square mile.

Anyways, outer city supports more inner city in relation to costs of each area in services and taxes paid. Another way to look is inner city gets more bang for the buck because of the outer city helping pay an higher share per.

You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.

[TheTravellers]

Someone said "So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes." then GoGators said...

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

GoGators - I'm curious, why do you not quote the username along with their text? You actually have to go out of your way to delete the username, and it makes things confusing, so why do it?

[Plutonic Panda]

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.



You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.

You are assuming a bit as well. Have you not seen the astronomical costs of building infrastructure in dense urban areas?

With your sort of logic, why should the city invest in poor areas since they don’t pay as much in taxes as the middle class areas do? Why invest in streets there since another area might pay more taxes? The greater good of pooling money in for infrastructure wins. There is a reason we don’t build infrastructure that way.

Look at P180. I bet you it costs less to build a same road in lower density suburb.

[GoGators]

Travelers, i use the wrap quotes tag when quoting. I've noticed my quotes do not show the username. I do not intentionally do this. not sure what i'm doing wrong.

[TheTravellers]

Travelers, i use the wrap quotes tag when quoting. I've noticed my quotes do not show the username. I do not intentionally do this. not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Ah, OK, gotcha. I just hit "Reply With Quote" and it puts everything in there, including the username. If I have to quote multiple parts of a post and reply in between like you do, I generally just don't do it 'cos it's too hard to get right and too much manual work has to be done. Was just curious since your posts are the only ones like that...

[GoGators]

Ah, OK, gotcha. I just hit "Reply With Quote" and it puts everything in there, including the username. If I have to quote multiple parts of a post and reply in between like you do, I generally just don't do it 'cos it's too hard to get right and too much manual work has to be done. Was just curious since your posts are the only ones like that...

Haha now I feel dumb. Appreciate the pointer. I will do this from now on as it is confusing the other way.

[OKC Guy]

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.



You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.

So 1 example of a very small land swap? I thought there were many cities and lots of land?

[mugofbeer]

IMO, I am not anti-outer areas, but after living in a number of other cities, I am convinced that OKC is too spread out and has too much empty or underutilized land in the inner city. More efficient use of land promotes things like public transit, full schools, walkability, more taxpayers per mile of roadway, less need for rural firestations, etc.

As an example, though it is starting to fill in some, OKC's northeast side is way underutilized for several reasons. But even looking at photo's of downtown from 40 years ago to today, downtown was much more urban before urban renewal tore it all down (such a shame). Also, if you drive around town, there is too much unused or underused commercial property barely hanging on or sitting empty. I would like to see more urban development in commercial areas such as around OCU, NW Highway, I-240. OKC needs to encourage more mid-rise multi-unit apartments and condo's in desireable areas such as has been done in Denver and Dallas.

[GoGators]

Not true.

The cost of services per square mile for those outer areas is les than the cost per square mile of inner city - in relation to taxes.

Even though the tax base is higher in the inner city the cost is even higher in relation.

These numbers are only to provide perspective. So if it costs $100 per square mile of services in outer area the cost per square mile in the inner city would be $2,000. Those are not exact numbers just for talk. But the amount of taxes per that $100 in outer city is higher in relation to taxes in the inner city in relation to $2000 cost. The outer city costs less per square mile but tax rates are the same as inner city. They don’t get a tax break for less cost per square mile.

So the outer city has a higher tax going to inner city in relation to costs for that outer square mile.

This is not to discount image. OKC likely never has the Thunder in a smaller OKC population. Yes, metro TV is used to decide how large audience is but city is as well for image. The perception of OKC would be different if you chopped off 150,000 in population.

Anyways, outer city supports more inner city in relation to costs of each area in services and taxes paid. Another way to look is inner city gets more bang for the buck because of the outer city helping pay an higher share per.

Regardless, it will never happen so is moot. I just hate that over 3/4 of this posting board is so anti outer city and wants all money spent in the inner core and the rest be damned. I like “all” of our city. All 600+ square miles of it.

Why do you think services would cost less the further you go out of the city?

[GoGators]

Except in the real world it doesn’t work that way. Just a small problem with your logic: reality.

Ok, so how does the real world work?

[Plutonic Panda]

Ok, so how does the real world work?

I’ll tell you how it doesn’t work:

You don’t run cities like businesses in justifying deannexing as “cutting the fat” nor do you get more major projects and lower taxes for starters.

If you’re suggesting that denser areas having more people in them being able to fund more major projects with lower taxes than sprawled out suburbs, tell that to those in virtually every major city in America. How we about we look at NYC or LA shall we? After all, surely taxes in those cities would be lower than OKC right since they’re denser?

LA’s purple line section 3 will costs a little over a billion a mile. NYC’s 2nd ave. Subway extension was almost double that, IIRC. Big dig was nearly 20 billion dollars. Capitol beltway widening in D.C. will cost over 11 billion dollars. What projects in low density suburbs are costing that much? The point is yes there is more people to pay for them as the areas are denser but what is your point when those same projects that could likely get built for much less in the lower density areas?

[OKC Guy]

Why do you think services would cost less the further you go out of the city?

Why do you keep changing the goalposts. Its not just services its all the costs of a downtown. If you took say a 5 square mile area of NW OKC and changed it to another city they would not have all the major expenses of downtown. No Arena, no SC, no ballpark, no Water rapids, no massive city park, no OMNI, no tons of things that cost mega taxes. So that smaller area would need less taxes than they pay out now.

I am not saying we should not do projects my premise is the outer areas pay a higher proportion of taxes in comparison to what they need or have in their own areas. I have explained this several times and posters keep trying to find or makeup new arguments.

Its normal for this to happen but it was said if we cut 2/3rds of city off we would have more money in downtown. Thats not true.

Lets scale this. If you took just 2 square miles of downtown and and said they would still be able to afford all the current MAPS and other costs in that area you would be wrong. So if you can see and scale it we need all of the city to pay. The amount of taxes spent per square mile in the inner city is way more than a square mile in the outer city.

Thats all I was trying go say. If we built a SC and all the same projects in NW OKC and not downtown then this would be reversed.

[David]

From a somewhat recent twitter thread by the Mayor (here's the relevant link to the start of the thread: https://twitter.com/davidfholt/statu...98149190496258):



The idea that all of the outer areas of the city are a net plus to the city's budget is a mistaken assumption. Sure, there are plenty of outer areas that do carry their weight—Memorial Road certainly does—but clearly not all otherwise Holt would not have phrased it that way.

[GoGators]

Why do you keep changing the goalposts. Its not just services its all the costs of a downtown. If you took say a 5 square mile area of NW OKC and changed it to another city they would not have all the major expenses of downtown. No Arena, no SC, no ballpark, no Water rapids, no massive city park, no OMNI, no tons of things that cost mega taxes. So that smaller area would need less taxes than they pay out now.

I am not saying we should not do projects my premise is the outer areas pay a higher proportion of taxes in comparison to what they need or have in their own areas. I have explained this several times and posters keep trying to find or makeup new arguments.

Its normal for this to happen but it was said if we cut 2/3rds of city off we would have more money in downtown. Thats not true.

Lets scale this. If you took just 2 square miles of downtown and and said they would still be able to afford all the current MAPS and other costs in that area you would be wrong. So if you can see and scale it we need all of the city to pay. The amount of taxes spent per square mile in the inner city is way more than a square mile in the outer city.

Thats all I was trying go say. If we built a SC and all the same projects in NW OKC and not downtown then this would be reversed.

I’m not changing the goalposts at all. I’m saying that the inner areas of OKC subsidize the outer areas. That is true.

You’re the one that brought up that services were cheaper in the outer areas.im just telling you that’s wrong.

[Plutonic Panda]

I’m not changing the goalposts at all. I’m saying that the inner areas of OKC subsidize the outer areas. That is true.

You’re the one that brought up that services were cheaper in the outer areas.im just telling you that’s wrong.

Depending on what you consider the inner areas. If you want to use that term like you are claiming the core, than no, that is NOT true. People in the outer areas(outside of the core) subsidize the inner areas. If you are lumping the core in with the suburban areas, then yes, you would be correct.

[GoGators]

It’s true any way you look. This has been studied and proven over and over and over. It’s really not up for debate.

This is literally the first article I found out of hundreds.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/03...nkruptcy/1629/

This concept is true everywhere. In Raleigh, for instance, it would take 600 single-family homes on a 150-acre subdivision to equal the tax base of the 30-story Wells Fargo Capitol Center downtown. And it sits on 1.2 acres of land.

I don’t have a problem with suburban and rural areas of okc. What I don’t like is this premise that these areas fund the core. The core subsidizes the rest of okc. Density is the way to a cities financial success. No matter how many garage doors need repaired on the outskirts.

[Plutonic Panda]

That is an extremely simplistic view and doesn’t factor in the entire picture. There is more at play than that article which unsurprisingly came from citylab. Without even looking I figured that article was either from citylab, strongtowns, or the like.

[OKC Guy]

It’s true any way you look. This has been studied and proven over and over and over. It’s really not up for debate.

This is literally the first article I found out of hundreds.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/03...nkruptcy/1629/



I don’t have a problem with suburban and rural areas of okc. What I don’t like is this premise that these areas fund the core. The core subsidizes the rest of okc. Density is the way to a cities financial success. No matter how many garage doors need repaired on the outskirts.

You only picked tax base which is not the whole story. You picked a business lol. So add in the non business expenses in the core where tax dollars were spent like Peake and Convention and Park and OMNI and River Rapids and Ballpark and Streetcar.

On a scale the expenses are much much higher than the burbs and that is what I can’t seem to get across. The costs in relation to taxes are still higher in the core than Burbs. There is no major expenses like core.

I wish we had a cost per square mile vs taxes per square mile and it would show that even though Burbs have less tax revenue they also have less costs (which includes city paid projects like MAPS).

And again, I never said it was bad all cities have projects. My premise is if you cut out 2/3rds of city then OKC could not have afforded the same projects with existing (less) tax bases. Its not my fault some can’t read.

[GoGators]

You only picked tax base which is not the whole story. You picked a business lol. So add in the non business expenses in the core where tax dollars were spent like Peake and Convention and Park and OMNI and River Rapids and Ballpark and Streetcar.

On a scale the expenses are much much higher than the burbs and that is what I can’t seem to get across. The costs in relation to taxes are still higher in the core than Burbs. There is no major expenses like core.

I wish we had a cost per square mile vs taxes per square mile and it would show that even though Burbs have less tax revenue they also have less costs (which includes city paid projects like MAPS).

And again, I never said it was bad all cities have projects. My premise is if you cut out 2/3rds of city then OKC could not have afforded the same projects with existing (less) tax bases. Its not my fault some can’t read.

Since you obviously didn’t read the article

Minicozzi made some of these calculations in a study of Sarasota, Florida. A downtown 357-unit multi-family complex on a 3.4-acre site there, he found, pays off its infrastructure in three years. A suburban subdivision on a 30-acre site will take 42 years to pay off. After two decades, that downtown multi-family complex will have made the city $33 million in net revenue. The suburban subdivision will still be $5 million in the hole.

OKC Guy instead of making cheap shots you could actually try to prove your point. I know you may feel like the suburbs pay for urban projects but the math says urban centers subsidize suburban areas. It doesn’t matter how many times you bring up irrelevant topics like The Peake. A sparsely populated corner of okc won’t even generate enough tax to pay for the paved road and city water out to the 30 home cul de sac. Forget about generating enough to send to the core.

If you can provide any actual evidence I’ll certainly read it. And I won’t even question the source.

[Jeepnokc]

A sparsely populated corner of okc won’t even generate enough tax to pay for the paved road and city water out to the 30 home cul de sac. Forget about generating enough to send to the core.

I am not arguing either side but just pointing out that not all of OKC has paved roads or city services other than fire/police protection. I live in OKC limits at sw104th and MacArthur. Our 30 home culdesac (ironic) pays for our own road and we do not have city water or sewer. Homes are worth 400k-1.2 million, I am guessing we contribute more than we take.

[OKC Guy]

Since you obviously didn’t read the article



OKC Guy instead of making cheap shots you could actually try to prove your point. I know you may feel like the suburbs pay for urban projects but the math says urban centers subsidize suburban areas. It doesn’t matter how many times you bring up irrelevant topics like The Peake. A sparsely populated corner of okc won’t even generate enough tax to pay for the paved road and city water out to the 30 home cul de sac. Forget about generating enough to send to the core.

If you can provide any actual evidence I’ll certainly read it. And I won’t even question the source.

I suggest you start over where the topic started. My take is on a ratio basis the burbs pay more than urban. And yes Peake and costs are exactly the topic we had.

Refresher. A poster said we could unload 2/3rds of OKC. I said if we do then you do not have Peake and all the same projects because of the loss of tax dollars. I said the cost per square mile of expenses is less than taxes taken on a ratio basis.

Those burbs pay into MAPS and projects. I even said its normal and that I was not against projects. The cost of current downtown would not be supported if you sold 2/3rds of OKC. That was the discussion.

Another example, If we took a 2 square mile area including Paycom and Farmers and all those new fancy apartments/houses and figured out how much taxes they paid then added in how much roads/police/fire/water cost - the ratio of costs to taxes paid is going to show x. Do the same for 2 square miles in downtown you have a ton of MAPS likely at least $1billion. Yes, they take in more taxes from business but the cost ratio is going to show expenses higher as a ratio to taxes. So the lower expense/tax ratio in burbs means more burb tax money (as a ratio) goes to help downtown. And thats fine its how cities all work. So to cut out 2/3rds of land area means a loss of revenue to help support downtown. I am actually ok with the downtown projects (all but streetcar) so thats not the discussion. A poster said get rid of 2/3rds and downtown has more money to spend. I say you have less.

[RaRaRyan]

I suggest you start over where the topic started. My take is on a ratio basis the burbs pay more than urban. And yes Peake and costs are exactly the topic we had.

Refresher. A poster said we could unload 2/3rds of OKC. I said if we do then you do not have Peake and all the same projects because of the loss of tax dollars. I said the cost per square mile of expenses is less than taxes taken on a ratio basis.

Those burbs pay into MAPS and projects. I even said its normal and that I was not against projects. The cost of current downtown would not be supported if you sold 2/3rds of OKC. That was the discussion.

Another example, If we took a 2 square mile area including Paycom and Farmers and all those new fancy apartments/houses and figured out how much taxes they paid then added in how much roads/police/fire/water cost - the ratio of costs to taxes paid is going to show x. Do the same for 2 square miles in downtown you have a ton of MAPS likely at least $1billion. Yes, they take in more taxes from business but the cost ratio is going to show expenses higher as a ratio to taxes. So the lower expense/tax ratio in burbs means more burb tax money (as a ratio) goes to help downtown. And thats fine its how cities all work. So to cut out 2/3rds of land area means a loss of revenue to help support downtown. I am actually ok with the downtown projects (all but streetcar) so thats not the discussion. A poster said get rid of 2/3rds and downtown has more money to spend. I say you have less.

Stop using 2/3rds. I clarified in a follow-up post. I stated that if we strategically got rid of areas around Mustang/Yukon and NE OKC you could lose a smal population to surrounding areas, many of which would still spend all their time and money in OKC, while also shedding awkward a and excessive land. It should be something that is examined. But to act like that notion is ridiculous without providing any documentation is disengenuous.