Originally Posted by okcpulse

Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label. It is a non-partisan government. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by soonerguru

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

Originally Posted by soonerguru

What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade.

Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.

Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.

Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?

Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.

Not to mention, what do you ask of your elected representatives in OKC and Washington? Why do you continue to elect nimrods like John Sullivan and expect things to change?

Tulsa is also extremely segregated, one of the most segregated cities I've even seen. Now, it's a city in three parts: North Tulsa, Midtown, and 'Burbs, and no one in these areas even agrees what the city should do. The Burbies don't even think they should have to pay a shiny red penny to help the city since they don't live there (despite the fact they wouldn't have a job and shiny burb if the city weren't there).

Tulsa has deep problems that cannot and will not be solved by whining about OKC's relative success.

Originally Posted by soonerguru

Saberman,

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

Originally Posted by soonerguru

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

Originally Posted by JWil

I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though.

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base.

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.

Originally Posted by soonerguru

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.