I could have swore I heard on either talk radio or the evening news the other night that the City annexed more land around 192nd and Portland area. Anyone else hear this or look at council agenda. Pisses me off if true.

Yes it was on the council agenda. Out of curiosity, why does that upset you?

Yes it was on the council agenda. Out of curiosity, why does that upset you?

^^It doesnt upset you?OKC needs to annex NO MORE land!600+ sq miles is plenty enough!

They need to be de-annexing. City budget is already stretched thin now they want to provide services to even more open space? Maybe OKC should just cut to the chase and merge with the State of Oklahoma.

OKC needs to de-annex land around Yukon and Mustang as well as far nw OKC and land in se OKC around Draper imo!OKC's pop density would increase alot if just 200sq miles were de-annexed,right now OKC's pop density is under 900ppl/sq mile but that is very misleading!

Considering that a ton of new lots are planned for that area it doesn't surprise me. OTOH the good folks at city hall may want to think about cutting loose areas like SE 164th and Peebly Rd. Most people out there feel ignored by the city as it is.

As an aside, does the State of OK allow cities to set up fencelines? This may be a better alternative if the city of OKC is paranoid about other cities grabbing up land before them.

Yes it was on the council agenda. Out of curiosity, why does that upset you?

Probably upsets him for the same reason as it upsets me and others - OKC cannot support the residents/land it has now, much less anything larger.

No doubt the city sees that land as potential new revenue.

Some 20+ years ago, residents of east rural Norman sued the city of Norman for providing lesser services (fire/police) to that area. They won. The city had to build additional fire stations and increase police patrols. So yeah, OKC officials should be careful.

How many miles of streetcars could OKC put in to serve existing residents by the time they build sewers, waterlines, streets, traffic signals, fire station, police stations, and street lights out there?

It wasn't really about new revenue. The city is extending some heavy duty infrastructure out that way and only had half of Portland Road and needed to annex the rest, all the owners were agreeable, so they just went ahead and annexed the whole square mile I believe. They are planning to get more homes up that way.

This annexation has to do with the 2007 G.O. Bond.
We voted to widen or repair the road in the ballot language and found out the section of road wasn't in the city's limits.

This annexation has to do with the 2007 G.O. Bond.
We voted to widen or repair the road in the ballot language and found out the section of road wasn't in the city's limits.

That's some genius work from city hall right there.

This annexation has to do with the 2007 G.O. Bond.
We voted to widen or repair the road in the ballot language and found out the section of road wasn't in the city's limits.

Excellent!

They need to be de-annexing. City budget is already stretched thin now they want to provide services to even more open space? Maybe OKC should just cut to the chase and merge with the State of Oklahoma.

Kerry, I believe you and I have had this discussion several times in the past with me obviously taking the opposite view. Shall we start again? LOL

This annexation has to do with the 2007 G.O. Bond.
We voted to widen or repair the road in the ballot language and found out the section of road wasn't in the city's limits.

So acknowledging the error in the ballot request and not going forward with the project wasn't a viable option? Not grumping, just asking.

As an aside, does the State of OK allow cities to set up fencelines? This may be a better alternative if the city of OKC is paranoid about other cities grabbing up land before them.

Yes, cities can set up fencelines. In fact, Tulsa and Sapulpa just set up a fenceline agreement a little over a week ago for land just west of Tulsa near the Berryhill and future Gilcrease Expwy (Tulsa World (http://www2.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=327&articleid=20110105_11_0_Offici63902)).

IMHO, a fenceline annexation would be a much wiser move on the part of OKC. Last time I was down there, I noticed large tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped land in OKC and couldn't help wonder if OKC had considered developing or de-annexing some of that land.

What is a fenceline?

Also, anyone know how large of an area was annexed? Or where the specific locations are

I believe they annexed the other half of the road for about a mile or so. It was discussed at the City Council meeting on 1/4. Not a big deal, people.

Yes, cities can set up fencelines. In fact, Tulsa and Sapulpa just set up a fenceline agreement a little over a week ago for land just west of Tulsa near the Berryhill and future Gilcrease Expwy (Tulsa World (http://www2.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=327&articleid=20110105_11_0_Offici63902)).

IMHO, a fenceline annexation would be a much wiser move on the part of OKC. Last time I was down there, I noticed large tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped land in OKC and couldn't help wonder if OKC had considered developing or de-annexing some of that land.
How would the city develop the land and why would they want to deannex?

The simple answer is that if the land is being used or is extremely under-utilized, it is a waste of city resources to maintain and provide services to the area. You just get better bang-for-your buck on infrastructure if you are providing services to higher density areas; higher tax receipts for less infrastructure. I understand cities make speculations for future growth on areas that they would like to develop, but if the area isn't developed by the private sector (through market forces or through incentivization) or the public sector and isn't being used as green space (such as a park or nature reserve) then I would argue that there is no need to continue to spend city resources on it. OKC could just as easily protect its future growth goals by using a fenceline annexation as opposed to fully annexing the land.

One way you could get that land developed would be to provide incentives (TIF, transit oriented development node, etc) to attract developer interest to those large tracts and increase the developed density of the land. Another option is to build any new government offices in that area and attempt to spur development that way by the supporting business that would locate there. Or even public housing.

It's not just on OKC problem. We have large areas of land with the same issue, especially in northeast and far-east Tulsa, where the city went on a land-grab binge. What we were left with was a large swath of under- or un-developed land that we are still having to provide a full range of services to.

I believe they annexed the other half of the road for about a mile or so. It was discussed at the City Council meeting on 1/4. Not a big deal, people.

The problem is the thinking behind it. Actually, this is the worst/best example of it. The City gets a 1/2 mile of road it has to repave with 0 acres of land that can be developed to help off-set the cost to taxpayers later.

@TulsaRobert - we have tried explaining this to certain people a thousand times. They just don't get it. They think OKC gets a ton of future revenue without any expenditures between now and then (whenever 'then' is).

The problem is the thinking behind it. Actually, this is the worst/best example of it. The City gets a 1/2 mile of road it has to repave with 0 acres of land that can be developed to help off-set the cost to taxpayers later.

@TulsaRobert - we have tried explaining this to certain people a thousand times. They just don't get it. They think OKC gets a ton of future revenue without any expenditures between now and then (whenever 'then' is).

Here we go again, Kerry. The reason why we don't get it is because there is nothing to get. Your concepts are just idealism and not valid in the real world.