Again, Tulsa gets the first store

[semisimple]

Very nice strategy and definitely why OKC is the most successful city in America. ....

I sure hope you're either being sarcastic or I'm just reading this out of context--because if this is a serious statement, well...

[ljbab728]

I thought OKC annexed that land decades ago. I thought Urban Renewal began 30 years ago?

My, and others, arguments have always been the suburbanization of Oklahoma City (through annexation, building outside the core, and destruction of the core) is what has killed OKC and held it back.

It has taken MAPS to bring investment back into the core. So, you tell me if annexation has benefitted OKC. ... Tell me how OKC expanded it's tax base.

OKC didn't even expand it's population with this massive 608 sq mile area. And OKC certainly hasn't added any upper end quality of life amenities - again, attributable to lack of density.

So again, tell me how this strategy has benefitted OKC. ....

Again, explain to me why this won't benefit the city and why thy suburbs wouldn't get the long term benefits. Do you honestly think that if OKC had kept it's original land area from the 60's that the suburbs wouldn't have taken that land? The density wouldn't have been affected in the slightest which seems to be your main concern. It just means that the outer population which is now in OKC would be in Norman, Moore, Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond and they would be getting all of the taxes.

[HOT ROD]

Here are a few benefits so far... A secured water source when cities in the Metroplex are proposing to purchase water at a premium. Continued new growth and added dollars to OKC sales tax. Also "most" of OKC's funds are not spent in the rural areas. Yes maybe an amount not proportionate to the population, but the cost is minimal compared to assured future revenue growth. Tulsa has't annexed so they get a few neat stores and 100 less cops and an outrageous crime rate.

Most of OKC's funds are spent in rural areas because those areas need infrastructure in order to be settled by those mega ranches and cookie cutter developments and developers sure enough aren't building them. Also, OKC doesn't hardly spend or improve it's inner core - unless it is a special bond.

The core rots while all of the prosperity exists on the fringe. Unless, there is a special tax - then the core has a chance to expand in a few areas.

Again - tell me how having such a large area has benefitted OKC. ...

[NickFiggins]

Well if this was the dense coasts then your absolutely right, annexation is bad. However we have to live in the real world. OKC is in Oklahoma, where land is cheap, and the commutes are easy. If OKC did not annex, it would be like what has happened to OKCPS, imagine if the city limits were represented by OKCPS boundaries, that is not a solid enough tax base to support a major city. Meanwhile like what has a happened in Tulsa would be occurring Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, MWC would be receiving all of the tax revenue. As a result OKC would be forced to lay off police officers, fire fighters in large numbers. Before you can have all these "cool toys" (of which Tulsan's always put before basics, and I say that as someone who grew up in Tulsa) you need to fund basic city services. I think it is too easy to ignore the downsides of not annexing, it that is the city rots. There are just too many people in OK that want to drive their F-250's to work and live on acreage to truly support a dense tax base. Now I will give you an example of an expansive city Houston that has a growing dense central core, with a sales tax base that can support it. The reality is in this part of the country you will be eaten alive by suburbs unless we consolidate government to the county level. OKC is in the middle of the country w/o geographic boundaries, it doesn't make economic sense to go dense with energy prices at their current level. Why would families want to live in high rises when they can afford to build their own homes.

[ljbab728]

I thought OKC annexed that land decades ago. I thought Urban Renewal began 30 years ago?

My, and others, arguments have always been the suburbanization of Oklahoma City (through annexation, building outside the core, and destruction of the core) is what has killed OKC and held it back.

It has taken MAPS to bring investment back into the core. So, you tell me if annexation has benefitted OKC. ... Tell me how OKC expanded it's tax base.

OKC didn't even expand it's population with this massive 608 sq mile area. And OKC certainly hasn't added any upper end quality of life amenities - again, attributable to lack of density.

So again, tell me how this strategy has benefitted OKC. ....

I'd argue that Tulsa has been far ahead of OKC (and still is) due to it's density and relative lack of area. Tulsa concentrates it's resources into a relatively small area and they have been successful.

Tulsa has other issues that speak of it's crime rate - and it really isn't fair to compare the two cities in the first place, since OKC is a major US city and Tulsa isn't. But despite their being significantly smaller, they have a much stronger corporate base and economic base that is more centralized and more focused (hence, more upscale retail options despite being some 400K smaller than the state's largest urban area). Yet Tulsa is only a fraction of a hair smaller than OKC when it comes to retail economy. ....

Again, tell me how annexation has expanded OKC's tax base, retail offerings, or population....

I do agree that it saved the water supply. But this could also be accomplished without annexation. See Seattle-King County Metro or Denver Metropolitan for information *ill give you a hint, they have MORE water resources without expanding city limits (and Seattle's/Denver's water doesn't come from anywhere touching it's municipal borders). So, actually OKC doesn't even need to 'protect' it's water supply.

time is now to deannex.

Your only concern seems to be having high end retail along with it's status. While that would be nice, it is hardly a statement of why Tulsa, without annexation, is much ahead of OKC. The vast majority of those living in OKC could care less about having a Saks versus having Macy's. You may think that is a bad mindset but it only means that there are more important things in life.

[HOT ROD]

Again, explain to me why this won't benefit the city and why thy suburbs wouldn't get the long term benefits. Do you honestly think that if OKC had kept it's original land area from the 60's that the suburbs wouldn't have taken that land? The density wouldn't have been affected in the slightest which seems to be your main concern. It just means that the outer population which is now in OKC would be in Norman, Moore, Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond and they would be getting all of the taxes.

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.

dont get me wrong, I agree that OKC should retain it's current urban area with a bit of room for expansion, but anything beyond 350 square miles (which is more than generous) is just plain ridiculous and is the biggest reason for OKC being held back.

Annexing to the far NW, N, and SW has given developers an excuse to put retail in those areas. Otherwise, if OKC had not done this so reclessly - we would see emphasis on existing retain in the core and inner city rings.

RELAX simisimple - I was being faceteous (you have to read all of my posts sometimes, lol).

[NickFiggins]

The vast majority of those living in OKC could care less about having a Saks versus having Macy's. You may think that is a bad mindset but it only means that there are more important things in life.

I think this is the central misunderstanding. While Saks is nice it isn't everything. Growing up in Tulsa I can tell you the Saks at Utica is a crappy Saks, its not that great. To be honest most Tulsan's who gloat about Saks never shop their its just something they can use to better OKC. Another important fact high end retailers really don't account for that much sales tax. Here is what most OKC residents care about. Jobs. (Lower unemployment rate the Tulsa) Crime rate. (Number of murders the same event though OKC hass over 100k more ppl.) Roads. (Condition of Roads in Tulsa are rated lower than OKC). Also with online shopping do stores really matter that much?

[ljbab728]

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.

dont get me wrong, I agree that OKC should retain it's current urban area with a bit of room for expansion, but anything beyond 350 square miles (which is more than generous) is just plain ridiculous and is the biggest reason for OKC being held back.

Annexing to the far NW, N, and SW has given developers an excuse to put retail in those areas. Otherwise, if OKC had not done this so reclessly - we would see emphasis on existing retain in the core and inner city rings.

RELAX simisimple - I was being faceteous (you have to read all of my posts sometimes, lol).

Hotrod, It doesn't mean that retail would be more centralized. It only means that the retail would be within the city limits of a suburban city and they would be receiving the taxes.

Maybe over 350 square miles seems ridiculous now but, as I keep saying, you're not thinking about 50 or 100 years in the future. You're only thinking about the present.

[HOT ROD]

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

[NickFiggins]

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

That was the approach of Tulsa leaders years ago. It was ridiculous to think the suburbs would ever grow that large. Now Tulsa is landlocked, and the infrastructure is aging. In Tulsa their is much resentment of the Midtown area as much of the civic leaders have focused their attention their neglecting other parts. Whats to say if OKC did not annex all that land that Norman, Moore, Edmond, Yukon and MWC wouldn't have; the truth is they would have. Just as reflection many of the rural areas of OKC are just that rural with dirt roads and unimproved utilities, 100 years from now OKC will be very thankful.

[ljbab728]

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

Hotrod, as I keep saying, you're only thinking about now, not the future. Don't you think that Tulsa would love to have the retail taxes that are going to Jenks, Broken Arrow, and Owasso even though they have a few high end stores?

[HOT ROD]

Hotrod, It doesn't mean that retail would be more centralized. It only means that the retail would be within the city limits of a suburban city and they would be receiving the taxes.

Maybe over 350 square miles seems ridiculous now but, as I keep saying, you're not thinking about 50 or 100 years in the future. You're only thinking about the present.

lj, maybe you have a point and I agree - but ONLY if we continue to encourage unsustainable development and waste. The reason we have development on the fringe, is because that is OKC's city limit. So any developer could use OKC's population (even though it is 20 miles away) to build their proposal to investors dumb enough not to also consider density or sustainability.

I argue, that there is a push all across America (and the world) for sustainability and densification of the world's cities.

You can see in every large city in America (including OKC) that there is a re-focus on the inner city to some extent. Cities are building density or at least encouraging it - including OKC.

So, given this change in the "american dream" - I don't see the need for such a large city limit for the future.

We can protect the watershed using ACOG and Oklahoma County (and other counties) to grant easement for OKC water trust (or form another entity altogether separate from the city of OKC that manages water - ala Seattle-King County Metro).

I think developers would still build inside OKC's limits, if shortened - because EVERY developer uses some of OKC's 550K population to support their market argument to investors. If something is built in a rural area not in OKC's limit - how could any person see it as fruitful?

Again, I agree with some annexation. Definitely the Edmond and Moore/Norman abuttments were successsful in stopping their encroachment mainly because Edmond and Moore/Norman are desirable places to live. So it made $en$e to expand to those areas due north and south.

But I dont really see the other directions.

[NickFiggins]

Actually deannexation would work if we only levied an income tax on residents to make up for lost sales tax, as workers who live outside the city would still use the the roads and city services. Oh but wait the legislature shot down this proposal as the suburban and rural legislators did not want their citizens to pay a fair share. Article about failing sales tax base in Tulsa

[HOT ROD]

lj, I agree Tulsa would love to have some of that Jenks money. Sure.

but it seems as if both cities made mistakes - 180 degrees.

OKC annexed too much and Tulsa failed to recognize the threat of their bedroom communities.

lj, Ill give you this - if and a big if OKC ever gets over 1million in city population then YES we probably would be happy with the land size.

But look at Dallas, they aren't suffering and they aren't anywhere near 600 square miles and are LINED with suburbs in every direction. Chicago even more so.

all I am saying, is yes I am thinking of today - and yes OKC is not sustainable given such a large area and a relative lack of population to justify having development go ONLY to the fringe (unless there is a tax break). Why didn't OKC take Dallas's model.

I agree Dallas was stupid in not creating a watershed big enough. But again, other cites have shown it to be successful despite having suburbs or unincorporated in the way.

[BG918]

That was the approach of Tulsa leaders years ago. It was ridiculous to think the suburbs would ever grow that large. Now Tulsa is landlocked, and the infrastructure is aging. In Tulsa their is much resentment of the Midtown area as much of the civic leaders have focused their attention their neglecting other parts. Whats to say if OKC did not annex all that land that Norman, Moore, Edmond, Yukon and MWC wouldn't have; the truth is they would have. Just as reflection many of the rural areas of OKC are just that rural with dirt roads and unimproved utilities, 100 years from now OKC will be very thankful.

Tulsa has plenty of empty land as well just not near as much as OKC. The entire northwest quadrant of the city is open land which is why city leaders in Tulsa are pushing to finish the Gilcrease Loop that will open this area up to new development northwest of downtown toward Sand Springs. The same goes for rural parts of east Tulsa north of Broken Arrow that are still within city limits. A long-empty section of Tulsa on the southwest side has really boomed in the past 5 years similar to the rapid growth experienced in far south and far north OKC in recent years. I think the growth of the southwest side greatly contributed to Tulsa recently gaining population after losing for a few years in the early 2000's now expected to pass 400,000 this year.

[HOT ROD]

Actually deannexation would work if we only levied an income tax on residents to make up for lost sales tax, as workers who live outside the city would still use the the roads and city services. Oh but wait the legislature shot down this proposal as the suburban and rural legislators did not want their citizens to pay a fair share. Article about failing sales tax base in Tulsa

Nick, what revenue does the city of Oklahoma City get from a house that is on the fringe of it's city limit? I argue, little to none. Yet, the city has to build infrastructure and roads out there to service those developments and connect them to the inner city core.

The city imposes sales taxes on purchases made from retail and services in it's area AND most (90+%) of the purchases of the whole OKC metro area are made in OKC's existing urban area (244 square miles).

Isn't this why suburbanites were upset with MAPS? (they were saying Taxation without representation, since almost ALL shopping in the OKC metro is done in the thin corridor of OKC's urban area).

Im not following your argument that the city deannexing rural areas would negatively affect OKC's tax base.

I argue, if OKC deannex'd 200 square miles - it would not affect tax base, population, or watershed - and would improve density computations. If we do it correct, we could still enjoy future growth that jl is talking about.

[NickFiggins]

Tulsa has plenty of empty land as well just not near as much as OKC. The entire northwest quadrant of the city is open land which is why city leaders in Tulsa are pushing to finish the Gilcrease Loop that will open this area up to new development northwest of downtown toward Sand Springs. The same goes for rural parts of east Tulsa north of Broken Arrow that are still within city limits. A long-empty section of Tulsa on the southwest side has really boomed in the past 5 years similar to the rapid growth experienced in far south and far north OKC in recent years.

True, but this development is chump change compared to the growth of Catoosa, Claremore, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Glenpool, Sapulpa, and Sand Springs. The S.W. area and the part on the Creek Turnpike (by New Tulsa haha) are it 50 years from now their is no new land. With the clowns like Roscoe Jack and John Eagleton on the council refusing to annex areas north of the city, there is little hope, they instead waste their time on a bid for the 2020 games. Most of the SW land is in Jenks schools and its almost gone. The NW area is in Tulsa schools, thats not gonna boom anytime soon, sorry. The leadership of Tulsa, minus Kathy Taylor is not thinking about the future (KT was smart enough to push sales tax growth on Tulsa's borders Tulsa Hills TIF, and Target at 101st and Memorial) however now Tulsa is back in the hands of clowns. As a former Tulsan, the outlook is bleak and the brain drain is on.

[NickFiggins]

Nick, what revenue does the city of Oklahoma City get from a house that is on the fringe of it's city limit? I argue, little to none. Yet, the city has to build infrastructure and roads out there to service those developments and connect them to the inner city core.

The city imposes sales taxes on purchases made from retail and services in it's area AND most (90+%) of the purchases of the whole OKC metro area are made in OKC's existing urban area (244 square miles).

Isn't this why suburbanites were upset with MAPS? (they were saying Taxation without representation, since almost ALL shopping in the OKC metro is done in the thin corridor of OKC's urban area).

Im not following your argument that the city deannexing rural areas would negatively affect OKC's tax base.

I argue, if OKC deannex'd 200 square miles - it would not affect tax base, population, or watershed - and would improve density computations. If we do it correct, we could still enjoy future growth that jl is talking about.

The problem with deannexing any of it is that the suburbs will quickly snap it up and the costs really are not that large. Most the expenses are capital related and OKC has already spent that. Another problem I have is your Dallas example. The reason I only refer to Tulsa is that it is in the same state. Municipalities in Oklahoma are extremely dependent on sales tax, where as in other states they can receive property taxes. You are correct in arguing that shedding area now would cost us tax base in the near term, but in the future, its uncertain. The suburbs would gobble up the land with all of the improvements done by OKC for free, and 100 years down the road, OKC is strangled. If you want to lose the land just get some stores, I find that very shallow. A retailer is going to look at wealth concentration on zip code level, not a city level. The Tulsa zip codes have greater density of wealth, and deannexing land won't change that. I think you are misguided in looking at the city wide density figures, retailers are looking at radius from the store and zip code level data. Quality of life defined by a chain store is just disgusting. Remember when you get rid of all of this "excess" land the crime per sq mile will also shoot up with density!

[Kerry]

You people that support a large OKC land area crack me up. The complaint about OKC losing police officers if OKC reduced its size is my favorite because this is EXACTLY the reason OKC should do this. De-annexing drives down the cost of the city doing business. If Mustang wants to expand, and thus incur the expenses of hiring more police officers, then let them. Not only would OKC get by with fewer police officers, but they could have fewer firemen, fire trucks, fire stations, police stations, police cars, sewer lines, roads, stop lights, street lights, road signs, and on and on and on and on and on.........

Like I said before in another thread, at some point OKC will be built out and then what happens? The response was we will just annex more land and expand the city some more. By that logic the 'long term' benefits will never pay-off because we will never make it to the final destination - we'll just keeping moving the goal further out.

If the ultimate destination is 100% build-out why don't we just do that now and start reaping the benefits now. At some point the long term benefit needs to be achieved otherwise it was never a goal, it was just a illusion.

De-annex now.

BTW - how does this logic make sense "OKC doesn't have enough high end shoppers...too many people shop for high end goods in Dallas"? Even Forrest Gump would scratch his head at that one.

[okcpulse]

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.

Actually, yes, OKC does get tax money from home owners... 14.77 mills, which pays for all of the GO Bond issues that go to infrasturcture replacement or expansion, street improvements, park improvements and public safety.

[okcpulse]

OKC defintely needs to de-annex. Why? Take a look at a wall map. The huge swaths of land in NE OKC all the way out to Jones and SE OKC out past Newalla, are NEVER going to see development. EVER. Infrastructure doesn't go out that far, except electricity, to any rural subdivisions that DO exist, but cable won't go that far, neither will sewer.

But, what does spread our resources out thin are police and fire protection. If someone's house catches fire WAY out on Triple X Road, who has to haul there equipment way out there? Yes, OKCFD. Then the police and rescue have to show up as well, and let's all hope that who ever was in the house got out.

I think OKC can stand to lose 250 square miles easily without any loss of population (maybe 5k at the most). That would put us at 358 square miles, and with 546,000 (2008 est.) our population density would be 1,525 per square mile.

[BG918]

True, but this development is chump change compared to the growth of Catoosa, Claremore, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Glenpool, Sapulpa, and Sand Springs. The S.W. area and the part on the Creek Turnpike (by New Tulsa haha) are it 50 years from now their is no new land. With the clowns like Roscoe Jack and John Eagleton on the council refusing to annex areas north of the city, there is little hope, they instead waste their time on a bid for the 2020 games. Most of the SW land is in Jenks schools and its almost gone. The NW area is in Tulsa schools, thats not gonna boom anytime soon, sorry. The leadership of Tulsa, minus Kathy Taylor is not thinking about the future (KT was smart enough to push sales tax growth on Tulsa's borders Tulsa Hills TIF, and Target at 101st and Memorial) however now Tulsa is back in the hands of clowns. As a former Tulsan, the outlook is bleak and the brain drain is on.

There is still plenty of land in SW Tulsa and it is far from being built out but moving in that direction. You mentioned New Tulsa which Tulsa annexed in the 90's, that area is also growing along the Creek Turnpike north of BA. And if there is a highway built northwest Tulsa will grow fast. Yes it's in Tulsa schools but they would be new schools considering there is nothing there currently. Not many cities the size of Tulsa have a large area of empty land just 3-4 miles from downtown. There is also a good deal of infill in midtown Tulsa where some older neighborhoods feel almost completely new.

OKC could lose some of its land area far to the west and especially east and be in better shape. Both cities need to focus on existing areas anyway.

[bluedogok]

Would it be possible for Penn Square to expand upward versus outward. I know of some shopping malls that were 1 level at first and expanded to 2 levels. Don't know if this is possible going from 2 to 3 levels.

It would probably be cost prohibitive, they had to tear up a lot of the existing mall when they went from one story to two stories in the 80's and back then Penn Square was pretty empty so it was an easier thing to do than it would be now. Building an extension towards the northwest corner and associated parking garages would be the mos likely direction for expansion. If they were to pick up another anchor the only places that it could go would be that NW corner or along NW Expressway, anything built new could easily be designed/built for a possible upward expansion.

lBut look at Dallas, they aren't suffering and they aren't anywhere near 600 square miles and are LINED with suburbs in every direction. Chicago even more so.

all I am saying, is yes I am thinking of today - and yes OKC is not sustainable given such a large area and a relative lack of population to justify having development go ONLY to the fringe (unless there is a tax break). Why didn't OKC take Dallas's model.

I agree Dallas was stupid in not creating a watershed big enough. But again, other cites have shown it to be successful despite having suburbs or unincorporated in the way.

You aren't looking far enough back, Dallas has suffered greatly from being landlocked, especially when I lived there in the early 90's when everything inside Loop 12 was pretty much abandoned. That was all the City of Dallas talked about for 15-20 years since the oil bust in the early 80's. The burbs exploded in population and tax base while Dallas proper was decaying. Dallas was in worse shape than OKC has ever been. Most of the more expensive residential areas "in Dallas" were not in the city limits of the City of Dallas and located in the small towns like Highland Park or University Park, which also had more of the high end retail. The City of Dallas would love to have a portion of OKC's "problem". It took a nationwide look to the urban areas of cities all over the country to "correct" many of the problems that Dallas has, they still have many more issues that I don't think will ever be resolved. Dallas gets by with a lot that places like OKC or Tulsa couldn't just by the combined population of the metro area.

I'm not saying keeping OKC territory as is, is the answer but being landlocked creates a whole other mess of issues if everyone around you is growing. When I lived in Dallas in the early 90's 121 & Preston was nothing but a two lane blacktop in the middle of fields. Dallas proper could have used up a ton of that growth that Plano, Frisco, McKinney and others have had.

[ljbab728]

OKC defintely needs to de-annex. Why? Take a look at a wall map. The huge swaths of land in NE OKC all the way out to Jones and SE OKC out past Newalla, are NEVER going to see development. EVER. Infrastructure doesn't go out that far, except electricity, to any rural subdivisions that DO exist, but cable won't go that far, neither will sewer.

But, what does spread our resources out thin are police and fire protection. If someone's house catches fire WAY out on Triple X Road, who has to haul there equipment way out there? Yes, OKCFD. Then the police and rescue have to show up as well, and let's all hope that who ever was in the house got out.

I think OKC can stand to lose 250 square miles easily without any loss of population (maybe 5k at the most). That would put us at 358 square miles, and with 546,000 (2008 est.) our population density would be 1,525 per square mile.

Saying Never and Ever is a ridiculous statement. That may be true in our lifetime but too many people in this thread refuse to see beyond the end of their noses. Probably within the next 20 years the area between Mustang and Yukon will be totally developed and that is something I could have never imagined. I promise you, also, that if OKC hadn't annexed that area it would all be part of Yukon and Mustang city limits and guess who would be getting the retail tax dollars from that area.

[ljbab728]

If the ultimate destination is 100% build-out why don't we just do that now and start reaping the benefits now. At some point the long term benefit needs to be achieved otherwise it was never a goal, it was just a illusion.

De-annex now.

Kerry, because deannexation does nothing to achieve 100% build-out within the currently developed area. It won't stop new rural or suburban developments at all. One more time, I'm not arguing against density, just the means you propose to achieve it.