Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?