The Tulsa vs. OKC rivalry is crazy. It divides people almost as much as bedlam. You can get on OU and OSU message boards and watch Tulsa and OKC go at it. It is funny how certain topics can divide the most united people.

In fairness, the rivalry is only bitter on message boards and is somewhat the nature of Internet discourse, where everything is taken to the extreme and made personal.

In the real world, Tulsa politicians and leaders helped entertain the NBA selection committee and openly campaigned for OKC to get a team. And also in the real world, plenty of people from Tulsa will come to town for NBA games and spend their money at local restaurants and hotels.

I think the average Tulsa citizen is glad to see OKC doing so well and the average person in the Metro hopes Tulsa can get their act together.

I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state. I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended. It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be."

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

UMMM Thre really is no comparing tulsa with okc, okc has moe hands down.. It is sad that tulsa gets upset when we get something they dont have, but hey just think we now know for a fact other cities look up to us and are jealous, that should give okc something to feel proud of.. I rather have a top 50 city talking about us (even if it is out of jealousy) then not taking about us at all.. Wow seattle is jealous of us and tulsa whose next, okc is becoming the popular one lately it seems

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

EXACTLY!

I for one am very glad that Oklahoma City got a team. It’s exciting and will do great things for your city. You want to name the team “Oklahoma City”, fine, that is what is best for Oklahoma City. But to do that while acting like its “the state’s team” and then going and grabbing between $60 and $100 million in state tax dollars for the team while some very basic needs are unmet in Tulsa and that changes everything.

It’s not about the name, it’s about the money and disparity of state support.

Tulsa is the largest metro without non-toll interstate access (OKC has two)
Tulsa is the largest metro without a public four year college (OKC Metro has two)
Tulsa is the third largest without Amtrak access (OKC is about to add a second line)
Tulsa is the largest city without a public hospital, one has actually been offered to be donated but the deal can’t be completed because the state won’t provide any ongoing funding for operations (OKC has one of the largest in the nation)
Tulsa’s main interstate through the middle of the city is in middle of what was supposed a five year widening project that began in 1984, 24 years ago. There is currently no construction happening on the project and none scheduled so that funding could be moved to the Crosstown, despite the section that is still not done being called by ODOT “the most dangerous stretch of highway in the state”. The lowest rated major bridge in the state isn’t the Crosstown, it’s the I-244 bridge in downtown Tulsa over the Arkansas river and no one is even talking about replacing that.
Oklahoma City has the third highest percentage of government jobs of any metro in the nation, Tulsa is one of the lowest. Oklahoma City has more government jobs than the entire workforces of the capitals of Missouri and New Mexico and if you include indirect government employment you can also include Kansas in that list. That’s half the states surrounding Oklahoma.

I know some are going to claim that the state taxes going to the Sonics are new taxes, but that’s false. These taxes are generated from entertainment spending that would have been spent somewhere in the Oklahoma economy. If you don’t believe me, check out the Sonic’s own testimony about the impact of the team on the Seattle economy. That money was enough to bring Amtrak service to Tulsa, it was enough to fix the OSU Medical Center deal saving the OSU School of Medicine and ensuring that the state has enough rural doctors. It was almost enough money to complete funding for I-44 in Tulsa. But where did the money go? To pad the bottom line of the sport team owned by the son in law of the Gaylords. It’s not jealousy you are seeing, it’s anger over very real needs not being met while the NBA is funding for OKC.

I saw that Tulsa should be more humble and elect better representatives. That’s a great attitude. Oklahoma City reps fight Tulsa tooth and nail for everything and simply outnumber Tulsa reps. At some point it’s Oklahoma City that needs to wake up and see that supporting Tulsa is good for the state, because what’s really happening is that Oklahoma City is succeeding due in no small part by using the state as it’s personal piggy bank. Oklahoma City gets funding from the state for luxuries like NBA teams and heritage centers while Tulsa goes without basic levels of state support for education, roads, health care and transportation.

OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City.

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that it’s petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City??

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

You're justifiably proud of what your city has accomplished. But don't get upset when Tulsans sees it as YOUR team, not OUR team. There are two large cities in this state, and suddenly Tulsa feels treated like a suburb. Folks were sure acting like Tulsa was very important to the effort to land the team, and this got Tulsans interested in said effort. But then we realized it was just for expedience--so, you're welcome for our support in your efforts. Enjoy your NBA team. Hopefully there will be enough fans statewide to support it.

I doubt very seriously if any significant number of people will stay away from games because of the name of the team.

On the other hand, having "Oklahoma City" said and written thousands of times every time a game is played is priceless.

And since the state name is also part of the city name, the whole state benefits from that exposure as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

A side note, just got off the phone with my nephew who came to Tulsa a month ago.. he told me he can't take it and has a flight booked home to California on July 25th. He said he likes OKC and Edmond but Tulsa is soooo boring. I've never really been for more than a day but I thought that was sort of telling.

Here's some numbers, these are Oklahoma Employment Commission numbers I looked up last year.

Oklahoma City metro had an estimated 2005 (the year I have both real job and population numbers) population of 1,156,812 with 574,800 people employed. But only 458,200 of those are employed privately outside of government. Non government service jobs for Oklahoma City were a shocking 383,300. Total government/service industry jobs were 499,300. Total government Jobs were 116,600. That leaves only 75,500 jobs in non-service or government jobs out of nearly 575,000 workers. That is your private business workforce. That also means that with contract jobs and employment “roll-over”, 60.7% of Oklahoma City’s jobs are directly or indirectly related to government. That’s a stunning 348,903 employed people.

As comparison, Tulsa (metro) has 887,715 estimated for 2005 with 417,400 people employed (in November ’06). 374,200 people were privately employed with only 12,300 people employed by the federal or state governments, a mere fraction of Oklahoma City's total. With local government that makes for 55,500 government jobs. Non government service jobs for Tulsa was 297,400. Total government/service industry jobs were 352,900. Tulsa with only 77% of the population of Oklahoma City actually has more non-service jobs than OKC. Tulsa has 76,800 jobs in non-service or government jobs in November ’06 compared to Oklahoma City's 75,500.

And then there's Tinker with approximately 27,000 military and civilian employees, Tinker is the largest single-site employer in Oklahoma. The installation has an annual statewide economic impact of $3.4 billion, creating an estimated 30, 865 secondary jobs.

These 30,685 secondary jobs aren’t even counted as government jobs, but they are outside support jobs and indirect employment of the base. So knock another 31,000 jobs out of Oklahoma City’s “private” industry total. That lowers direct private employment not in the service sector and not related to government from 75,500 jobs a minuscule 44,500 jobs compared to Tulsa’s 76,800.

So, of Oklahoma City’s 191,500 non service sector jobs 77% are supported by tax money. Compare that to Tulsa’s 120,000 non service sectors jobs with only 36% support by taxes.

Business are corporate taxes are going to follow the exact same pattern. Now you tell me which city is SUPPLYING the tax revenue for the state and which city SPENDING the tax revenue?

Oklahoma City has more people employed directly or indirectly by the state than Jefferson City Missouri has total residents, and Jefferson City is the capital of our neighbor to the northeast with twice as many people as Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City has more employees that rely on government (direct and indirect) than the entire workforce of Topeka Kansas, our neighbor to the north.

Oklahoma City has more state workers than the entire workforce of Santa Fe, NM, our neighbor to the west.

Add to that the fact the average income is 10-15% higher (with subsequent higher tax contribution) you tell me which city pays more (per-capita and overall) and which city gets much more tax money back. Even taking into account the capital being in Oklahoma City the disparity is egregious.

Topeka and Santa Fe are tiny cities.

And yet they are the capitals of states that have only slightly smaller populations than Oklahoma

And while Im on this note, I can not understand - for the life of me - why the NBA-DLeague team Tulsa 66ers are NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THE NEW BOK CENTER..... I can NOT understand this. What is going on in TULSA???? Do they just sit on their asses complaining and don't even take care of what they have??????? You have a new arena and yet you don't even seat your TOP ENTERTAINMENT DRAW there?


Wichita has the same problem. They are building a downtown arena, but their arena football team will play in a new arena way out in the boonies on the north side. There is not cooperation.

Tinker, which has been in operation since 1941, has a lot to do with those figures. Why fault OKC for decisions made at the federal level, especially when they benefit the surrounding communities so well?

Suppose BRAC helps Tinker gain more jobs. Is that OKC's fault?

I didn't favor the GM aquisition under the proposed vote, but here's something else to consider: Suppose, as a result of the GM aquisition, Tinker does add more positions. Wouldn't that be the effect of the OK county voting public?

As for the state jobs, that's a different story. All I can say is, be careful throwing Tinker around in those numbers. The federal government chose the site over 60 years ago and OKC has embraced and supported the base in every way. If, as a result of BRAC or the GM aquisition, Tinker does gain new jobs, it's not because the state is choosing OKC over Tulsa.

Oklahoma City has sucked and grabbed every state and federal job and tax dollar that it possibly could. And continues to do so. In no other state are all state and federal jobs so concentrated in a single area. The only other cities that rival OKC are are Washington, which is not relevant and Charleston, WV which is much smaller and has been at the receiving end of an endless line of pork from Senate patriarch Robert Byrd.

Tulsans are jealous, and they will just have to get over it!

And regarding Tinker, remember that OKC voters just agreed to tax themselves yet again to acquire the former GM plant and thus retain/create lots of government jobs.

The bottom line is that OKC continues to be proactive on all fronts. That's a much more productive use of energy than worrying/complaining about other cities.

Uh oh...somebody better call the...
http://www.gaming.pstp.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/waaaambulance-23284.jpg

Sorry...couldn't resist.

I don't think that Tulsa hates OKC. Is there a little jealousy regarding the NBA and such? Probably. Then again, that's just part of being human. I read the Tulsanow thread and that s*** isn't anywhere near as bad as the stuff I say about Texans during the fall months. Hell, one of my girlfriends is from Dallas! God bless Texas. Anyway. All in good fun if you ask me. Some of the comments may be laced with some existential venom but that's the issue of one individual and shouldn't be seen as the attitude of an entire city.

Any Tulsan who really believes that OKC metro residents give a rodent's behind about what goes on in Tulsa is delusional. People have a full enough plate dealing with their own lives. That includes voting via their convictions whether they be altruistic or selfish. I voted yes on Ford Center renovations because I wanted a damn team. I didn't consider Tulsa and don't feel that I should have. Tulsa has almost a million folk to worry about Tulsa.

IOW I've never seen a hot girl at a club and thought to myself "Ooo I wanna get to know you better, but first lemme check the room and see if any of these other guys like you". Mick Cornett's job was to get us a team. He did a good job. Kathy Taylor's ambition is to better Tulsa and I for one think that she's doing a pretty good job.

I don't think there is much sense in disputing the numbers that Swake laid out. He usually does good research and I'm sure that they're sound. I don't agree that state funding is the reason that Tulsa is in such dire straights because I don't think that Tulsa is in dire straights. You can't boast about all of the great attributes that Tulsa enjoys and then cry poor mouth. I agree that I-44 needs to be completed, but Tulsa citizens can't even agree on a way to improve their city streets. Some Tulsans feel that they were slighted in regards to the team moniker, but Tulsa's NBDL team was stolen by one of it's suburbs. You are what you are. Play the hand you're dealt. Everyone else has to.

The way I see it OKC has four of a kind and a wild card. The four of a kind is comprised of energy money, cost of living, the city government, and metro citizens. The wild card is the state. Tulsa has the same hand save replacing the state w/ natural beauty. Unfortunately, they're all of a different suit. Mayor Taylor should fly in Rodney King to give a speech at the BOK Center. Tulsa keeps its "OKC would be nothing w/o our tax dollars" wild card in it's pocket and pulls it out whenever something good happens down here. IOW, Tulsa has all these bad ass endowments, but can't seem to put them all together into a winning hand. Oops...they are doing that with PLANiTULSA, but the Tulsa peanut gallery is already sabotaging it.

Tulsa's suburbs view Tulsa the same way that some Tulsans view OKC. That, more that anything, is what "holds Tulsa back". To see for yourself go to Tulsanow.org and read a while. While you're at it go to batesline.com.

Oklahoma City has sucked and grabbed every state and federal job and tax dollar that it possibly could.

As we/they should. A city leader's objective is to fight to ensure their respective city comes out on top. That's like a person from Kansas getting upset about Oklahoma leaders fighting for and landing federal dollars/jobs. It's the same concept, just on a different echelon of government.

Back in the day, the railroad determined which city would survive or eventually become a ghost town. The major cities we know today exist because those leaders did what it took to do what was best for their city. Tulsa has been the beneficiary of similar consequences, so I guess other cities have the same gripe.

I’m not saying it was wrong for the state to support Tinker, but it is wrong to say it was just Oklahoma City buying the GM plant, $10 million in state taxes also went to Tinker:

State to help in purchase of GM plant (http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=8450554&nav=menu410_3)

And to act as if Tulsa hasn’t done anything for itself is to ignore the more than a billion dollars in new taxes and improvements that Tulsa has passed in just the last five years. It’s way past time for the state to provide a more level playing field for support between the cities. The state needs to fund Amtrak service to Tulsa, needs to fund the OSU Medical Center, needs to fund I-44 widening and repairs to I-244, needs allow OSU Tulsa to offer any classes that the market will support and needs to remove the tolls from I-44 or at the least upgrade US-75 to be an Interstate between Tulsa and Dallas.

Nice comments by the way, way to keep the level of the conversation up. Here’s a name for the team, Oklahoma City Tax Hogs. Honestly that’s a joke. I hope the team does well and I will probably go to a couple of games. I personally think it’s fine that the team is called Oklahoma City, I think if the team really wants Tulsa to support them then more important than the name would be to play a couple of regular season games in Tulsa. And you are going to need Tulsa’s support once you get that NBA ticket price sticker shock. The Hornets were at a discount. I don’t think the Sonics will be. Go with the Barrons name too instead of something cheesy like Thunder or Boomers.

That said, Tulsa certainly needs more support from your side of the state because we really aren’t getting it.

Swake I've read your posts on these boards before and for the most part your usually pro tulsa and anti OKC. It sounds like you just want to use the NBA issue to blame OKC for all the things that are wrong with Tulsa.

As far as the name of the team, I think it needs to be Oklahoma City. And I don't say that to cut out Tulsa. I like Tulsa, I think it's a cool city and I hope the best for it. But I think naming the NBA team after the state reaks of smalltime. It makes it sound like a college team. The big cities and the good teams have teams named after them and not the state.

Someone brought up the Texas Rangers earlier. Compare that to the Dallas Cowboys. The Rangers play like a college team and haven't won crap. Have they ever been relevent? The Cowboys have played in more Super Bowls than any other team and own 5 superbowl trophies and are considered one of the all-time best NFL teams.

Tulsa should go out and get them an MLB team and name it Tulsa something. I'll support them and get to Tulsa when possible to see games.

Read my posts from earlier regarding how I feel about Tulsa. I agree Tulsa needs more support. I would like to see Tulsa succeed like OKC, but I believe it has to start with the citizens and leadership of Tulsa, not OKC.

That said, Tulsa certainly needs more support from your side of the state because we really aren’t getting it.

hmmmm... reaping what tulsa has sewn for years isn't fun, eh? perhaps if your city hadn't shat on okc for years... there'd be more incentive to lend some support.

Having spent a lot of time in both cities, my opinion has done a complete 180 over the last several years. I grew up in eastern Oklahoma, and we always thought going to Tulsa was the best! We went there to shop, eat, and be entertained. We never came to Oklahoma City...with the exception of maybe a time or two. I knew nothing about it, but what I had heard, which was mostly negative because the people I was hearing it from were more familiar with Tulsa. However, after attending OSU in Stillwater, and then spending more and more time in OKC before finally moving here in '98, I was able to form my OWN opinion. I had an internship in Tulsa one summer, downtown, and I have to say that I was not at all impressed. As was mentioned in a previous posting, it seems Tulsa's downtown closes at 9...if not EARLIER! Can we say...6-ish...? At any rate, after OSU I moved to OKC and have loved every minute of it. What a turnaround a few years makes! The couple of times I've been back to Tulsa in the last 10 years, I must say that it seemed FAR dirtier than what I remember from years past. It's almost like the two cities did a flip-flop. I bear no ill feelings toward Tulsa, but I agree with what's being said here...If you want to reap the benefits of things the way OKC has done, you have to get out and make it happen. Sitting idly by and merely complaining that Tulsa feels inferior instead of doing something about it will get Tulsa nowhere fast. I'm proud of OKC and all of its efforts to do the things we've done, and I feel we're entitled to every bit of success it brings!

needs to fund I-44 widening and repairs to I-244,
i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?

i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?

Please make sure and READ what was said about 244. We have no problems with width, it's the BRIDGE over the Arkansas that we have a problem with.

Land has been bought and cleared, but it's taken 10 years to get this done with dealing back and forth in OKC. It should have been repaired/widened 10 years ago!

Sgt, he mentioned the repairs to I-244, but not widening.

Out of curiosity, are you a current/former NCO or is it just a nickname?

just a Beatle fan:)

How did I miss that one?

I-244 does not need to be widened, but it is literally descending into being a gravel road in many places. The bridge over the Arkansas is the lowest rated long span bridge in the state (actually it’s two bridges, one for each direction) and there are no plans on replacement. These two bridges are rated substantially worse than both the Crosstown and the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. And the I-244 bridges on the inner loop downtown are rated even worse than that. There is a bridge that is a major downtown street over the highway that fire trucks based at the station next door are not allowed to use as they weigh too much.

As for I-44 there are promises of work and the residential buildings have been taken. But there’s no schedule, there’s not even a final design. Land that people would like to develop along the new highway can’t be because the state doesn’t even really have a design. It was five years from when the buildings on the Sheridan to Yale stretch were taken to when construction began on the Yale interchange. The interchange was done a year ago but this section still isn’t done. Today it’s getting close to ten years since the buildings from Yale to Sheridan were taken and the section between the completed part at Sheridan and the new Yale interchange still isn’t even STARTED. I heard maybe next year. I’m not holding my breath. The interchange on US75 near my house has been due construction “next year” every year since 2003. It’s on the ODOT schedule again for “next year” again, year six of being “next year”.

In Tulsa you can’t base a time line on construction on when the state starts removing buildings. You can’t base it on the next year’s schedule either. It’s so bad that on the other end of I-44 the Cherokee Nation is going to pay to rebuild the 193rd E Ave exit (where their Casino is) because the state won’t, and the bridges on that end of I-44 regularly give way with holes all the way through the deck and traffic backs up on I-44 for miles to get to the Casino.

But that Crosstown certainly is chugging along, isn't it? Or was until the state was caught breaking the law by rushing things going over the rail-road.

i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?

Some of it will be difficult to widen, esp the elevted parts- there's just not much room in Tulsa at all to widen their interior streets.

I'm still marveling at the stupidity of city planners let's ressttict downtown growth by sorrounding it on all sides with highway
but again they've got us on art-deco architecture

and the bridges on that end of I-44 regularly give way with holes all the way through the deck
OKCers...does this sound familiar?


Some of it will be difficult to widen, esp the elevted parts- there's just not much room in Tulsa at all to widen their interior streets.
you're not a kiddin, that strech arong lewis, i think, is really narrow!...and it is always really busy with heavy traffic. i'm almost scared to drive thru it.

I lived in both.
It is like SOONERS and cowboys.
One wins National Championships, Has nationwide name recognition, the other wants it and claims great victory when the beat you every decade or so.
I live now in California. Most have never heard of OSU they think you are talking about Ohio State. They KNOW who OU is. They can name things about OKC good and bad. They think of Tulsa as where Oral Roberts is from.
It is painful but it is the fact.

I lived in both.
It is like SOONERS and cowboys.
One wins National Championships, Has nationwide name recognition, the other wants it and claims great victory when the beat you every decade or so.
I live now in California. Most have never heard of OSU they think you are talking about Ohio State. They KNOW who OU is. They can name things about OKC good and bad. They think of Tulsa as where Oral Roberts is from.
It is painful but it is the fact.


Hey Noob:

:backtotop

As an OSU alum, I find that unecessary. What does that have to do with this thread?

Good point Cuatro - I was thinking the same thing!! :)

You're justifiably proud of what your city has accomplished. But don't get upset when Tulsans sees it as YOUR team, not OUR team. There are two large cities in this state, and suddenly Tulsa feels treated like a suburb. Folks were sure acting like Tulsa was very important to the effort to land the team, and this got Tulsans interested in said effort. But then we realized it was just for expedience--so, you're welcome for our support in your efforts. Enjoy your NBA team. Hopefully there will be enough fans statewide to support it.

I wasn't trying to convey pride in what the city has done. I was just trying to show you how stupid and irrational it is that anyone would have any problem with the team being named after Oklahoma City given that it was by far contributions by people and leaders in Oklahoma City that made it happen, not to mention that IT'S WHERE THEY WILL BE PLAYING.

Will the rest of the state play a part in supporting the team? Of course it will. Just like the 100% of all teams named after a city draw from beyond that city's borders. It is important, but why, seriously, why does that mean it shouldn't be named after the city. How does that trump everything the city has done to put itself in a position to host the team? It just doesn't make any sense. And when you say "folks" were acting like Tulsa was important, you mean to say that Oklahomans from all over the state were pledging their support.

What's funny is that this is clearly not about the name of the team, because you can't justify it based on that. It's about highway funding, capitol jobs, and perceived favoritism from Oklahoma City, which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION ON WHAT TO NAME THE TEAM. It just doesn't. And for the tax thing, what's funny is that the same tax legislation is available to Tulsa and has been used for Tulsa companies. I didn't even agree with the expansion of the measure to include the team, but it is not in any way exclusive to that team and is sitting right there waiting and ready for Tulsa to use to lure its next big company with a fat payroll. Seriously, go ahead, use it and I promise not to demand that the company be named after the state, less I use their products or services, even if our mayor and Governor are used in the campaign to land that company. Sheesh.

I'm Born and Raised in OKC. I Joined the U.S Air Force in 1998 i've been to great cities all around the world, but only been to tulsa twice. I went once for a rodeo another for a concert. I went with a open mind but the only thing I could find is that their malls have more to offer than ours and they have a greener city other than that sorry OKlahoma City all the way...


p.s when the hornets relocated to OKC for those 2 seasons, and we actually got so caught up in them we thought that they were gonna stay or at least hoped they would did they call them the OKC/New Orleans Hornets or the OKC/TUL/N.O Hornets ?

Point taken Cuatro.
Bad example on my part.
Was not taking a shot at OSU.
I was trying to give an outside the state perspective on the Tulsa OKC thing.
Better example would have been Dallas and Fort Worth.
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Both of which are much closer.
than Tulsa and OKC.
Point is one will be out front than the other.
That is the Fact.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Some of my Tulsa friends know OKC based on what they see driving I/44/I35. And I agree with them - that driving experience is depressing and shouldn't be representative of us.

Lot's of overnighters just want a safe, clean, hotel/cafe for the family while driving THRU Okc. They don't care about bricktown, have time for a canal ride, NBA game, Bombing memorial, etc.

Some of my Tulsa friends know OKC based on what they see driving I/44/I35. And I agree with them - that driving experience is depressing and shouldn't be representative of us.

You mean I-40 and I-35? I-44 does OKC more justice than the other two interstates. That being said, I-44/I-244 through Tulsa is depressing. Lake Hefner Parkway and Broadway Extension/Centennial Parkway are OKC's best bets for sight seeing from a freeway. It sounds like your Tulsa friends drive thru OKC, not to OKC.

Swake2, if the argument is over government jobs, then why doesn't Tulsa fight for more government jobs? Seems to me, at least from a Tulsa leader's perspective, they don't want government jobs.

And, you didn't answer my question concerning Tulsa's leadership. In OKC, we put our leaders in office to work hard to insure our city's future. And they do their jobs. Where is Tulsa's leadership?

The state needs to fund Amtrak service to Tulsa, needs to fund the OSU Medical Center,

Amtrak doesn't want their service to go to Tulsa, they want it to go to Newton. That makes much more sense because that's one third the right of way that would be required to connect OKC to Tulsa and then to KC.

And this state can only support one medical school. Why should we water down what OU Med has to offer just because OSU and Tulsa are jealous?

First of all, I will say that no one here is defending ODOT. They have been just as slow and made just as many mistakes in OKC as they have in Tulsa.

Secondly, the things you mention Swake--the government jobs, the location of Tinker, the amount of interstates and turnpikes, etc--have all been true for decades, but supposedly until the last 15 years Tulsa was so superior. What changed that you are now begging for support from the very state many of you say you want to secede from?

See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.

And that is why there is anger on the Tulsa side. And it's nothing new, it's been that way for decades.

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.

And this state can only support one medical school. Why should we water down what OU Med has to offer just because OSU and Tulsa are jealous?

That is just a retarded statement. And whats with the OU lovefest in this thread?

See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.

And that is why there is anger on the Tulsa side. And it's nothing new, it's been that way for decades.

That's a load of crap, Swake, and you know it. Who backed you guys in the Vision 2025 election? Who helped bring the Whirlpool Plant to Tulsa in the late 1990s? Who frequented Tulsa in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s before OKC revived itself?

When proposals come from Tulsa, we do back you up. That is of course, WHEN proposals come from Tulsa. As far as roads go, ODOT has the upper hand now as far as which roads get attention first.

We can sit here and debate all night the needs of I-40's Crosstown Bridge, but when it collapses, what will your words be? Didn't ODOT JUST repair a big hole in the Crosstown recently?

one thing everyone has failed to mention is that tulsa's also upset that we're getting a new skyscraper (which may end up as the tallest in the state too).
that combined with the nba and no longer being the cultural center of the state is obviously fueling this animosity.
and just for the record... i've gone round and round with swake on the okc vs. tulsa nonsense on another forum. (that is why i say what i do to him)
however, i do like having tulsa right down the road. i have tons of friends there and have spent an a$$load of time there.
i no longer feel it's prettier tho. the skyscrapers are a tad snazzier. however, the public, civic & govermental buildings are old and boring. with the exception of one new portion of I 44 and BA expressway... the highways are old and gross. the nightlife is no comparison to okc either and they are stuck in the 90's rave scene. i do know a lot of okc dj's (and even one's in dallas) that turn down bookings in t-town and many of the parties they throw don't have very good turnouts. i did hear about a party recently (that i no-showed at) that had a decent crowd.
however, i do love playing at d*fest (and am looking forward to this upcoming festival) and noticed how the younger (hipster) crowd was aching at not having decent dance parties. the kids went off... i felt sorry them.

their malls have more to offer what do you mean by that? one of there malls is closing.


one thing everyone has failed to mention is that tulsa's also upset that we're getting a new skyscraper
they will get a new skyscraper sooner or later. if OKC gets one, they have to get one.

See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.

WHAT!? That is so weak. Sorry, but it is. This has nothing to do with all of that stuff. People worked their ass off in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City has footed the vast majority of the bill on this deal, Oklahoma City is taking most of the risk, and, last but certainly not least, people from Oklahoma City own the team and that's where they will play.

To sit here and say that people from Oklahoma City have a huge animosity towards Tulsa and that people in Oklahoma City never support Tulsa in anything is just complete BS. The naming of the team after Oklahoma City in no way supports that contention, as it has nothing to do with it in the first place. Besides, if your posts and the posts of other Tulsa forum users are any indication, the source of animosity is almost completely on the Tulsa side here and has been consistently for a long time. I mean, sometimes it seems you're registered here almost for the sole purpose of running down OKC and to make endless comparisons of Tulsa to Oklahoma City.

Anyway, I have never bought into this whole rivalry thing. I have lived in other states, and in the broader perspective of it all, it just seems so foolish and this is a great example of it. You're taking the naming of a team after a city, over 80% of which all teams are, and paralleling it to political injustices at our state capitol. You think that because you don't always get what you want, that it's Oklahoma City's fault. You are blaming the inadequacies of your leadership on the people of Oklahoma City, using the naming of a basketball team as evidence of it, and then trying to tell us it's irrational to suggest you get better leadership? That's straight out of fantasyland. I can't vote for your representatives, but if you have some that I should support through money or leg work, please let me know who and why. I unfortunately don't have the money and resources to buy you a team and name it after Tulsa, as it most definitely should be in the event one plays there and is owned there, but I will buy a ticket and come party on the club level with you and will never suggest that the name is some grave injustice.

I don't know what else to say, because I just can't grasp how any of this is about anything but who paid for all of this and where they will play. But if it helps, think of it this way: hopefully, Tulsa will be in the position very soon to compete for a permanent tenant for its awesome new arena. You now have some political equity in that endeavor. If Tulsa is a part of Oklahoma City's NBA team's success, then Tulsa will gain more leverage by saying to any league or team owner, "Oklahoma City is part of your potential market as well, just look at the NBA". You have to realize that you gain nothing if you get all pissy about the name and walk away. On the other hand, you stand to gain a butt load of leverage if it is shown that market demographics can be considered across both Tulsa and Oklahoma City when evaluating the markets for new industry and entertainment.

Yeah, so I’ll say it, “let’s work together”. And I mean it, because the reality is that Tulsa and Oklahoma City aren’t competing for this stuff. Tulsa and Oklahoma City are competing with the Chicago’s, Kansas City’s, Seattle’s, and the other 30 some odd markets that outrank us both. And if Tulsa pulls it off through their recent and future investments, who would I be to tell anyone what it should be named?

No. You're putting words in our mouths.

Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon. Your city, our state.

End of discussion. It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality. If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name. Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.

It's not intercity jealousy
yes it is....period.

No. You're putting words in our mouths.

Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon. Your city, our state.

End of discussion. It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality. If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name. Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.

So, I guess it's still okay for Tulsans to jump on any of the other regional city bandwagons:

St. Louis Cardinals
Dallas Cowboys, Mavericks
Houston Texans, Astros, whatever the NBA team is (Rockets?)
San Antonio Spurs
Kansas City Chiefs
NYC Yankees
Chigago Bears, Bulls, Cubs

but, throw OKC into the mix, a new pro team that will be within your own STATE, and suddendly you couldn't support that?

So if that's not jealousy, then what would you call it?

What if the team's nickname was "Thundercats"? Would you still want the "Oklahoma" geographical designation, or Oklahoma City? Food for thought.

End of discussion. It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality. If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name.

Since 1990, 12 major league teams have changed cities and only three did not take the name of their host cities. And two of those started off playing in other towns while their permanent home was readied.



NBA
2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis.
2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.

NHL
1993: The Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas and became the Stars.
1995: The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver and became the Colorado Avalanche.•
1996: The Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix and became the Coyotes.
1997: The Hartford Whalers moved corporate offices to Raleigh, North Carolina and became the Carolina Hurricanes. For two years they played home games in Greensboro while an arena was under construction in Raleigh.

NFL
1995: Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis.
1995: Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland.
1996: Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Ravens.
1997: Houston Oilers moved to Memphis and became the Tennessee Oilers. The team originally planned to play both 1997 and 1998 in Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium in Memphis before moving to their intended destination of Nashville. However, due to poor attendance, the team moved to Nashville in 1998, playing in Vanderbilt University's stadium. The team was renamed the Tennessee Titans in 1999, when their new stadium was opened.

MLB
2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C. and became the Washington Nationals.

MLS
2006: San Jose Earthquakes moved to Houston and became the Houston Dynamo.

Didn't say I couldn't support an OKC team. Probably will. But I still feel you're telling Tulsans to get on excited about the Oklahoma CITY team as opposed to the Oklahoma STATE team. You don't think that might make some difference in whether I want to go buy an $80 jersey? Really?

This thread started because people got in a huff about some Tulsa internet types picking silly names for your team, and interpreting that as snobbery/jealousy. I'm trying to explain to you that it doesn't make sense to get so upset that Tulsans don't feel included in your joy, when your mayor and team owner pretty much explicitly excluded them.

After all, we're really just rooting for laundry. ;)

Oklahoma City and the taxpayers built the arena.
Oklahoma City investors purchased the team.
Oklahoma City taxpayers, with a little help from the state, have agreed to upgrade a facility owned by OKC.

It were the citizens of OKC who got the ball rolling. The state is helping out because it realizes the potential marketing power having a major league franchise will bring.

a little off the subject, but have you seen the latest pictures of the BOK center? that place blows the ford center out of the water. it may be smaller, but what a building. leave it to tulsa to copy OKC and build something better.