The U.S. Census Bureau today released the latest population figures (as of July 1, 2007) for incorporated cities. (Figures for metropolitan areas were released several months ago.) Here are the numbers for Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman.
The first figure is the new 2007 number, the second is the population in the census of 2000, and the third is the percent gain (or loss)

Oklahoma City 547,274 506,129 +8.1%
Tulsa 384,037 392,851 -2.3%
Norman 106,707 96,819 +10.3%

Redland - can you provide the metro numbers if you have them readily available?

Wow, Tulsa lost more than two percent. That's bad.

Redland - can you provide the metro numbers if you have them readily available?

The latest (July,2007) metropolitan area populations are as follows. (2007 number first, census 2000 number second)

Oklahoma City 1,262,027 1,160,942
Tulsa 955,643 908,528

These are the CMSA (combined metropolitan statistical area) figures.

redland, do you have a link to where you're getting these numbers. The US Census Bureau's page isn't that fun to try and navigate.

Those CMSA numbers represent a 8.7% growth rate for OKC and 5.2% for Tulsa.

redland, do you have a link to where you're getting these numbers. The US Census Bureau's page isn't that fun to try and navigate.

County Population Estimates-U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties)

Once there you can click "Estimates Data" at the top left of the page. Then you can choose data for cities, metro areas, counties, and states.

So, OKC is gaining both in city and cmsa population while Tulsa is declining in city but gaining in cmsa. Confirms what we feel here. Tulsa's outlying regions are sucking population away from the city. However, I live in the core of near downtown (Cherry Street area) and we are seeing big movements of suburbans into our neighborhoods. This ying-yang is stressing the city.

Tulsa is in a pickle. It is sprawling north and south and its inner-city street infrastructure can not allow for much growth. Odd that the 'burbs in Tulsa grew that much but the city itself lost population.

Those numbers are somewhat deceiving. They do not reflect recent trends--e.g., Tulsa had five years of population loss but is now recovering. Try the numbers just for the last year of growth (from 2006-2007):

Oklahoma City 539,916 547,274 1.4%
Norman 105,230 106,707 1.4%
Tulsa 382,618 384,037 0.4%
This can basically be explained by lack of room for traditional new housing. Oklahoma City has room to sprawl within its city limits; Tulsa does not.

The Metropolitan Statistical Area numbers (which take into account suburban population growth as well) confirm this:
2006 2007
Oklahoma City 1,175,937 1,192,989 1.5%
Tulsa 893,053 905,755 1.4%

Rumors of Tulsa's demise are greatly exaggerated. :smile:

The census stuff is always something of a mystery to me.

For example, if you look at the 2nd table at this website, Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/CBSA-est2007-annual.html) , it indeed does show the Oklahoma City - Shawnee Combined Statistical Area at 1,262,027.

But, when you go to the "Counties" area here, Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2007-01.html) , open the spreadsheet, one finds that the following counties in the estimate for what I presume is the Okc-Shawnee MSA are ...

Canadian........103,559
Cleveland........236,452
Grady..............50,615
Lincoln.............32,272
Logan..............36,435
Oklahoma........701,807
Pottawatomie....69,038
Total..........1,230,178

In other words, I don't understand. The MSA number greater than the sum of the county totals. Will someone explain, please?

Rumors of Tulsa's demise are greatly exaggerated.
yes, tulsa is definitely not in a demise, just drive thru the city and see for yourself. i don't care what the numbers say.

Try the numbers just for the last year of growth (from 2006-2007):

Oklahoma City 539,916 547,274 1.4%
Norman 105,230 106,707 1.4%
Tulsa 382,618 384,037 0.4%
Oklahoma City has room to sprawl within its city limits;

The Metropolitan Statistical Area numbers (which take into account suburban population growth as well) confirm this:
2006 2007
Oklahoma City 1,175,937 1,192,989 1.5%
Tulsa 893,053 905,755 1.4%



The CSMA figures ALSO INCLUDE suburban areas; so I do not see your point. And whether you compare today's figures to 2006 or to 2000, Oklahoma City's growth is greater than Tulsa's, both city limits and metro area.

And "sprawl" has nothing to do with it. CMSA figures are based on counties, and that "sprawl" area would be included, whether in city limits or not. As one example, ALL of Creek county is included in Tulsa's metro population, and if the city of Tulsa were to annex all of Creek County, it would not affect the metro population one bit. And again, if Oklahoma City were to de-annex uninhabited areas, it would not affect the metro population (or the city population either for that matter, since we're talking about areas where virtually nobody lives.)

Look, Tulsa is a fine and a beautiful city. But this post is about numbers. And no matter how you slice it, Oklahoma City continues to win this particular race.

The CSMA figures ALSO INCLUDE suburban areas; so I do not see your point. And whether you compare today's figures to 2006 or to 2000, Oklahoma City's growth is greater than Tulsa's, both city limits and metro area.

And "sprawl" has nothing to do with it. CMSA figures are based on counties, and that "sprawl" area would be included, whether in city limits or not. As one example, ALL of Creek county is included in Tulsa's metro population, and if the city of Tulsa were to annex all of Creek County, it would not affect the metro population one bit. And again, if Oklahoma City were to de-annex uninhabited areas, it would not affect the metro population (or the city population either for that matter, since we're talking about areas where virtually nobody lives.)

Look, Tulsa is a fine and a beautiful city. But this post is about numbers. And no matter how you slice it, Oklahoma City continues to win this particular race.

How old are you? Put down the flamethrower. There's no race here, but if you want to invent one, go right ahead.

My point was just to correct the misperception that Tulsa is losing population at the present. It did from 2000-2005 for economic reasons we're all aware of. But now it's not. I also was suggesting that Oklahoma City has more room to grow within its city limits than Tulsa does, hence the disparity in city population growth but equivalent MSA growth.

It should be noted -- no matter how you slice it -- OKC is not only growing at a faster rate, but on a bigger base.

In terms for the CSMA's, OKC has gained well more than twice as many people as Tulsa since 2000.

And while Oklahoma City has the room in its rural areas to build housing, that doesn't explain why OKC is growing faster and by more. More population doesn't = more extreme outlying housing. I bet a lot of those numbers are inner-city growth. Just because Tulsa is restricted with land area doesn't mean it can't grow much in population. Thats bull. I mean theres a point where it would be hard to grow by much, but Tulsa isn't even close to that yet.

I already knew that Tulsa has made up some of its loss. I'm always checking in on this stuff. :] Good for Tulsa. Hopefully they can fully rebound and get back to where they were.

In other words, I don't understand. The MSA number greater than the sum of the county totals. Will someone explain, please?

The CMSA populaltion is indeed the sum of the counties. You seem to have omitted McLain County whose population is about 32,000.

I would makea killing if I had t-shirts that said Team Tulsa and the other saying Team OKC

I also was suggesting that Oklahoma City has more room to grow within its city limits than Tulsa does,
that's because OKC has more square miles of city limits. tulsa has plenty of room to grow, and thet are growing.

I would makea killing if I had t-shirts that said Team Tulsa and the other saying Team OKC
you would sell more team OKC shirts:)

The CMSA populaltion is indeed the sum of the counties. You seem to have omitted McLain County whose population is about 32,000.
That's so. It's amazing that Purcell is part of the metro.

Perhaps more interesting are the population estimates which are partitioned by the type of growth. For instance, this table shows that domestic growth from 2000-07 in the OKC MSA was 26,756 while the Tulsa MSA saw a net domestic decline of 616 over the same period. Tulsa's population growth, according to the Census estimate, is exclusively a result of natural births and international migration. Contrast this to OKC, which has domestic growth outpacing international growth.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/2007/CBSA-EST2007-alldata.csv

Perhaps more interesting are the population estimates which are partitioned by the type of growth. For instance, this table shows that domestic growth from 2000-07 in the OKC MSA was 26,756 while the Tulsa MSA saw a net domestic decline of 616 over the same period. Tulsa's population growth, according to the Census estimate, is exclusively a result of natural births and international migration. Contrast this to OKC, which has domestic growth outpacing international growth.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/2007/CBSA-EST2007-alldata.csv

Thats interesting Semisimple, but the link you gave was kind of garbled. Here's 2 website links that confirm what you are saying

Tulsa, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa46140.html)

Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area (CBSA) Population and Components of Change (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa36420.html)

For what is worth, Tulsa saw nearly as many people move into its MSA vs. OKC (+5,272 vs, +5,400) in 2007, but it still has a ways to go. I heard that Tulsa will top 1 million in 2012. That will be a hard goal to reach even if growth stays as high as it is up there.

Any of you wizzkidz on here able to determine what the populations of OKC and Tulsa will be, assuming a constant rate of growth, in 2015, 2020 and 2025. I know it's impossible to tell for sure but it is fun to play around.

Perhaps a link already exists somewhere here on okctalk that could take me to a source?

Me (like most of you) = nerd

It's amazing that Purcell is part of the metro.

More amazing that it's not a long-distance call. (More amazing yet that we still have such anachronisms as "long-distance" calls. My cell phone doesn't care; why should my landline? Answer: $.)

the populations of OKC and Tulsa will be, assuming a constant rate of growth, in 2015, 2020 and 2025.

If the current growth rate is extrapolated, you get:


City: 2007; 2015; 2020; 2025

OKC: 1,262,027; 1,387,509; 1,473,732; 1,565,314

TUL: 955,643; 1,012,435; 1,050,040; 1,089,042

Tulsa is poorly managed and has ****ty leadership. Tulsa has a different feel to it than oklahoma city but I do not feel safe in downtown tulsa (thats where I work) after hours. The suburbs are pretty nice and tulsa has some nice areas but the city is in shambles right now and they keep electign one idiot mayor after another. The mayor now wants to drastically raise taxes on businesses downtown to fund a ballpark. This tax has the potential to drive numerous businesses out of downtown including the one I work for. Hopefully the city of Tulsa will not vote in this ridiculous tax on its businesses within the IDL. The city council is discussing it now :noes:

do these figures exclude outmigration of college grads and illegal immigrants?

do these figures exclude outmigration of college grads and illegal immigrants?

Ummm what? Those are population figures of residents. If you're illegal you're not counted, if you move away you're not counted because you moved away.

Those CMSA numbers represent a 8.7% growth rate for OKC and 5.2% for Tulsa.

The .com bust really hurt tulsa quite badly, I think they are slowly getting their feet back under them but until the city gets good leadership things will be kinda stagnant.

If the current growth rate is extrapolated, you get:


City: 2007; 2015; 2020; 2025

OKC: 1,262,027; 1,387,509; 1,473,732; 1,565,314

TUL: 955,643; 1,012,435; 1,050,040; 1,089,042

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Pete!!!

Pretty amazing numbers if you look at the the difference there between OKC and Tulsa. Half a mil!

Well just based on the numbers provided in here and assuming a constant rate of growth the OKC population would be 603k in 2015, 646k in 2020, and 693k in 2025.

Metro area projections would be 1.305MM in 2015, 1.405MM in 2020, and 1.514MM in 2025.

I would makea killing if I had t-shirts that said Team Tulsa and the other saying Team OKC
have you not seen the 405 FO SHO or DON'T HATE THE 918 tees?

Well just based on the numbers provided in here and assuming a constant rate of growth the OKC population would be 603k in 2015, 646k in 2020, and 693k in 2025.

Metro area projections would be 1.305MM in 2015, 1.405MM in 2020, and 1.514MM in 2025.

But we can't expect a constant growth...We will probably be gaining more and more people every year as OKC becomes more popular. We should reach those numbers well before those respective dates.

Look at Austin, or Fort Worth. Well Fort Worth has the help of Dallas, but still. They were growing at a similiar pace that we are now 8 years ago and then they hit an explosion. I think we'll see that explosion soon.

But yay for being the 31st largest city in the U.S.! Maybe we can take over Portland soon. We're only 3 thousand behind.

If you're illegal you're not counted...

One small point of correction - illegals are counted in the census. That is one of the main points behind elected officials in Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada not wanting to do anything about illegal immigration. California gets 3 extra members of Congress just by counting the illegals.

One small point of correction - illegals are counted in the census. That is one of the main points behind elected officials in Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada not wanting to do anything about illegal immigration. California gets 3 extra members of Congress just by counting the illegals.

That really sucks

Tulsa is growing, their 2000-2007 numbers don't reflect current trends at all. Their suburban areas are still growing and their inner city areas are certainly growing. Inner Tulsa is laced with rows of loft housing under construction.

Tulsa is growing, their 2000-2007 numbers don't reflect current trends at all. Their suburban areas are still growing and their inner city areas are certainly growing. Inner Tulsa is laced with rows of loft housing under construction.

Portions of tulsa are growing the city as a whole is not as the census numbers clearly show. The metro area is definately growing.

I live in the tulsa area, and each time I drive around the Utica Square area I realize the tremendous potential the tulsa area has. It has a decidedly more urban feel than oklahoma city while retaining some of the positives of a midsize metro area. Traffic while substantially worse than OKC is still good by national standards barring a few exceptions. The city itself is beautiful but the city is so poorly managed that the infrastructure is crumbling and the tax base is fleeing. Instead of lower taxes and offering incentives to bring businesses into the area, tulsa is raising taxes on existing businesses and this is no more obvious than inside the IDL.

What happened to the days when you had a SMSA and a Greater city population? They've got all these different ones now and it's confusing. What compares to the old SMSA? Is it MSA or CBSA?

Portions of tulsa are growing the city as a whole is not as the census numbers clearly show. The metro area is definately growing.

I live in the tulsa area, and each time I drive around the Utica Square area I realize the tremendous potential the tulsa area has. It has a decidedly more urban feel than oklahoma city while retaining some of the positives of a midsize metro area. Traffic while substantially worse than OKC is still good by national standards barring a few exceptions. The city itself is beautiful but the city is so poorly managed that the infrastructure is crumbling and the tax base is fleeing. Instead of lower taxes and offering incentives to bring businesses into the area, tulsa is raising taxes on existing businesses and this is no more obvious than inside the IDL.

Ya know I like Tulsa too. It does have a unique vibe to it that many cities of its size could only dream about. For example, driving down the BA Expressway b/w dowtown and 169 reminds me of driving on the Dallas North Tollway which goes through some of the nicest older parts of Dallas. But then I realize how bumpy and pothole-ridden that thing is. Its almost like a metaphor for the entire city. Nice and pleasant to look at, but you can't enjoy it when the fundamentals are crumbling. I do like Kathy Taylor, but it takes a LOOONG time to turn a ship and I hope people in Tulsa don't get ancy and vote her out. Just like how a strong OKC benefits Tulsa, a strong Tulsa will ultimately benefit OKC.

No, it's growing... The numbers show it too. Yeah, it's shrinking if you compare the 2000 estimate with 2007, but it's growing if you compare 2005 or 2006 with 2007.

The most interesting thing that will come of the 2010 full census: detailed census tract information on inner oklahoma city showing the growth of downtown and especially of Maywood Park.

The .com bust really hurt tulsa quite badly, I think they are slowly getting their feet back under them but until the city gets good leadership things will be kinda stagnant.

The only thing that's going to help Tulsa is an infusion of different citizens. The bottom line is that Tulsans will not support tax-funded public initiatives to improve their city. Your post reminds me of something my uncle in Tulsa was saying 10 years ago when Susan Savage was in office.

There are literally a couple of dozen loft housing units being developed in Tulsa. What a renaissance! (snark)

I don't think it's merely a reflexive We Hate Taxes stance, although there's certainly some of that; there seems to be a conviction that Tulsa city leadership has entirely missed the clue bus, and it's going to take time (and new leaders) to overcome this belief. It wasn't all that long ago that Oklahoma City was in similar straits. And MAPS didn't pass by a huge margin, though just try to find someone today who says he voted against it.

for a small monthly fee, land lines don't care either 8^)

I can see Purcell as being part of the greater metro as easily as I can see Guthrie and Shawnee being included. Lay out a 50 mile radius from the heart of OKC downtown on a map. All three come within the circle with room to spare.

I don't consider any of the three fitting my own notion of greater metro area, but I do see where some could.

What happened to the days when you had a SMSA and a Greater city population? They've got all these different ones now and it's confusing. What compares to the old SMSA? Is it MSA or CBSA?

Yes, it does seem confusing. The change came when the census bureau created a new category called "micropolitan" areas, which might be described roughly as "small metropolitan" areas. As examples in Oklahoma, Pottawatomie County (Shawnee) and Washington County (Bartlesville) are micropolitan areas. If a micropolitan area is adjacent to a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), its status is recognized by NOT including it in the MSA. Thus the creation of a new category called CMSA (COMBINED metropolitan statistical area) in which the micropolitan area IS included. Hence for Oklahoma City, Pottawatomie County is not in the MSA but is in the CMSA. And for Tulsa, Washington County is not in the MSA but is in the CMSA. In other words, the CMSA is the MSA plus the adjacent micropolitan area. As to which compares to the former SMSA designation, it is not clear. Under the old designations, Pott County was in OKC's SMSA, but Washington County was not in Tulsa's SMSA.
The Census Bureau has a rather complex formula for deciding which counties are included in a metroplitan area (e.g., number of commuters, unbroken area of a certain density of population, etc.). The weakness I think comes in the fact that they deal only with whole counties, not parts of counties. Thus for instance, all of Osage County is included in Tulsa Metro. The southeast part of that massive county is surely tied closely to Tulsa, but the northern part is sparsely inhabited, borders on Kanss and is actually closer to Wichita. Similarly, for OKC, the northern part of Grady County seems to be reasonlably a part of OKC Metro, but the southern part not so much.
At any rate we now have three sets of figures to deal with---incorporated city population, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and in some cases combined metropolitan statistcal area (CMSA)

The only thing that's going to help Tulsa is an infusion of different citizens. The bottom line is that Tulsans will not support tax-funded public initiatives to improve their city. Your post reminds me of something my uncle in Tulsa was saying 10 years ago when Susan Savage was in office.

based on the track record of the city can you blame them? THey're handing out freebies to their buddies who support their political campaigns and wasting tax payer dollars on a host of other endeavors...I wouldn't support it either. Oklahoma City started slowly began using the tax payer money in a wise manner and as a result the tax payers trust the city and OKC's downtown is a great place to hang out.

Wife and I were in downtown tulsa friday night for a show, but we couldn't really eat downtown because there's only a few places down there that are actually quality eateries.

Tulsa will not get citizens back in large numbers until they fix or at least start fixing their problems. They wont get businesses downtown if htey're going to raise taxes 5, 10 or 25 times on businesses within the IDL. They're doing things in an opposite manner from other cities that have experienced growth and regenerations of downtown.

if htey're going to raise taxes 5, 10 or 25 times on businesses within the IDL

You mention this tax increase, yet I haven't heard of it. What, specifically, is this tax increase? Can you provide a link?

If it is a TIF projects, Oklahoma City has passed several of those as well, and all cities are using them to improve specific districts within a city.

If it is a TIF, it's not really a tax increase; in the case of TIF, property taxes WHICH ARE ALREADY LEVIED are set aside to go back to the district itself.

I'm getting the idea you're turning this into an anti-Kathy Taylor rant. I can't imagine she would punish one part of the city over another. That is highly suspect.

If your employer is against simple TIF financing than he/she is part of the problem in Tulsa, and represents the viewpoint in Tulsa that is preventing improvement. There is nothing unusual about TIF projects. They've been happening in great cities across the country for years, and they are a novel and fair approach to business district improvement.

You mention this tax increase, yet I haven't heard of it. What, specifically, is this tax increase? Can you provide a link?

If it is a TIF projects, Oklahoma City has passed several of those as well, and all cities are using them to improve specific districts within a city.

If it is a TIF, it's not really a tax increase; in the case of TIF, property taxes WHICH ARE ALREADY LEVIED are set aside to go back to the district itself.

I'm getting the idea you're turning this into an anti-Kathy Taylor rant. I can't imagine she would punish one part of the city over another. That is highly suspect.

If your employer is against simple TIF financing than he/she is part of the problem in Tulsa, and represents the viewpoint in Tulsa that is preventing improvement. There is nothing unusual about TIF projects. They've been happening in great cities across the country for years, and they are a novel and fair approach to business district improvement.

Do you live in Tulsa? It's been all over the news and AM radio for 3 weeks now. The city council had a big and long meeting about it this past week.

If you dont live in tulsa that explains why you haven't heard about it, I'll try to dig up a couple links for you...stand by.

Here's some links
Tulsa World: Some have reservations on ballpark plan (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080709_11_A1_Cnenii384054 )

Tulsa World: Petition seeks to void stadium district (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080712_11_A11_hFivel41871 )

NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | Greenwood District Ready For Homerun (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8567539)


THis mayor is an idiot, she's broken her promises with regard to law enforcement citing the same excuses that LaFortune used. She wants to ask tulsa businesses for help when the city is too busy giving handouts to buddies to fix roads and she's simply wanting to tax business in Tulsa, specifically downtown tulsa MORE for a ballpark and a city that has a poor track record of performing.

Oh and lets not forget, that she "accidently" voted twice in 2004 once in florida and once in tulsa....whoops.

You mention this tax increase, yet I haven't heard of it. What, specifically, is this tax increase? Can you provide a link?

If it is a TIF projects, Oklahoma City has passed several of those as well, and all cities are using them to improve specific districts within a city.

If it is a TIF, it's not really a tax increase; in the case of TIF, property taxes WHICH ARE ALREADY LEVIED are set aside to go back to the district itself.

I'm getting the idea you're turning this into an anti-Kathy Taylor rant. I can't imagine she would punish one part of the city over another. That is highly suspect.

If your employer is against simple TIF financing than he/she is part of the problem in Tulsa, and represents the viewpoint in Tulsa that is preventing improvement. There is nothing unusual about TIF projects. They've been happening in great cities across the country for years, and they are a novel and fair approach to business district improvement.

Are you kidding me? It's a tax increase and a big one. Call it whatever you want, its substantial, one of the small family owned businesses I eat lunch at once a week is going to have to packup shop if this passes. The guy has been downtown for almost 15 years. Yet this tax will raise his annual bill from just over 500 bucks to more than 5000 dollars.

The news had a guy on that has owned a barbershop for more than 50 years. His tax is going to go from 103 dollars to 6300 dollars...yet you wanna sit here and not call it a tax? Give me a break.


edit: no I dont like Taylor, she's better than LaFortune but I dont like her. She's constantly got double speak BS coming out of her mouth. She's positioning herself for a run at the governors office and doesn't really give two craps about Tulsa.

You didn't answer the question: what is this tax increase? Is it a TIF proposal? Sales tax? Property tax? Income tax? I have seen nothing about this tax.

I'm sorry, but a 6000 percent tax increase does not seem credible. Are you sure your employer has his/her facts straight?

You also referred to this tax increase "passing." Who's voting on it? City Council? County? Taxpayers?

I smell a rat in Denmark.

It's property tax. As for my employer, they haven't said a word to us about it other than depending on the size of the tax it may force them to relocate outside the IDL. I posted 3 links for you if those aren't good enough then find your own links?

6000 percent increase didn't sound credible to me either when If irst heard about it in mid June. I chalked it up to some overzelous report trying to get a story. So I started reading and searching for news articles, called the city, started reading local blogs etc etc etc, and about 2 weeks ago the local news started talking about it a lot and articles have been in the Tulsa World. You've made it pretty clear you dont want to believe its a tax increase, thats your perrogative, I've posted links, three of them, if you want more just google it, there's a lot of talk about it right now. It wont affect each business the same because the current assessments leveled at some businesses are higher than others. So the increase one business may see versus another could vary drastically as in the examples I cited earlier.

OUGrad,

Please accept my apology. I missed your links!

It appears that this is some hybrid property tax BID deal, not unlike what we've had in OKC to pay for improvements to the tunnel and other things.

Honestly, 6.5 cents per square feet annually doesn't seem like much to me. Also, it appears the average business owner is currently being assessed a tax of 3.5 cents. That is a one hundred percent increase.

It's hard to tell from the articles what the tax will actually amount to, but I agree that the increase seems excessive, especially for a ballpark which, while nice, has limited appeal. Ours is nice and is a great feature in Bricktown but is rarely filled for games.

OUGrad,

Please accept my apology. I missed your links!

It appears that this is some hybrid property tax BID deal, not unlike what we've had in OKC to pay for improvements to the tunnel and other things.

Honestly, 6.5 cents per square feet annually doesn't seem like much to me. Also, it appears the average business owner is currently being assessed a tax of 3.5 cents. That is a one hundred percent increase.

It's hard to tell from the articles what the tax will actually amount to, but I agree that the increase seems excessive, especially for a ballpark which, while nice, has limited appeal. Ours is nice and is a great feature in Bricktown but is rarely filled for games.

Well yeah, the tax is kinda wierd. I think what happened (and I dont know this for sure) but tulsa may have frozen tax rates for certain tenants. It seems the small businesses are the ones that will be drastically affected by this tax with larger businesses seeing an increase of 15 to roughly 60% on their tax. Which is quite confusing. But it does lead me to believe that at some point Tulsa offered incentives or locked tax rates for people willing to move and/or stay downtown. So that would explain why so many smaller businesses are seeing drastic changes in their tax rates.

I agree 6.5% isn't necessarily a high tax, but if its double the current average inside the IDL that could prove disasterous to the area. I care greatly about downtown tulsa since I spend 40 or 50 hours a week there and after spending a great deal of time in downtown OKC, I'd like to see Tulsa come up to that level. Low crime, good amenities and a great night out...

No offense, but the barber shop thing looks like total BS. How many square feet in a barber shop? I'm going to say 800 to 1000. Doing simple math, the 6.5 cent per square foot annual bill would be $65.

The hotdog owner seems similarly misinformed. Let's say his hotdog shop is a whopping 2500 square foot space. His bill under the plan -- based on the Tulsa World link you provided -- would be $162.50.

If either of those business cannot handle that, then they are already in trouble.

No offense, but the barber shop thing looks like total BS. How many square feet in a barber shop? I'm going to say 800 to 1000. Doing simple math, the 6.5 cent per square foot annual bill would be $65.

The hotdog owner seems similarly misinformed. Let's say his hotdog shop is a whopping 2500 square foot space. His bill under the plan -- based on the Tulsa World link you provided -- would be $162.50.

If either of those business cannot handle that, then they are already in trouble.

I agree, but what the news said and what I also heard on local talk radio is the bill if passed would make some sort of minimum requirement to people paying tax. It doesn't make mathematical sense to me either but local talk radio had a city council member on saying that the increased tax rates were indeed accurate :dunno:


This is another thing that really bothers me, they want to increase this tax but wont provide the entire package to the public to view, which is kinda weird.

I agree 6.5% isn't necessarily a high tax

You're not reading your own link. It's NOT 6.5%. It's 6.5 cents per square foot, assessed annually.

Let's say you have a 4800 square foot retail store. Your tax will be $312. Don't you believe the hotdog shop and retailer will see additional foot traffic if there's a baseball park nearby.

While I share some of your crtitiques of city leadership, it appears that several people up there are operating on misinformation and hearsay. Shocking, I know.

Also, don't forget that people of all persuasions love to bitch and moan and blame others for their problems. Remember to believe half of what you read and none of what you hear.


also heard on local talk radio is the bill if passed would make some sort of minimum requirement to people paying tax. It doesn't make mathematical sense to me either but local talk radio had a city council member on saying that the increased tax rates were indeed accurate :dunno:

Remember, trust nothing you hear, particularly on talk radio, about the worst place on the planet to get reliable information.

It sounds like a lot of crap is being slung, which is ALWAYS what happens in Tulsa whenever ANY tax of any kind is proposed. Period. There's always at least one or two councilmen going off, NO campaigns being launched, talk radio people railing against it, etc. etc.

It sounds like you're operating on some misinformation, i.e. you belief in this minimum thing, which was not in the articles you provided. Regardless of the perceived value of the baseball stadium, the fact remains that any tax proposal of any kind proposed in that city is doomed, because the fervent anti-taxers there are very organized and active.

This seems to reinforce my central argument. Tulsa will never be able to benefit from the kinds of things that have happened in Oklahoma City and lead to our city bypassing Tulsa because of Tulsa's hysterical opposition to taxes.

You're not reading your own link. It's NOT 6.5%. It's 6.5 cents per square foot, assessed annually.

Let's say you have a 4800 square foot retail store. Your tax will be $312. Don't you believe the hotdog shop and retailer will see additional foot traffic if there's a baseball park nearby.

While I share some of your crtitiques of city leadership, it appears that several people up there are operating on misinformation and hearsay. Shocking, I know.

Also, don't forget that people of all persuasions love to bitch and moan and blame others for their problems. Remember to believe half of what you read and none of what you hear.



Remember, trust nothing you hear, particularly on talk radio, about the worst place on the planet to get reliable information.

It sounds like a lot of crap is being slung, which is ALWAYS what happens in Tulsa whenever ANY tax of any kind is proposed. Period. There's always at least one or two councilmen going off, NO campaigns being launched, talk radio people railing against it, etc. etc.

It sounds like you're operating on some misinformation, i.e. you belief in this minimum thing, which was not in the articles you provided. Regardless of the perceived value of the baseball stadium, the fact remains that any tax proposal of any kind proposed in that city is doomed, because the fervent anti-taxers there are very organized and active.

This seems to reinforce my central argument. Tulsa will never be able to benefit from the kinds of things that have happened in Oklahoma City and lead to our city bypassing Tulsa because of Tulsa's hysterical opposition to taxes.

I read my own link, I read the articles a couple times actually over the last few days.

I meant to say 6.5 cents, sorry I'm talking to a friend of mine and I had a typo.

If you have anymore information on this I'd love to read it, I'm a bit of an economics junkie to begin with. Couple that with a metro where i currently live and I'd prefer to read any and all info available.


on a side note does anyone know why the "edit" function doesn't work?