Tesla (previously Volvo dealership)

[jccouger]

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

The good ole boy network is protected here at all costs

Pete, can you use your social network platform to shine light on this issue?

[Pete]

^

There are also many bills that do get passed and are generally known to be unconstitutional, and then millions in taxpayer dollars are spent on litigation.

The same is true regarding state politicians suing the federal government over matters that have virtually no chance of succeeding in court.

And then the very same politicians claim to be in favor of cutting wasteful government spending.

[Dob Hooligan]

I don't see Tesla as a victim. They appear to be a company that wants to maintain complete control of their product. Before, during and after sale. They appear to want to control pricing and eliminate competition. As well as control repair and parts access and pricing. When Tesla is as common as Chevy are you gonna be happy buying from the factory and have zero multi dealer competition? When your Tesla is 10 years old, and you still have to go back to Tesla for parts, service or body work are you gonna be okay with that?

[onthestrip]

I don't see Tesla as a victim. They appear to be a company that wants to maintain complete control of their product. Before, during and after sale. They appear to want to control pricing and eliminate competition. As well as control repair and parts access and pricing. When Tesla is as common as Chevy are you gonna be happy buying from the factory and have zero multi dealer competition? When your Tesla is 10 years old, and you still have to go back to Tesla for parts, service or body work are you gonna be okay with that?

Who cares, let consumers determine if that scenario is ok. Dont need hypocritical, ethically-challenged lawmakers making our consumption decisions.

[jccouger]

I don't see Tesla as a victim. They appear to be a company that wants to maintain complete control of their product. Before, during and after sale. They appear to want to control pricing and eliminate competition. As well as control repair and parts access and pricing. When Tesla is as common as Chevy are you gonna be happy buying from the factory and have zero multi dealer competition? When your Tesla is 10 years old, and you still have to go back to Tesla for parts, service or body work are you gonna be okay with that?

Thats not the point, the consumer is the victim if this passes. Let free markets determine what our options are as consumers.

[April in the Plaza]

Thats not the point, the consumer is the victim if this passes. Let free markets determine what our options are as consumers.

That's all well and true. But, of course, there's nothing stopping Tesla from just playing by the rules set in the forum.

[GaryOKC6]

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

I have dealt with dozens of companies to get them here (all big names) and have never heard any of them say that. The issues I have encountered is lack of large tracts of industrial land, taxes, available labor force or trained labor force and even liquor laws. One thing I have learned is we often have reasons why a company did not come here and most of them were never planning to locate here, they were just pitting us against another place to get more incentives. Quite often the others states have a better offer or an existing facility that is perfect for them.

[GaryOKC6]

^

Case in point: we offer tons of incentives to both Tesla and then Canoo, but even though we have a deal with the latter, our legislature is actively working against them.

I might mention that Canoo has never made a vehicle to date. The whole thing can fall apart at any time.

[Midtowner]

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

Does most of this relate back to the ad valorem incentives promised to GM in MWC? I mean.. that was pretty amateur hour. You had these good 'ol boys who were used to self-dealing with tax dollars who thought they had the power to abrogate all on their own, the taxing authority of the State. No enabling statute whatsoever.

It was arguably equally as amateurish on GM's side to not have hired local counsel to give an opinion as to whether what they were being offered was legal. The cost would have been less than a rounding error.

Aside from that, I can't think of a good example. And that was what ~50 years ago? The players from that deal are all dead or nearly dead.

[soonerguru]

^^^

Yes, it does, and it’s absurd because it was so long ago, but it definitely left a mark.

Another reason I hear about regularly is the lack of an educated workforce in key fields. OKC has made a real step forward in that regard — namely in the percentage of folks with advanced degrees who are choosing to move here or stay here. But the state as a whole is a giant advertisement against public and higher education. So, it’s not always the dumb headline grabbing laws, it’s the dumb long-term strategy. As a state we are going nowhere unless we improve education outcomes and increase the number of folks with STEM degrees. There is a great correlation to Austin’s success and its large base of workers with those advanced degrees.

Our current ruling party only seems to focus on tax policy and incentives without addressing the workforce concerns, which is myopic because in tech fields at least, tax policy is way down the list of concerns compared to having a quality workforce.

[Dob Hooligan]

I read the full kansascity.com story linked to in the "Any new economic developments?" thread regarding the "secret" Panasonic battery plant that has the KC area competing with the Tulsa. Virtually every "why our state mises out" talking point is repeated by Kansas. "Our children are moving out of state for better jobs"; "This will put us in the hi-tech field"; "We only have one good field (aviation instead of O&G)"; "We must give the governor the freedom to negotiate this secret billion dollar incentive deal", etc. My point being Oklahoma isn't the only state whose leadership hammers our "shortcomings' in order to pony up the incentives.

[Plutonic Panda]

Nobody has ever said Oklahoma is the only state that does this crap. I don’t understand why that keeps getting brought up. Congrats Oklahoma you’re in a pool of states like Kansas. Big accomplishment.

[soonerguru]

Nobody has ever said Oklahoma is the only state that does this crap. I don’t understand why that keeps getting brought up. Congrats Oklahoma you’re in a pool of states like Kansas. Big accomplishment.

Agree. The leadership of Oklahoma was obsessed with getting Right to Work. It was going to be a panacea. Well, we got it. Did it help? Who knows? It certainly wasn't a panacea.

Then there was the movement to get rid of the state income tax. While it has been reduced, has that made Oklahoma more attractive? Maybe that was a factor for Elon Musk, who knows, but he was always going to go to Austin, because that's where the talent is and it has the cool factor.

Basically the main area of growth in Oklahoma is the OKC Metro, and it's not due to efforts from the state government. If anything, our governor seems preoccupied with focusing on Tulsa, and then has made weird decisions like moving the state health lab from Oklahoma City to Stillwater, where he went to school. This has proven to be a bad move.

OKC is fortunate to have good leadership and our own pool of incentives to go after business relocations, but its best efforts often cannot overcome the deficiencies of our state leadership, the state's lack of committing resources to higher education, and just a lack of commitment to education in general. Right now, the "education" policy the legislature is focused on is fighting against Critical Race Theory, which isn't even taught in Oklahoma schools, and having our Attorney General investigating books to ban from school libraries. This is not the type of effort that's going to put Oklahoma in any kind of league to compete for elite companies.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ yep. Spot on!

[BG918]

If only the governor and legislature would focus their efforts entirely on economic development and improving the lives of Oklahomans.

[dcsooner]

Agree. The leadership of Oklahoma was obsessed with getting Right to Work. It was going to be a panacea. Well, we got it. Did it help? Who knows? It certainly wasn't a panacea.

Then there was the movement to get rid of the state income tax. While it has been reduced, has that made Oklahoma more attractive? Maybe that was a factor for Elon Musk, who knows, but he was always going to go to Austin, because that's where the talent is and it has the cool factor.

Basically the main area of growth in Oklahoma is the OKC Metro, and it's not due to efforts from the state government. If anything, our governor seems preoccupied with focusing on Tulsa, and then has made weird decisions like moving the state health lab from Oklahoma City to Stillwater, where he went to school. This has proven to be a bad move.

OKC is fortunate to have good leadership and our own pool of incentives to go after business relocations, but its best efforts often cannot overcome the deficiencies of our state leadership, the state's lack of committing resources to higher education, and just a lack of commitment to education in general. Right now, the "education" policy the legislature is focused on is fighting against Critical Race Theory, which isn't even taught in Oklahoma schools, and having our Attorney General investigating books to ban from school libraries. This is not the type of effort that's going to put Oklahoma in any kind of league to compete for elite companies.

+1

[soonerguru]

A 20 Year Overview of Oklahoma Economic Development Efforts:

Employer 1: We think we need a more educated talent pool.
Oklahoma: Let’s pass right to work!

Employer 2: We really prefer to locate near an elite university for R&D.
Oklahoma: Let’s clip that budget for OU and OSU and pass lawsuit reform!

Employer 3: How is your state positioned for technology transfer and early capitalization?
Oklahoma: Let’s remove the income tax and make it possible to put people who lack teaching degrees in the classroom!

On and on and on, Oklahoma acts like a giant toddler, kicking and screaming to avoid listening to what coveted employers are saying they would need to see before moving here.

[GaryOKC6]

Agree. The leadership of Oklahoma was obsessed with getting Right to Work. It was going to be a panacea. Well, we got it. Did it help? Who knows? It certainly wasn't a panacea.

Then there was the movement to get rid of the state income tax. While it has been reduced, has that made Oklahoma more attractive? Maybe that was a factor for Elon Musk, who knows, but he was always going to go to Austin, because that's where the talent is and it has the cool factor.

Basically the main area of growth in Oklahoma is the OKC Metro, and it's not due to efforts from the state government. If anything, our governor seems preoccupied with focusing on Tulsa, and then has made weird decisions like moving the state health lab from Oklahoma City to Stillwater, where he went to school. This has proven to be a bad move.

OKC is fortunate to have good leadership and our own pool of incentives to go after business relocations, but its best efforts often cannot overcome the deficiencies of our state leadership, the state's lack of committing resources to higher education, and just a lack of commitment to education in general. Right now, the "education" policy the legislature is focused on is fighting against Critical Race Theory, which isn't even taught in Oklahoma schools, and having our Attorney General investigating books to ban from school libraries. This is not the type of effort that's going to put Oklahoma in any kind of league to compete for elite companies.

Most of the big projects are brought to us by site selectors. Theses same consultants flat out told us that they pass us over for the big projects because we are not a right to work state. Although Oklahoma was only 3% union it was so important to the unions that they brought 30,000 people to Oklahoma City and Tulsa to go door to door to discourage a yes vote. The reason is that OK was a cash cow for the unions. In other words, you have to pay the union if you want to work here. If anything, RTW has forced to unions to offer additional benefits to workers to get them to join so it has benefited the workers.

OKC does a good job with incentives and Forward OKC funding to attract new companies here. Since the Governor is from Tulsa I think he does push projects there however OKC is still outpacing Tulsa to grow existing industries, recruit new companies and develop an active entrepreneurial environment, resulting in quality job creation and a diverse economy. Through these efforts, in the last five years we have announced:

• More than 200 new projects / expansions
• The creation of more than 21,000 new jobs
• Average salaries of created jobs at more than $5,000 higher than mean annual wage for the MSA

[GaryOKC6]

OK ranked No. 11 among best states for manufacturing. https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/eco...ack=super_blog

[soonerguru]

Most of the big projects are brought to us by site selectors. Theses same consultants flat out told us that they pass us over for the big projects because we are not a right to work state. Although Oklahoma was only 3% union it was so important to the unions that they brought 30,000 people to Oklahoma City and Tulsa to go door to door to discourage a yes vote. The reason is that OK was a cash cow for the unions. In other words, you have to pay the union if you want to work here. If anything, RTW has forced to unions to offer additional benefits to workers to get them to join so it has benefited the workers.

OKC does a good job with incentives and Forward OKC funding to attract new companies here. Since the Governor is from Tulsa I think he does push projects there however OKC is still outpacing Tulsa to grow existing industries, recruit new companies and develop an active entrepreneurial environment, resulting in quality job creation and a diverse economy. Through these efforts, in the last five years we have announced:

• More than 200 new projects / expansions
• The creation of more than 21,000 new jobs
• Average salaries of created jobs at more than $5,000 higher than mean annual wage for the MSA

I'm aware of the site selectors, and that was like 20 years ago. I agree and I stated that OKC has great leadership in this area, but just like the folks back then, you totally skipped over the talent pool conversation.

I'm very aware of the wins and losses we have and follow the news through the chamber religiously. I also personally know people who have been in this space through the commerce department for years.

Those achievements by OKC are impressive, and nothing to sneeze at, but Austin had 100 major corporate relocations in one year. We are talking massive companies like Oracle. I have watched Austin grow from a city slightly smaller than Tulsa to a burgeoning major city that has bypassed OKC. I know we are trying not to address education, but if you want employers like the major tech companies and the massive salaries they bring, you need a highly educated workforce. I see no reason why OKC can't work on ways to address this to compete for some of the elite companies that pay no attention to us.

I have no interest in arguing about unions with you.

Again, if you read my comment, it states clearly that OKC is doing well and the OKC metro area is growing, and, that our education profile has improved through individuals choosing to stay here or move here. So, that's a real credit to the improvement we have made to our quality of life and that provides validation that our city is a much more attractive place to live than it has probably ever been in its history.

None of that changes the fact we have to overcome poor state leadership in our efforts. We have done well with defense-oriented industry, aviation, and to a lesser extent, healthcare research. A lot to build from there.

[progressiveboy]

Agree about the State leadership not listening or realizing how important it will be for Oklahoma to grow or make a concentrated effort to commit to education and preparing the residents to compete in a global market. Not enough is stressed on STEM jobs and life sciences and technology. Oklahoma will have to be competitive and the leadership will need to stop having a "insular" mindset.

[HOT ROD]

agree with the above, really wish Oklahoma would get with it. Austin had Dell to start with and look at them now, all due to talent and resources FOR talent.

with emphasis on STEM and early education, along with Life Sciences Oklahoma would compete very well in the market. Stop touting low cost of living due to housing (which actually isn't as low anymore) and start touting what Oklahoma has to offer in the form of talent, growth of talent, and scale of talent.

Oklahoma City is doing well by comparison relying on itself (and not even the metro area/region, just the city) - but OKC could do MUCH better if the above were addressed at the state level and if the rural would stop holding OKC back. Other states (like my state) put resources behind the main city so it competes with other players and the state as a whole benefits (sort of like a TIFF in a way); it's time that Oklahoma does the same to fully realize it's potential.

[GaryOKC6]

Our rural legislators all want to pass bills that will benefit their districts so that mean OKC sometimes has to get creative to make things happen. As for Austin, I had fun visiting there but as far as living there; no thanks. They have outgrown their infrastructure and the homeless problem is approaching California levels. I am sure some of you would love to live there. Just not me. I had a chance to relocate there and said no.

[soonerguru]

Our rural legislators all want to pass bills that will benefit their districts so that mean OKC sometimes has to get creative to make things happen. As for Austin, I had fun visiting there but as far as living there; no thanks. They have outgrown their infrastructure and the homeless problem is approaching California levels. I am sure some of you would love to live there. Just not me. I had a chance to relocate there and said no.

1. Dead on about the rural legislators and the governor. The rural tilt of our legislature is limiting this state's efforts to modernize its economy.
2. Your personal views about living in Austin are irrelevant, as are mine. What is relevant is that they are kicking our collective ass in economic development. No one is suggesting we could be Austin even if we tried.

I constantly see comments of this nature from Okies about more successful places. It is defensive in nature and deflects from the actual issues. Maybe you don't want to live in San Francisco, but does that mean you don't want Google to open an HQ here? I mean, it's pretty dumb to make comments like that if your job is to try to compete with cities that, if anything, are too successful when it comes to cultivating business. It suggests that you don't want to understand what it is about those places that are attracting these types of relocations when we are not.

Also, how you personally feel about a place depends on your life circumstances. If you are getting paid $300k a year from a tech company, living in Austin would be fantastic.

Austin has obviously outgrown its highway infrastructure, but they are building a billion dollar transit systems that will include subways. Portraying it as some infrastructure failure is off base.

Their homeless situation is not "approaching California levels." They did have a misguided city ordinance that basically allowed people to pitch tents in medians, making it look far worse than it was. But, the citizens overturned that, so if you were there a year ago it may look very different today.

They do, along with LA and San Fran, have a housing affordability crisis for sure. But, again, if you work for Google and get paid $300k a year, home prices in Austin are still a bargain.

[GaryOKC6]

1. Dead on about the rural legislators and the governor. The rural tilt of our legislature is limiting this state's efforts to modernize its economy.
2. Your personal views about living in Austin are irrelevant, as are mine. What is relevant is that they are kicking our collective ass in economic development. No one is suggesting we could be Austin even if we tried.

I constantly see comments of this nature from Okies about more successful places. It is defensive in nature and deflects from the actual issues. Maybe you don't want to live in San Francisco, but does that mean you don't want Google to open an HQ here? I mean, it's pretty dumb to make comments like that if your job is to try to compete with cities that, if anything, are too successful when it comes to cultivating business. It suggests that you don't want to understand what it is about those places that are attracting these types of relocations when we are not.

Also, how you personally feel about a place depends on your life circumstances. If you are getting paid $300k a year from a tech company, living in Austin would be fantastic.

Austin has obviously outgrown its highway infrastructure, but they are building a billion dollar transit systems that will include subways. Portraying it as some infrastructure failure is off base.

Their homeless situation is not "approaching California levels." They did have a misguided city ordinance that basically allowed people to pitch tents in medians, making it look far worse than it was. But, the citizens overturned that, so if you were there a year ago it may look very different today.

They do, along with LA and San Fran, have a housing affordability crisis for sure. But, again, if you work for Google and get paid $300k a year, home prices in Austin are still a bargain.

Not everyone is attracted to an overcrowded city. I am one of them. I can make as much in OKC as Austin.