View Full Version : OG&E/PSO seeks rate increase for storm losses



Kerry
12-12-2007, 07:40 PM
This pi$$es me off and I am not even affected. OG&E and PSO are seeking a rate hike to recover losses from the ice storm before their customers even have electricity restored. I love the quote from one of the spokespersons saying they budget for storms but this is worse than they can plan for. It is called business interuption insurance - maybe they should look into it. Don't even get me started on why the lines aren't buried as mentioned in another post.

The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=84372)

Midtowner
12-12-2007, 08:01 PM
Yep -- why should we have to suffer for their poor decisions?

Kerry
12-12-2007, 08:05 PM
Actually Midtowner - you and their other customers are suffering right now for the bad decisions. You just get to pay for it later.

dismayed
12-12-2007, 08:15 PM
I'm sure glad that since we deregulated the utilities I can just cancel my service with OG&E and go with a competitor who knows what they are doing. It doesn't work that way? Doh!

solitude
12-12-2007, 10:38 PM
Los Angeles just went through all this during the Summer. They found a way to fund ages-old infrastructure problems that involved countless public meetings and proposals from the public. The common-sense results can be read here: LADWP Rate Proposals (http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp007915.jsp). Los Angeles is the largest municipally owned power company in the nation. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp000508.jsp)puts its "profits" back into the general fund of the city. No tax money is ever spent and the board is appointed and overseen by the Mayor and City Council. Ultimately, when there are problems, the City Council is held responsible. But there are no private lobbyists pushing and buying candidates to hold ratepayers hostage to the whims of a private corporation. The people are actually involved (imagine that!). It's a hell of a lot better than sending a few executives to sway (or buy) a few members of a "Corporation Commission."

oneforone
12-13-2007, 01:32 AM
It really suprises me how many people are shaking the finger of blame at OG&E and the other power providers.

When are the people of Oklahoma going to step up and share the blame for this mess. We all know Oklahoma is a disaster prone state but yet we all run around like idiots every time one strikes. Do we prepare? No. Do we have a contigency plan if the disaster lands at our house? No. Can we change that? Yes.

For starters, it is not a bad idea to stay stocked up on non-perishable food and bottled water. It never hurts to have a working arangement with friends and family just in case you or they need a place to stay.

All of us should have a survival kit that at least contains water, flash lights, a radio, blankets a first aid kit and a basic change of clothes. (IE:shirt, jeans, socks, underwear, towel and shoes) and the basic tolietries.

I am really suprised more people do not own generators in this state. When I lived in Louisana everybody had one or had to access to one.
If I was a home builder I would have it as an option on every house I built. You can get a good system for the price of a good used car.

Disasters are nothing new to this state. I think we need a proactive approach that will encourage everyone (utilities and citizens) to be ready for the next one.

solitude
12-13-2007, 01:51 AM
The reason for the finger-pointing is because this doesn't have to happen! Above-ground power lines in 2007 in a state that gets hit by ice storms in the Winter and by high winds and thunderstorms in the Summer makes no sense. Your post about preparedness was very good and should be heeded, but it needs to be separated from the issue of OG&E's taking heat for prior wasteful spending, running to the state for approval for rate hikes every storm - and poor decisions. We can move into the 21st century with buried lines and still be prepared for disasters.

Karried
12-13-2007, 06:25 AM
There is no question that the lines should have been and now need to be buried. Ours are underground, we had power all week. Didn't lose it once.

I think this is the way it works. The cost of our developments ( newer ) and homes cost more than the older developments.

We paid for some of the concrete, the utility work, easements and street development through the increased price of our homes or property taxes. The developer passed along the price of burying the lines to the consumer ( unless the city covered it, I'm not sure about that).

And now, we'll get hit again and pay for all of the older homes through our increased OGE bills.

But, it needs to be done. It's archaic, ugly and very dangerous.

drumsncode
12-13-2007, 07:39 AM
Talking about preparedness, I have one of those handy-man type neighbors who is good with mechanical stuff. He had his generator on for two days, living in luxury, while the rest of the block sat in Siberian desolation.

Anyway, I say let OG&E pay for their problems with their own money. They make lots of profit. Let them feel some pain and maybe they'll figure out a way to fix some of these things. But then again, that might cheat their management people out of their fat raises, and we couldn't have that, could we?

Kerry
12-13-2007, 07:51 AM
Maybe they should only bill the people that lost power and prorate it by the number of hours they were without power. The long you were without power the more you have to pay. After all, the rate increase is to make up for lost revenue. Sounds fair to me.

metro
12-13-2007, 07:53 AM
There is no question that the lines should have been and now need to be buried. Ours are underground, we had power all week. Didn't lose it once.

I think this is the way it works. The cost of our developments ( newer ) and homes cost more than the older developments.

We paid for some of the concrete, the utility work, easements and street development through the increased price of our homes or property taxes. The developer passed along the price of burying the lines to the consumer ( unless the city covered it, I'm not sure about that).

And now, we'll get hit again and pay for all of the older homes through our increased OGE bills.

But, it needs to be done. It's archaic, ugly and very dangerous.

But at the same time, many of us inner city people are paying taxes to build roads and utilities (water, sewer, etc.) in the middle of nowhere because some lame developer wants to build a development out in the country, instead of urban infill (there are many square miles of undeveloped land in the heart of the city).

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-13-2007, 08:20 AM
But at the same time, many of us inner city people are paying taxes to build roads and utilities (water, sewer, etc.) in the middle of nowhere because some lame developer wants to build a development out in the country, instead of urban infill (there are many square miles of undeveloped land in the heart of the city).

I also pay taxes that pay for public school system when I don't have children.

*shrugs*

Karried
12-13-2007, 08:35 AM
But at the same time, many of us inner city people are paying taxes to build roads and utilities (water, sewer, etc.) in the middle of nowhere because some lame developer wants to build a development out in the country, instead of urban infill (there are many square miles of undeveloped land in the heart of the city).

Maybe so, but without 'taxes' paid by all the people 'out in the middle of nowhere' allocated towards Bricktown and Downtown improvements ie MAPS, there would be no 'inner city' development happening...

The 'lame' developers build homes based on demand. You'd be surprised at how many people don't want to be on top or or below their neighbors. Some people enjoy wide open spaces and acreages. Many are willing to pay premium prices for land and open space.

Developers take on the brunt of the improvements which in turn pass to the consumer.. I doubt your taxes went to any 'out in the boonies' development.

Point being, we all pay taxes towards things that may not be directly beneficial to our current situation but hopefully, it all works out for the greater good and benefits us all in the end.

Personally, I hate overhead wires and don't mind paying a little extra to get rid of those and to prevent people from suffering in situations such as these.

venture
12-13-2007, 08:46 AM
Bad timing on OG&E's part.

Now as far as underground/aboveground stuff...I've been without power since Sunday night, oh yeah...my power lines are all below ground in the neighborhood. However we are the last little block in the subdivision without power - how that happened is beyond me.

I say anyone without underground lines gets to pay for everything...since I'm sure it is someone down the grid with an above line that is screwing us over here.

Midtowner
12-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Maybe so, but without 'taxes' paid by all the people 'out in the middle of nowhere' allocated towards Bricktown and Downtown improvements ie MAPS, there would be no 'inner city' development happening...

The 'lame' developers build homes based on demand. You'd be surprised at how many people don't want to be on top or or below their neighbors. Some people enjoy wide open spaces and acreages. Many are willing to pay premium prices for land and open space.

Developers take on the brunt of the improvements which in turn pass to the consumer.. I doubt your taxes went to any 'out in the boonies' development.

Point being, we all pay taxes towards things that may not be directly beneficial to our current situation but hopefully, it all works out for the greater good and benefits us all in the end.

Personally, I hate overhead wires and don't mind paying a little extra to get rid of those and to prevent people from suffering in situations such as these.

Karried, see the Proposition 1 from the bond election the other day. We just authorized the city to take out around half a billion dollars in loans to pay for the widening of streets in the far northwest quadrant of the city -- the "boonies" as metro rightly referred to it.

Yes, the commercials said that we'd be able to do all this without raising taxes... what a stupid lie. How does a city take on (by my simple math) over 3 billion dollars in debt (that's the bond plus the interest we'll pay on it) and not raise taxes? While the city ain't gonna raise taxes, it sure as heck ain't lowering taxes either. The debt service on these bonds will be absolutely suffocating.

So yes, those of us in the inner city who live in high density housing (and pay a premium to do so) are being taxed so that fat cat developers can get fatter building things out in the boonies with us taxpayers footing the bill for infrastructure (be it by TIF or straight out bond).

I agree with metro.

BDP
12-13-2007, 10:00 AM
And the real community spirit of Oklahoma rears it's ugly head.

Thanks for comin' out.

:tiphat:

MadMonk
12-13-2007, 10:19 AM
Karried, see the Proposition 1 from the bond election the other day. We just authorized the city to take out around half a billion dollars in loans to pay for the widening of streets in the far northwest quadrant of the city -- the "boonies" as metro rightly referred to it.

Yes, the commercials said that we'd be able to do all this without raising taxes... what a stupid lie. How does a city take on (by my simple math) over 3 billion dollars in debt (that's the bond plus the interest we'll pay on it) and not raise taxes? While the city ain't gonna raise taxes, it sure as heck ain't lowering taxes either. The debt service on these bonds will be absolutely suffocating.

So yes, those of us in the inner city who live in high density housing (and pay a premium to do so) are being taxed so that fat cat developers can get fatter building things out in the boonies with us taxpayers footing the bill for infrastructure (be it by TIF or straight out bond).

I agree with metro.
Because as everyone knows, nobody who lives in the boonies pays any taxes whatsoever. We never pay taxes on the property we own and we never even pay sales taxes on things we buy. Ahhh, life is good in suburbia. :D

kmf563
12-13-2007, 10:23 AM
LOL. The community spirit indeed. It's all about helping your neighbors until money is involved. Then the screw you attitude comes out.

I say we all just join the Aqua Net (hairspray) campaign. Put a nice big hole in the ozone over oklahoma and we won't have to worry about being frozen again. :Smiley199

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-13-2007, 10:23 AM
You guys crying about "urban sprawl" kill me sometimes. You want to live down there, you go right ahead. But don't act like I'm a bad person for liking the burbs. I don't work downtown, I don't want to work downtown. So kiss my grits. Oh, and hey....Guess what? I pay taxes for downtown projects that fat-cat developers are making a crapload of money on just like you're paying for stuff in my area, so that's a wash and once again, kiss my grits.

I don't work down there, I don't live down there. But I hardly think less of people wanting to develop it or live there, much less piss and moan about their lifestyle. Get over yourself and STFU about people wanting to live where it makes them comfortable. If everybody lived to your standards, the world would suck. Just like it would if everybody lived to mine.



/my world would rock though...Lots of pie.

Karried
12-13-2007, 10:23 AM
Personally, I hate overhead wires and don't mind paying a little extra to get rid of those and to prevent people from suffering in situations such as these.


I know Midtowner.... like I said above... I don't mind an increase in OGE for myself if it means we can take care of the problem of overhead wires.

I was responding to Metro who had turned it into suburb vs inner city tax rivalry which wasn't even the point to begin with.

I was comparing older developments to new. Not inner city to burbs.

I said:



We paid for some of the concrete, the utility work, easements and street development through the increased price of our homes


He said:



But at the same time, many of us inner city people are paying taxes to build roads and utilities (water, sewer, etc.) in the middle of nowhere because some lame developer wants to build a development out in the country, instead of urban infill (there are many square miles of undeveloped land in the heart of the city).



?????



Point being, we all pay taxes towards things that may not be directly beneficial to our current situation but hopefully, it all works out for the greater good and benefits us all in the end.

bombermwc
12-13-2007, 10:34 AM
My frustration with OG&E here is that they just want to push their costs off onto their customers any time something happens. Just like how they wanted customers to pay for the power plant.

Stuff like this storm is part of doing business in their field of work. It's the risk they take in providing that service. It's the same as something like a taxi. The taxi driver has a higher risk of having an accident. When they have an accident, they use insurance to pay for the damages...that's what it's for!!!! They don't raise their rates to make up for repairing a vehicle!!!! So OG&E needs to be responsible for their own costs without charging it's customers. Get some damned insurance like you should have had for decades already, and let them handle it. It's kind of the whole effing point of insurance!!!!

Another thing that is pissing me off is that here we are all this time later, and some places are continuing to lose power. I won't blame them for trees or limbs or anything out of their control. What I will blame them for is shotty work. They are making patches instead of correctly repairing something, and then circuits are overloaded, things pop and even more people are out of electricity. Then we are supposed to help cover their asses!!! I DONT THINK SO!

My ideal world....cover my roof with solar panels or stick a wind mill in my yard and get off the grid so the jerkfaces never have control of me again. One day when this type of technology really becomes feasible for the common man, you're going to see people drop off the grid like crazy. Funny how if people weren't so angry with the electric company all the time, we wouldnt want to be off the grid....hmmmmm.

otis
12-13-2007, 12:59 PM
OG&E doing everything they can to get "certain people's" power back on.

I live in a mobile home park in Midwest City. I was informed by our mobile home park manager that OG&E was in our park on Monday to restore our power. But since we had 7 transformers blown and a few power lines down that we were moved to the bottom of the list and it will take 10 to 15 days now before we will get power. So if you have blown transformers it will take extra time.

I know a lot of people are without power, but I think that this is crap. If OG&E is in the area they should fix the problem then move on.

Otis

Misty
12-13-2007, 01:18 PM
One day when this type of technology really becomes feasible for the common man, you're going to see people drop off the grid like crazy.

Can't you do this now? My father built a house in the middle of nowhere and originally was going to generate his own power, but in the end he ended up bringing in electric company power to the land. I thought there were lots of hippies that are already doing this? I love the hippies, I come from one :) Bottom line is that "the grid" is easier and even though everyone wants to complain they sure as hell aren't going to put in the effort it takes to be self sufficient either. I'm Kelly Ogle, and that's my two cents.

metro
12-13-2007, 02:35 PM
I know Midtowner.... like I said above... I don't mind an increase in OGE for myself if it means we can take care of the problem of overhead wires.

I was responding to Metro who had turned it into suburb vs inner city tax rivalry which wasn't even the point to begin with.

I was comparing older developments to new. Not inner city to burbs.

I said:



He said:




?????

How did I turn it into a rivalry? I simply added to your comments to put it into perspective. I think you and Oh Gawd said it nicely (perhaps you better than Oh Gawd) but you still get my point. You pay for stuff us inner city people get advantage of, and us inner city people pay for stuff you get advantage of. It equals out in the long run, it's just not healthy for a city our size to be so sprawled out (that's why we're the fattest in the nation (not enough parks and sidewalks but sprawl causes more fast food restaurants, and we complain about our roads and bridges, because we're so large landwise 620 sq. miles, over half of it fairly rural). I wasn't starting a rivalry, just stating another side of the story. Sounds win win to me. The only thing is MAPS was publically voted upon and has attracted numerous jobs and other things to this city the whole city and state can take advantage of, the general tax rate is not always up to the public.

metro
12-13-2007, 02:43 PM
Can't you do this now? My father built a house in the middle of nowhere and originally was going to generate his own power, but in the end he ended up bringing in electric company power to the land. I thought there were lots of hippies that are already doing this? I love the hippies, I come from one :) Bottom line is that "the grid" is easier and even though everyone wants to complain they sure as hell aren't going to put in the effort it takes to be self sufficient either. I'm Kelly Ogle, and that's my two cents.

I'd love to go off the grid, and if I ever get money to build a house right, I'll go solar and install a grey water system as well. The main thing is, to go off the grid completely and to do it right, it costs $40-$60K. Most people who go off grid, still stay attached to the grid for backup or go on grid at night (and the lucky ones sell the excess power they produce back to the grid to their local utility company). I'd love to see Oklahoma become more progressive in green fuels like the West Coast. If we offered enough incentive for builders to do it, I bet we'd see it start to be done on a decent scale.

Luke
12-14-2007, 08:39 AM
I'm on day 5 without electricity in Del City. I'd pay a little more on my electric bill to prevent this from happening.

Thankfully, we have a generator so my family is doing just fine.

Kerry
12-14-2007, 09:38 AM
It would be one thing if OG&E and PSO were asking for funds to prevent future outages - but they aren't. They are asking for a rate increase to cover past lost revenue. See, you buy electricity from OG&E. The money you pay them is revenue to them. But for some reason they feel it necessary to still collect the revenue even though they didn't provide you with any electricity. How is that for a business model.

As for the "urban sprawl" issue. I don't think ill of people wanting to live in the suburbs. That is where I want to live also. But there is a real financial cost to Oklahoma City for having such a large city limit. It goes way beyond roads. There are sewer lines, landscape maintenance, emergency services, and a myriad of other things that "rural homeowners" don't cover the cost of when they purchase a home in the sticks. If I had a magic wand I would de-annex all sections of the city that had less than 400 people per sq. mile. Want to live in the country then be my guest - but get your own fire service from the country.

metro
12-14-2007, 09:48 AM
Well said Kerry, the suburban sprawl issue goes beyond the roads and sewers we mentioned. The other big costs of it are emergency services such as 911, police and fire, and EMSA. I've personally talked to Mayor Cornett several times on the topic of deannexing and frankly, it's not even in his vocabulary. Once he's done as mayor, we really need to push the new mayor hard for deannexing rural land. It would do wonders for our city. Not to mention, new retailers would come in almost overnight because it would make our population density numbers jump up significantly which is what most retailers look at when opening in a new location. OKC's look so low because we have hundreds of miles of rural land in our city limits.

A Maps3 with transit and a new convention center, our new I-40 and boulevard, a central park, and deannexing would truly bring us a world class city!!!

bombermwc
12-14-2007, 09:49 AM
OG&E - Craptasically crappy. Here's a nice example of how they suck. A co-worker of mine lives in far south OKC. In his neighborhood they were able to select OG&E or OEC as their provider at each house. He is an OEC customer and only lost power for a few hours...along with all the other OEC customers. However, the OG&E customers are STILL without power. All you have to do is drive around his neighborhood and see which is without to know who has which service. How crappy is that?

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-14-2007, 03:01 PM
As for the "urban sprawl" issue. I don't think ill of people wanting to live in the suburbs. That is where I want to live also. But there is a real financial cost to Oklahoma City for having such a large city limit. It goes way beyond roads. There are sewer lines, landscape maintenance, emergency services, and a myriad of other things that "rural homeowners" don't cover the cost of when they purchase a home in the sticks. If I had a magic wand I would de-annex all sections of the city that had less than 400 people per sq. mile. Want to live in the country then be my guest - but get your own fire service from the country.

Yeah! Screw those pesky farmers! What are they good for anyway? So what if their fields burn down? You don't get anything from them and they're always losing random appendages to farm implements. The ranchers too! They talk funny, wear silly hats, and are always losing teeth to animated hamburger getting upset over their lot in life. SCREW EM! WE DON'T NEED THOSE PEOPLE!

We're talking about suburbs, not rural areas. Suburbs are urban sprawl. Rural areas are full of people like ranchers and farmers. You know...People that feed the planet? One of them is probably as productive to this world than any 10 people living in the Arts District. I say we leave them be and put out their fires when they need help.


Well said Kerry, the suburban sprawl issue goes beyond the roads and sewers we mentioned. The other big costs of it are emergency services such as 911, police and fire, and EMSA. I've personally talked to Mayor Cornett several times on the topic of deannexing and frankly, it's not even in his vocabulary. Once he's done as mayor, we really need to push the new mayor hard for deannexing rural land. It would do wonders for our city. Not to mention, new retailers would come in almost overnight because it would make our population density numbers jump up significantly which is what most retailers look at when opening in a new location. OKC's look so low because we have hundreds of miles of rural land in our city limits.

A Maps3 with transit and a new convention center, our new I-40 and boulevard, a central park, and deannexing would truly bring us a world class city!!!


Now you guys are trying to say that we're a drain on the emergency system because we don't live where you want us to? Prove it. You see, we pay just as many taxes as you do, and support services where we live. Just like we support services where you live.

I think Maps 3 should build the world's largest roller coaster at Draper Lake just to spite you guys that think that everything HAS to be downtown.

My house is in the middle of a big neighborhood which is situated in an area that has several neighborhoods. Thousands of people within a square mile or two. We paid for it, and we pay for it. Get over it. Me moving downtown would be bad for the environment.

metro, you're even blaming obesity on urban sprawl. That's awesome. Really, it is. You should tell that to the mayor next time you're rubbing his elbow. Is it also responsible for the lead in Chinese toys and the bird flu? Why not? It makes about the same amount of sense. Living in a densely packed area cures cancer too you know. It's a fact. Also, I'm a pretty pink bunny.

:k-bunny:

solitude
12-14-2007, 04:27 PM
I just wanted to say to "Oh GAWD the Smell!".......

You sure keep this place light. You truly are gifted with your humor. I've always appreciated people who can make serious points with a comic touch. You could write for late-night comedy -- and I mean that as a big compliment!
I don't always agree with you, but I'm glad you're here. :)

Kerry
12-14-2007, 05:03 PM
OGTS - If you live in a typical suburban subdivision I am not talking about you. And if your neighborhood has 500 residents then your area doesn't even come close to my 400 people per sq mile cutoff. My comments are directed at people like my sister that use to live on 5 acres out on Highway 3 past Piedmont. She was 5 miles from the nearest grocery store but guess who had to provide all of her services. OKC did. And I wasn't saying somone shouldn't put out a fire at her house, but it should have been the county and not the city.

I can prove that it cost tax payers more to provide emergency services to her than a resident closer to town. Emergency services have level of service agreements. They have to be within so many minutes of each resident. This mean they have to bild new fire stations, which have to be staffed by more people, and requires more trucks to get from A to B. With all of the new residences around Bricktown how many new firestations have been built there None. They are all serviced by existing facilities.

Once again, I am not discouraging anyone from living any where they want. All I am saying is that by OKC providing services to large spanses of rural or low density areas they create a financial exposure that can easily be avoided.

solitude
12-14-2007, 05:11 PM
OGTS - If you live in a typical suburban subdivision I am not talking about you. And if your neighborhood has 500 residents then your area doesn't even come close to my 400 people per sq mile cutoff. My comments are directed at people like my sister that use to live on 5 acres out on Highway 3 past Piedmont. She was 5 miles from the nearest grocery store but guess who had to provide all of her services. OKC did. And I wasn't saying somone shouldn't put out a fire at her house, but it should have been the county and not the city.

I can prove that it cost tax payers more to provide emergency services to her than a resident closer to town. Emergency services have level of service agreements. They have to be within so many minutes of each resident. This mean they have to bild new fire stations, which have to be staffed by more people, and requires more trucks to get from A to B. With all of the new residences around Bricktown how many new firestations have been built there None. They are all serviced by existing facilities.

Once again, I am not discouraging anyone from living any where they want. All I am saying is that by OKC providing services to large spanses of rural or low density areas they create a financial exposure that can easily be avoided.

Really though, don't we have the city to blame for all the annexation of decades past? OKC must provide the services because OKC decided it wanted that land within the city limits.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-14-2007, 11:30 PM
OGTS - If you live in a typical suburban subdivision I am not talking about you. And if your neighborhood has 500 residents then your area doesn't even come close to my 400 people per sq mile cutoff. My comments are directed at people like my sister that use to live on 5 acres out on Highway 3 past Piedmont. She was 5 miles from the nearest grocery store but guess who had to provide all of her services. OKC did. And I wasn't saying somone shouldn't put out a fire at her house, but it should have been the county and not the city.

I can prove that it cost tax payers more to provide emergency services to her than a resident closer to town. Emergency services have level of service agreements. They have to be within so many minutes of each resident. This mean they have to bild new fire stations, which have to be staffed by more people, and requires more trucks to get from A to B. With all of the new residences around Bricktown how many new firestations have been built there None. They are all serviced by existing facilities.

Once again, I am not discouraging anyone from living any where they want. All I am saying is that by OKC providing services to large spanses of rural or low density areas they create a financial exposure that can easily be avoided.

It can easily be avoided by what? Conforming to your idea of population dispersal? Okay. Fine. But where do you draw that line? It would be BILLIONS cheaper if the entire population lived in high-rise condos in a densely packed area. That would avoid a lot of financial exposure for goods and services provided by the city. So we're going to need for you and your family to move into a 300 sq ft econobox on floor 37 of the Urbania Gardens where all input/outputs are monitored for the good of the city. If you poop more than once a day, you'll be charged 2% more for that week's rent. Sure, it'll be tight living. But hey, it'll bring your family closer together and limit the amount of financial impact you have on other taxpayers.

The city also has an obligation to curb crime to a point where more people would be willing to live off 21st and Classen, but they don't.


As for places like you're talking where your sister lived, a lot of the time, doesn't the city have contracts with closer municipalities for stuff like emergency services? I'm closer to Mid-Del, Moore, AND Norman than OKC proper, so I'm pretty sure that an ambulance wouldn't be coming all the way from Integris at 44th and Western if I got hurt.

windowphobe
12-15-2007, 03:22 PM
Cost overruns have put the Bricktown fire station behind schedule; last year the city finally got an EPA grant to clean up the proposed site (around 600 East Sheridan). I expect we'll see it next year.

Kerry
12-15-2007, 03:23 PM
I draw the line at 400 people per sq mile. When the city contracts for emergency services from another district OKC still pays for it. Maybe if OKC wasn't patrolling miles of empty space they could spend more time in high crime areas.

solitude
12-15-2007, 03:32 PM
I draw the line at 400 people per sq mile. When the city contracts for emergency services from another district OKC still pays for it. Maybe if OKC wasn't patrolling miles of empty space they could spend more time in high crime areas.


You are so right.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-15-2007, 04:36 PM
I draw the line at 400 people per sq mile. When the city contracts for emergency services from another district OKC still pays for it. Maybe if OKC wasn't patrolling miles of empty space they could spend more time in high crime areas.

Once again, cutting off quite a few ranchers and farmers.

They're probably sick of breaking their backs to feed your ungrateful butt too.

As for residential neighborhoods, as far as I know, developers pay for all the sewage/electrical/etc to be run for them. NOT the city. So we're left with emergency services, and for some warped reason you think that people that move away from a city should somehow be less entitled to the same benefits as a taxpayer that you enjoy.

I still would like a response to where you'd like to draw the line Kerry. Should we all live in crackerbox sized cubbies in high rises? As this is certainly the most efficient method of stacking numbers of people with as little footprint as possible, making it that much easier to get an ambulance and a working toilet to them, wouldn't you think? Oh yeah...You don't think that. That's not your method, because you realize that you'd not like to live like that. Your method is simply to get people to move closer to where you prefer, and you're justifying it by saying that everybody that lives further away from the city's core is a tax on the system.

:bright_id You know what? Why stop there? Let's get everybody in the whole freakin' country to move to one big uber-metropolis and abandon the rest of the country. Because everybody that has a house with a yard is wasting valuable people space and their mower is contributing to greenhouse gases.

That'll work.

Oh, and blaming urban sprawl for crime is like blaming my aglet collection for global warming. Crime is due to a demographic of poor and uneducated people, not Suzy and Frank getting their McMansion on. Fix the source and solve the problem. Blaming other people's housing choices instead of a breakdown of a social, educational, and economic services in the inner city for you being nervous about where you park your car is just asinine.

blabare
12-15-2007, 07:53 PM
Once again, cutting off quite a few ranchers and farmers.

They're probably sick of breaking their backs to feed your ungrateful butt too.

As for residential neighborhoods, as far as I know, developers pay for all the sewage/electrical/etc to be run for them. NOT the city. So we're left with emergency services, and for some warped reason you think that people that move away from a city should somehow be less entitled to the same benefits as a taxpayer that you enjoy.

I still would like a response to where you'd like to draw the line Kerry. Should we all live in crackerbox sized cubbies in high rises? As this is certainly the most efficient method of stacking numbers of people with as little footprint as possible, making it that much easier to get an ambulance and a working toilet to them, wouldn't you think? Oh yeah...You don't think that. That's not your method, because you realize that you'd not like to live like that. Your method is simply to get people to move closer to where you prefer, and you're justifying it by saying that everybody that lives further away from the city's core is a tax on the system.

:bright_id You know what? Why stop there? Let's get everybody in the whole freakin' country to move to one big uber-metropolis and abandon the rest of the country. Because everybody that has a house with a yard is wasting valuable people space and their mower is contributing to greenhouse gases.

That'll work.

Oh, and blaming urban sprawl for crime is like blaming my aglet collection for global warming. Crime is due to a demographic of poor and uneducated people, not Suzy and Frank getting their McMansion on. Fix the source and solve the problem. Blaming other people's housing choices instead of a breakdown of a social, educational, and economic services in the inner city for you being nervous about where you park your car is just asinine.

Well said my friend - well said... :)

redcup
12-16-2007, 05:57 PM
A friend of mine is doing just that. He built a house himself. He has the solar panels up and almost ready to go. He does have electricity and had the lines buried when he did that. He has a great wood furnace and gas stove. He did great in this storm.
I have been considering burying my elec. lines, but still will be in trouble when OGE's lines go out. I live in the inner city and have for over 45 years. It suits me and my lifestyle. If it had not been for a friend of mine that lives close to NW 63/Penn we would have been miserable for the 6+ days we were without elec. His lines are buried.





:sofa:

Kerry
12-16-2007, 07:30 PM
OGTS - I think you are mis-interpreting what I am trying to say. You, or anyone else for that matter, can live anywhere you want. I don't care. The only point I am trying to make is that OKC should de-annex low density parts of the city. The cost of emergency services is just one of many benefits of doing so. Many upscale national retailers bypass OKC because on paper OKC doesn't look attractive to them. People in de-annexed areas could revert back to county government, which probably already provides many of their services anyhow, or form their own community. What is wrong with that idea? You know, not everyone in Oklahoma lives inside a city limit and they seem to survive somehow. In fact, if I was a farmer or rancher I would rather not be inside a city limit.

You seem to think that my "magic number" of 400 people per sq mile somehow exludes some large portions of urbanized OKC. OKC currently has 834 people per sq mile but if you only count the urbanized portion the number jumps to 2,600 per sq mile. I don't know how that number (2,600) was derived and I would probably have to look at census maps and aerial photography to draw a physical line around a new OKC, but this can be done by someone with access to the data. A density of 2600 would put us on par with Phoenix which has 2700. I got the data from Wikipedia for what it is worth.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City)

BTW - I live in a McMansion in Jacksonville and soon as we can sell it (stupid housing market) we will be buying an even larger McMansion 40 miles north of Atlanta so I am not knocking people who want to buy large suburban homes.

soonerguru
12-17-2007, 12:32 PM
Oh Gawd,

You are a gifted humorist, and while some of your questions are pertinent, you're going a bit overboard (as is your satirical right).

The obesity thing is true. If we walked more, and I don't mean to the mailbox or around the block with the pooch, we wouldn't be so fat. Some of us need more to see than a few Bradford pears to make the walk interesting. Sue us, we're lazy.

Also, the crime issue is legit. We actually create more urban blight the further out our concentric circles go. There's more to it than poverty. Also, our inner city public education system is strained when wealthy folks leave the district. Poor schools in which the educational environment is strained breed more crime.

We definitely need more density.

And, as for OG&E, I don't know if anyone noticed but the Oklahoman reported that PSO had 1,800 more workers in the field than OG&E. Unsurprisingly, Tulsa is getting power back much faster than OKC. Lately, OG*E is blaming rate payers for problems with their boxes, etc.

Factually speaking, PSO appears to be doing a better job of serving its customers than OG&E at the moment.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
12-17-2007, 11:58 PM
OGTS - I think you are mis-interpreting what I am trying to say. You, or anyone else for that matter, can live anywhere you want. I don't care. The only point I am trying to make is that OKC should de-annex low density parts of the city. The cost of emergency services is just one of many benefits of doing so. Many upscale national retailers bypass OKC because on paper OKC doesn't look attractive to them. People in de-annexed areas could revert back to county government, which probably already provides many of their services anyhow, or form their own community. What is wrong with that idea? You know, not everyone in Oklahoma lives inside a city limit and they seem to survive somehow. In fact, if I was a farmer or rancher I would rather not be inside a city limit.

You seem to think that my "magic number" of 400 people per sq mile somehow exludes some large portions of urbanized OKC. OKC currently has 834 people per sq mile but if you only count the urbanized portion the number jumps to 2,600 per sq mile. I don't know how that number (2,600) was derived and I would probably have to look at census maps and aerial photography to draw a physical line around a new OKC, but this can be done by someone with access to the data. A density of 2600 would put us on par with Phoenix which has 2700. I got the data from Wikipedia for what it is worth.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City)

BTW - I live in a McMansion in Jacksonville and soon as we can sell it (stupid housing market) we will be buying an even larger McMansion 40 miles north of Atlanta so I am not knocking people who want to buy large suburban homes.


Mabye I am missing it...But I don't think you're getting my point either. Just because you don't want to pay for emergency services to people living in semi-rural areas doesn't mean that we shouldn't. De-annex them? Then who shows up when grampa has a heart attack?

I'm not trying to be facetious, I really don't know...What'st the solution here? Cutting them off is out of the question to me, they're people. Are you suggesting that we pawn them off of neighboring counties/municipalities?

bombermwc
12-18-2007, 09:01 AM
De-Annexation is short sighted for sure. It's not as though OKC is struggling by any means, so drop that one right now. Service are offered through parternships for ambulance coverage. Police and Fire have relationships but they suck. If youre 5 feet over the line to the next suburb then you will get better service in a police situation....but I bet a fire would get response from the "burb"....think Yukon/Mustang area.

Anyway, so some people gripe now about having to help pave roads in rural areas. You know what, everywhere was rural at some point. It's the continuing battle of a growing city. Memorial Rd was once a farm pasture but the old school folks of Heritage Hills and the like helped pay to develop roads. Same thing these days. We talk about SE or Far NW or whatever...but those areas are growing and will be beneficial in the future. And you aren't likely to get to sew your arm back on after you detach it and call it a waste.

CuatrodeMayo
12-18-2007, 09:56 AM
My parents live in southern Logan county. They have crappy services. So by the logic of many on this board, they have a right to be part of a city to get services so OKC should annex that area.