Mayor Cornett acknowledged the disadvantages of sprawl.

[Larry OKC]

Don't know what the process is of annexing and deannexing. I would imagine that it would require the approval of those living in effected areas (or is it affected). Unless an area is highly upset with the services they understandably see paying for and not getting or getting poorly, seems unlikely they would approve being deannexed.

[bluedogok]

They would probably never give up the land around Draper Lake. That is important watershed for the city.

[OKCJosh]

Cities like Portland, Oregon have a different circumstance when it comes to urban sprawl. Mainly, an ocean on one side, and mountains on the other. Prairie land for less than 1000 an acre is much more feasible. All that said, sprawl has to be contained.

[Just the facts]

They would probably never give up the land around Draper Lake. That is important watershed for the city.

They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.

[okcustu]

They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.

Right, or it can be marked a "no new build zone". However most of the east growth is contained in MWC, Choctaw, jarrah, or happening by Frontier City and the Turner.

[Just the facts]

The problem with keep the land around Lake Draper is that the people already living out there are going to demand city services and the City has to maintain infrastructure already out there. Just deannex it and turn everything over to the county. If the City wants to maintain ownership of the lake then that is fine.

[bluedogok]

They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.

I know that can be the case, I just don't think the city leaders would go for it.

[Just the facts]

I know that can be the case, I just don't think the city leaders would go for it.

You might be surprised what city leaders would go for. Losing $18 million a year on sprawl can get someone’s attention - especially when the conventional wisdom was for the sprawl to not only pay for itself, but provide a positive cash flow like many people thought it would. Some of the city's most influential leaders are now heavily invested in downtown and I am sure they have an opinion about development taking place 20 miles away that is diverting tax funds that could be used more effectively close to the center of the city.

[bluedogok]

I think de-annexing the lake would be a hard thing politically, most of the population probably wouldn't understand they can still retain all their rights to it but not "own it". Although I also foresee many possible court rulings and legislation regarding water rights in future years which could change the legal rights greatly.

[ljbab728]

It may be fun and interesting to discuss deannexation but it simply an exercise in discussion. It's not going to happen which is a good thing in my opinion. Some here are only thinking about what might happen in the next 10 to 20 years instead of the next 200 years.

[Just the facts]

The city owns the lake. There is nothing that prevents the city from owning property outside the city limits. I would have to go back and check property records but I am sure OKC owned WRWA long before the city limits were out that far. I know the City of Atlanta owns 10,000 acres in a neighboring county (and has owned since the '70s) because they wanted to make sure that if a new airport was built it would still be close to Atlanta proper.

[Larry OKC]

Raises a question. Just because a City owns property, does that make it part of the City (for example will you see a sign, "now entering __________ City limits". Or is it something like Tribal ownership, just because the Tribe purchased the property, it isn't really "Tribal Land"???

[bombermwc]

We love to talk about it how it doesn't work, but we can look at Jacksonville and see how it can work for you. They're even larger than OKC and the population is even more concentrated than OKC's. But it works for them.

[Just the facts]

We love to talk about it how it doesn't work, but we can look at Jacksonville and see how it can work for you. They're even larger than OKC and the population is even more concentrated than OKC's. But it works for them.

Jax is a poor example because all of the rural land in Jackonville is owned by 2 families and a few timber companies. They are growing pine trees on it. There is very little rural land in private ownership and the two families (Skinner and Davis) and the timber companies very much control who they sell land to and what can be built on it. Most of the rural land in Jax doesn't even have roads; dirt, paved, or otherwise. There are serveral 4-lane major roads (Hudges, Kernan, Baymeadows, San Pablo, Gate Parkway) that dead-end into tree farms with big fences across the road and the road stops at that point.

Florida isn't like Oklahoma with section lines open to the public every mile. Not to mention that rural Jax has an insane amount of wetlands that can't be built on. Another reason for the dense nature of Jax is that until about 20 years ago all of the highways in Jax were toll roads. You couldn't live far away because you had to pay to go anywhere on a highway and the alternative was to drive on city streets. Once the tolls were removed sprawl start to kick in and new freeways were built. Jax has also spent millions upon millions building fly-over intersections over the last 10 years. Want to see NW OKC really boom, remove the tolls on the Kilpatrick.

[bombermwc]

Well the second paragraph tells me that actually it's a good example. You just defined reasons as to how they controlled it in JAX and how we haven't here. When they didn't want sprawl, they chose not to make the areas accessible. When they did want it opened up, they build roads to access it. Toll the areas you dont want to sprawl to, and remove them in areas you do. Seems like that's a perfect example of the Kilpatrick. We want people to have access in the area, but we toll it so it doesn't grow too much (and we can afford the road). Then in the east side or far SW where the population is lesser, we don't built a highway at all.

JAX, like OKC also annexed a crapton of land to grow its borders just like OKC, and is in fact, larger than OKC. They also have the benefit of county government being more powerful in certain aspects. So some things are easier to enforce across the city lines....including what would normally be unincorporated county across a creek/road/whatever from "city" areas.

[Just the facts]

Well the second paragraph tells me that actually it's a good example. You just defined reasons as to how they controlled it in JAX and how we haven't here. When they didn't want sprawl, they chose not to make the areas accessible. When they did want it opened up, they build roads to access it. Toll the areas you dont want to sprawl to, and remove them in areas you do. Seems like that's a perfect example of the Kilpatrick. We want people to have access in the area, but we toll it so it doesn't grow too much (and we can afford the road). Then in the east side or far SW where the population is lesser, we don't built a highway at all.

JAX, like OKC also annexed a crapton of land to grow its borders just like OKC, and is in fact, larger than OKC. They also have the benefit of county government being more powerful in certain aspects. So some things are easier to enforce across the city lines....including what would normally be unincorporated county across a creek/road/whatever from "city" areas.

If you think OKC should go on a buying spree and buy all the land in rural OKC good luck. Rural OKC has 10,000 property owners and most of them will sell you just a portion of their land, making 10,001 property owners. Jax isn't like that - 5 companies/families own the vast majority of vacant land. They protect their investment by only selling small portions of it at a time for planned development, and they have to approve the plans. Rural Jax is a major tree farm area and as long as the price of lumber stays high they have little interest in selling a single acre.

If you want to see crazy sprawl in Florida check out Orlando. They even have an insane amount tool roads (only one free highway in the entire metro area) but the availability of cheap land in every direction trumps that.

[Snowman]

Well the second paragraph tells me that actually it's a good example. You just defined reasons as to how they controlled it in JAX and how we haven't here. When they didn't want sprawl, they chose not to make the areas accessible. When they did want it opened up, they build roads to access it. Toll the areas you dont want to sprawl to, and remove them in areas you do. Seems like that's a perfect example of the Kilpatrick. We want people to have access in the area, but we toll it so it doesn't grow too much (and we can afford the road). Then in the east side or far SW where the population is lesser, we don't built a highway at all.

JAX, like OKC also annexed a crapton of land to grow its borders just like OKC, and is in fact, larger than OKC. They also have the benefit of county government being more powerful in certain aspects. So some things are easier to enforce across the city lines....including what would normally be unincorporated county across a creek/road/whatever from "city" areas.

However this is neither why it is tolled nor the result that is happening. It is tolled because the interstate system budget is funded at a level that only allow basic maintenance and occasional improvement. The result is the areas along Memorial, outer NW Expressway in the city, Yukon and Mustang are growing at a higher rate than before it was present. I guess it could be argued that it is happening slower than it not having a toll but that is harder to tell as areas near the interstate in NE and SE parts of the city are still under developed but have excellent interstate access and are closer to the city.

[bombermwc]

It also doesn't have anything to do with JAX. In FL, you see toll roads because that's how they can afford to repair the roads on an annual basis from storms. You ask anyone in the area and they don't hide the fact. Rather than make it a tax, it's a toll so that those visiting can also help pay for it. Next time you go to Tampa or Orlando, count the number of toll roads to get anywhere. It's not just JAX.

I also get the impression you haven't spent much time in JAX. I've only been there a handful of times, but i do interact with one of our offices there several times a week. We chat all the time about random things, and what you're describing is not what they are...and they live there. Sorry.

[Just the facts]

All I am saying bomber is don't use Florida as an example of how to control sprawl. Floida is spawl central. Whatever they are doing in Florida, it isn't working. Jax used to be dense, but then they lifted the tolls and started building roads to nowhere. You can really see this in St Johns County where billions have been spent on infrastructure and no way to pay off all the bonds because the housing market collapsed.

[Dar405301]

i agree with you just the facts. i live in JAX and the sprawl here is a problem, and it was given a booster shot when the tolls were lifted from JAX's expressways. speaking of tolls, i've heard that the new state road 9B will be tolled, but not sure yet.

[Just the facts]

i agree with you just the facts. i live in JAX and the sprawl here is a problem, and it was given a booster shot when the tolls were lifted from JAX's expressways. speaking of tolls, i've heard that the new state road 9B will be tolled, but not sure yet.

Not 9B. The new route around the westside (SR23) will be a toll. It was on the news a few night ago.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/28891133/detail.html

Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll joined Florida transportation officials Wednesday morning announcing construction of a the first leg of what is envisioned as an outer beltway around Jacksonville, beginning with upgrading the existing Branan Field-Chaffee Road corridor, or state Road 23.

Construction will begin in October 2012 on the $291 million project that is expected to create hundreds of jobs.

I love how it is sold as creating hundreds of jobs as if the $291 million in tax dollars used to build it are created from thin air. How many jobs are lost by removing $291 million out of the economy? This is only going to create more sprawl, use more gasoline, require miles of new electrical, sewer, telephone, and cable TV lines, new streets, etc... If we just further urbanized the existing urban areas we could accommodate all the population growth without spending near as much on basic infrastructure. There is tons of existing vacant land along JTB and the freeway is already there, but noooooo, let's build a whole new one. This makes me freaking sick!

[Maynard]

Not 9B. The new route around the westside (SR23) will be a toll. It was on the news a few night ago.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/28891133/detail.html



I love how it is sold as creating hundreds of jobs as if the $291 million in tax dollars used to build it are created from thin air. How many jobs are lost by removing $291 million out of the economy? This is only going to create more sprawl, use more gasoline, require miles of new electrical, sewer, telephone, and cable TV lines, new streets, etc... If we just further urbanized the existing urban areas we could accommodate all the population growth without spending near as much on basic infrastructure. There is tons of existing vacant land along JTB and the freeway is already there, but noooooo, let's build a whole new one. This makes me freaking sick!

With so much available land, is farming a viable option? Certainly makes more sense to 'build' something that would truly benefit everyone.

[Just the facts]

With so much available land, is farming a viable option? Certainly makes more sense to 'build' something that would truly benefit everyone.

Jacksonville is surrounded by two things - wetlands (swamp) to the north and east, tree farms to the south and west.

[Maynard]

Jacksonville is surrounded by two things - wetlands (swamp) to the north and east, tree farms to the south and west.

[Just the facts]

Needless to say - the idea of a new toll road is not going over well. The state says a toll road is the only option; it is either that or don't build it. I vote for not building it.

Jacksonville is kind of funny. I hear a lot of local talk here about how Jax needs to be more like OKC with a strong vibrant downtown. The odd thing is that Jax already has things that downtown OKC is either trying to get or just recently got. NFL team, 15,000 seat arena, cool baseball stadium, at least 5 high-rise condo buildings, an entertainment area, downtown transit system, multiple hotels, downtown grocery store, etc... - but for some reason it just doesn't all click together like it does in OKC. Something is missing in Jax and it is hard to put a finger on it. I think it is the massive urban sprawl. I talk with people everyday that live in south Jacksonville and they don't identify with Jacksonville at all - they say they live in places by Mandarin, Julington Creek, Fruit Cove, or Southside as if those are not part of Jacksonville. It is hard to get them to identify with downtown Jax because they live 20 miles from it.

Like OKC - Jax needs to do a serious deannexing, stop building new freeways across the countryside, and stop approving subdivisions 25 miles from downtown.