View Full Version : Mayor Cornett acknowledged the disadvantages of sprawl.



Pages : [1] 2

okcustu
08-04-2011, 09:38 PM
I was at a political seminar yesterday; the luncheon speaker was Mayor Mick. Whatever your opinion of him, the man can speak (years of broadcast experience). It was refreshing to hear him expand his normal talking points. His usual mantra is that he, as a mayor, has no real control over many issues, so his goal is to create more jobs. At this luncheon he admitted that it takes more than just jobs to make Oklahoma City better. Very interestingly, he did criticize sprawl as a barrier to making OKC a great city. He advocated for density and "giving the inner city a chance to compete". He also said the city needs to ease off it's overreliance on the car. Now he just just has to follow through this. I do have to wonder what the "compete" statement means?

mcca7596
08-04-2011, 09:54 PM
Nice to hear; I figured he would advocate having both options (strong suburbs and inner city). I really hope that some tangible planning changes, that can help mitigate sprawl, come from PlanOKC. Was there a palpable reaction to his comments among the audience?

okcustu
08-04-2011, 10:20 PM
Yeah especially among the students I was sitting with. I want to participate with the PlanOKC process, it sounds like fun actually.

Larry OKC
08-04-2011, 11:12 PM
Don't take this as a slam at all as something a politician says is always news to someone who hasn't heard it before. The Mayor has been saying such things for several years now in his State of the City speeches, comments during Council meetings etc. He is following through (especially with the car issue), he seems committed to it with the transit portion of MAPS 3 as the first step.

OkieDave
08-05-2011, 12:31 AM
He also said: We have a huge sprawling city, the engineers have made the city work well for the car and move traffic around fast but it is unsustainable, and that it is no coincidence we have a 30% obesity rate, we will need to increase density.

Spartan
08-05-2011, 03:37 AM
I was at a political seminar yesterday; the luncheon speaker was Mayor Mick. Whatever your opinion of him, the man can speak (years of broadcast experience). It was refreshing to hear him expand his normal talking points. His usual mantra is that he, as a mayor, has no real control over many issues, so his goal is to create more jobs. At this luncheon he admitted that it takes more than just jobs to make Oklahoma City better. Very interestingly, he did criticize sprawl as a barrier to making OKC a great city. He advocated for density and "giving the inner city a chance to compete". He also said the city needs to ease off it's overreliance on the car. Now he just just has to follow through this. I do have to wonder what the "compete" statement means?

What he means is that you have to level the playing field for the inner city to be able to compete with the suburbs, which have built up so much inertia. Do we ever talk about when a suburban developer builds hundreds of spec homes out in the burbs at once? No, of course not. All of this attention that downtown is getting is kind of like affirmative action in terms of competing for development resources and activity. We want downtown to succeed, usually.

But he has always "talked this big game" on urbanism, or at least once he shifted his focus to downtown.

betts
08-05-2011, 06:29 AM
It would be nice if he could change the weather as well. It's hard to walk anywhere after 9 in the morning or before 2 a.m. when the heat is like this.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 07:25 AM
No, I know what the idea means I just how is he going to do that. The top thing that comes to mind is something that I saw on this board, a sprawl tax included in property tax if a new house is too far from existing infastructure. However I don't see a free market conservative Republican going for that.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 07:28 AM
Don't take this as a slam at all as something a politician says is always news to someone who hasn't heard it before. The Mayor has been saying such things for several years now in his State of the City speeches, comments during Council meetings etc. He is following through (especially with the car issue), he seems committed to it with the transit portion of MAPS 3 as the first step.

None taken, I'd say I'm say I'm above the average citizen in my knowledge of local politics (by no means an expert). I haven't him speak a few times before and never heard him mention sprawl or say it's about more than just jobs, that's all. I will definitely give him point for championing the streetcar.

Edgar
08-05-2011, 08:16 AM
does the Mayor actually have any cred left with anyone?

Just the facts
08-05-2011, 08:52 AM
If you look at past comments from City officials you will see that most city spending is on the fringe - new roads, new water lines, new sewar lines, new fire stations, new police stations. We are spending a lot of money to keep building further out, and what does all that spending accomplish? Nothing, because the developers just keep building further out. Imagine if all the spending on sprawl for the past 20 years was concentrated in the already urbanized part of OKC. It would be so much better. The tax savings alone would be huge.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 08:59 AM
Agreed. I've always said there's something wrong with sidewalks being built at 178th and Penn when the sidewalks are crumbling at 10th and Penn. Also you have to imagine that the heat has really been stretching city crews; I believe I heard an average of half a dozen water main breaks a day?!

Larry OKC
08-05-2011, 09:50 AM
GASP...there are sidewalks at 10th & Penn? (I kid)

For whatever reason, sidewalks weren't a priority but that has changed in the past few years (they are required in new development, which might explain why they in 'sprawl" areas) and they are slowly adding them whenever they widen the streets (in the 2007 general obligation bond issue). Then there is the relatively small $10 million included in MAPS 3 to add more.

Pete
08-05-2011, 10:52 AM
The Mayor knows the evils of sprawl just from his personal experience living in OKC.

I went to high school with him at Putnam City and at that time (late 70's) the PC district was the best in the state and a great source of pride for the City of OKC. This was especially important after many fled the OKC school district after all types of problems in the 60's.

He now lives in Lansbrook and the PC North district which was the better part of the PC district for a while, but has now faded fast just like the rest of the area.

So now, virtually everyone that Mick & I went to high school with lives in far, far north OKC or Edmond and has their kids in the Edmond schools. And of course, the neighborhoods where we grew up are now not so hot (and I'm being very kind here).

Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.

Anyone that went to Northwest Classen in the 60's, Putnam City in the 70's or Putnam North in the 80's can see these trends clear as day and it's very, very depressing.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 11:42 AM
The Mayor knows the evils of sprawl just from his personal experience living in OKC.

I went to high school with him at Putnam City and at that time (late 70's) the PC district was the best in the state and a great source of pride for the City of OKC. This was especially important after many fled the OKC school district after all types of problems in the 60's.

He now lives in Lansbrook and the PC North district which was the better part of the PC district for a while, but has now faded fast just like the rest of the area.

So now, virtually everyone that Mick & I went to high school with lives in far, far north OKC or Edmond and has their kids in the Edmond schools. And of course, the neighborhoods where we grew up are now not so hot (and I'm being very kind here).

Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.

Anyone that went to Northwest Classen in the 60's, Putnam City in the 70's or Putnam North in the 80's can see these trends clear as day and it's very, very depressing.

That's one of the downsides to sprawl that people don't think about. Instead of investing in PCO and PCW new families take the taxes and, almost as important, the interest out of district. Sadly it will probably take problems on the same level of OKCPS before people start to taking interest in the inner ring suburban school districts.

Just the facts
08-05-2011, 11:47 AM
Building a new city five miles away every 20 years gets expensive.

Pete
08-05-2011, 12:02 PM
Instead of investing in PCO and PCW new families take the taxes and, almost as important, the interest out of district.

And now increasingly, outside the city limits. Most the people I knew growing up in Oklahoma City that still live in the area are in Edmond. And Moore, Norman, and Mustang are all growing much faster than the city.

That's even more shocking when you consider OKC is one of the largest cities geographically.

Midtowner
08-05-2011, 12:33 PM
Basically, every generation, the concentric ring of neglect and abandonment moves out another five miles or so -- and we are talking about areas that were once considered the best in town. This is not only horrible for the city itself, but it's clearly not sustainable.


Re: NW OKC, I'm not sure I agree. Even though my NW OKC neighborhood is bounded on the North and South sides by what I can only assume are Section 8 houses, my neighborhood, which contains homes in the $120-$150K range is actually mostly very well kept up (except for the occasional rent house) and full of great folks. The houses, if kept up, have held their value just fine.

Now, whether my neighborhood continues to be nice remains to be seen. A lot of the folks on my street are original occupants and now in their 80s. We'll see who replaces them.

NWOKC, especially the area around Lansbrook has a lot going for it. Lake Hefner is (and should be) a huge draw. We have some great restaurants, plenty of entertainment options, decent shopping nearby, etc. I'm sure the glut of Section 8 housing in the area has been a huge problem, but on the bright side, those properties look like they ought to be condemned (and let's hope they are!).

Just the facts
08-05-2011, 12:54 PM
It is for this very reason we are living in our last subdivision. My wife is tired of have to move every 10 years to stay ahead of the dilapidation wave. I guess the one good thing about the housing collapse is that it stalled urban sprawl for a while (at least in most cities).

Pete
08-05-2011, 01:32 PM
Midtowner, there are pockets of good areas on the NW side but for the most part the over-arching and very strong trend has been downward.

I know several families that specifically moved out of Lansbrook with school-aged kids to go to Edmond.


I keep the database of my high school class (Putnam City 1978) and the huge majority have moved to Edmond. And these were people that had generally a fantastic experience in the Putnam City Schools. Most will tell you they don't want their kids in those schools any more -- any of them.

Whether things have actually gotten a lot worse is opinion but that perception is driving lots of behavior.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 05:23 PM
The percieved "ghetto-ness" or poor quality of PC, Mid-Del, and similar school districtsis very overstated. If you're a good parent and your kids are in advanced classes and extra-curricular activities they will excel just as much as someone in Deer Creek or Norman. Problems, such as drugs and poor teaching can and do happen at schools in all districts (I know parents who decry the state of Sante Fe and left for the greener pastures in Deer Creek).
And funding issues are only exacerbated by flight, and an inability to organize support for bond issues. The cure for these districts are people like Just The Facts who dig in and say I'm going to make an active effort to make the school district better.

Pete
08-05-2011, 05:48 PM
I know parents who decry the state of Sante Fe and left for the greener pastures in Deer Creek

Yep, just a matter of time before people went even further out for the same reasons they've been doing it for decades. And the way the city is developed and managed not only allows it, it encourages it. We continue to build roads, highways and other infrastructure out in the middle of nowhere and it's not long before subdivisions, fast food and Wal-Marts start springing up.


And I agree with what you say about the poor conditions in those schools being exaggerated. I have nephews and nieces that are still in the PC schools. However, there is the perception that things are much worse and it drives the sprawl, which is absolute reality.

okcustu
08-05-2011, 06:42 PM
Oh like the Turnpike to no where? I still don't understand how it helps. It's on the periphery of the city with means you still have to take 74 (murder) or 77/235 (bloody murder) to go anywhere.

Spartan
08-06-2011, 02:36 PM
No, I know what the idea means I just how is he going to do that. The top thing that comes to mind is something that I saw on this board, a sprawl tax included in property tax if a new house is too far from existing infastructure. However I don't see a free market conservative Republican going for that.

You can simply introduce the tax in the form of... not putting in the infrastructure. Live far out, okay, don't expect A+ city services or infrastructure. That's the problem we have here.

Spartan
08-06-2011, 02:38 PM
GASP...there are sidewalks at 10th & Penn? (I kid)

It would be shocking, I know. I see people nearly get run over on the side of the road every day on the south side.

Just the facts
08-06-2011, 04:19 PM
You can simply introduce the tax in the form of... not putting in the infrastructure. Live far out, okay, don't expect A+ city services or infrastructure. That's the problem we have here.

That's right. If you want to live out near Mustang no problem. Get a well, septic tank, haul off your own trash, and wait 20 minutes for a fire truck. Don't expect a paved road to your front door either.

rcjunkie
08-06-2011, 04:27 PM
It would be shocking, I know. I see people nearly get run over on the side of the road every day on the south side.

Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

SoonerDave
08-06-2011, 04:30 PM
That's right. If you want to live out near Mustang no problem. Get a well, septic tank, haul off your own trash, and wait 20 minutes for a fire truck. Don't expect a paved road to your front door either.

That's part of the consequence of the city having annexed so much land waaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's when it was thought to be such a good idea, because no one lived out there. In retrospect, little ol' Moore turned out to be a bit of a visionary in that they fought the effort to be annexed, and won, maintaining their own identity as a city and their own school system......

leprechaun
08-06-2011, 05:21 PM
If the average OKC citizen actually realized the direct and indirect damage caused by sprawl, I think the issue would be at the forefront. The car culture is too deeply ingrained in the conscience of OKC citizens, and without any rules or regulations the sprawl will continue until we run out of land (probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes). I wish people were better educated on this issue, because we are screwing over future generations with our lack of vision. As mentioned previously, a thriving new subdvision inevitably begins to crumble into a ghetto twenty years later. With the evidence right in front of us, what are we waiting for? A sprawl tax just seems like common sense.

Questor
08-06-2011, 05:30 PM
Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

When I moved to Norman I noticed I have started seeing many more disabled folks / people with physical challenges out and about here. It donned on me recently why that is the case... we simply have better sidewalks and better mass transit because of the university. Putting myself in someone else's shoes, I imagine if I were in a wheelchair that not having a sidewalk might be an incredible impediment. Not having good sidewalks isn't just an inconvenience, it can really be a quality of life issue for some.

leprechaun
08-06-2011, 05:36 PM
When deciding on where to build sidewalks, we need not look further than the miles of dirt trails seen in various parts of the city by the side of the road.

Questor
08-06-2011, 05:38 PM
I think the two big drivers of sprawl in the city are 1. realtors and home builders would rather sell giant new home developments on the outskirts than a house here and there in the city, and 2. people buying houses would rather have a nice, new-looking house (whether or not it is actually new) and right now it is far cheaper / there is far more bang for the buck in going out to the boonies than there is in buying something in the city core.

#1 is just business right, but probably the scales are tipped in their favor because of strong lobbying and because we have or have had home builders on the council. #2 is largely a feature of our wide-open geography, but I totally agree with Spartan if you want to effect that then quit giving away city services to new developments or subsidizing them in any way (sewer, water, streets, etc.). Realistically that is the only option anyway, a tax on suburban building would just not happen here (and why "punish" someone when you can simply eliminate freebies).

leprechaun
08-06-2011, 05:54 PM
I think the two big drivers of sprawl in the city are 1. realtors and home builders would rather sell giant new home developments on the outskirts than a house here and there in the city, and 2. people buying houses would rather have a nice, new-looking house (whether or not it is actually new) and right now it is far cheaper / there is far more bang for the buck in going out to the boonies than there is in buying something in the city core.

#1 is just business right, but probably the scales are tipped in their favor because of strong lobbying and because we have or have had home builders on the council. #2 is largely a feature of our wide-open geography, but I totally agree with Spartan if you want to effect that then quit giving away city services to new developments or subsidizing them in any way (sewer, water, streets, etc.). Realistically that is the only option anyway, a tax on suburban building would just not happen here (and why "punish" someone when you can simply eliminate freebies).

Exactly. Not only is sprawl encouraged, it is delivered to developers on a silver platter. Unless our policies change, sprawl will continue until it is not economically feasible for developers. One possibility as that if enough cities catch on to the standards set by cities like Portland Oregon, OKC will learn from them. We don't seem to learn from our own mistakes, but if we see enough positive effects of anti-sprawl standards in other cities we will be forced to take notice. One of the things that OKC has done well in recent years has been implementing ideas that have worked in other cities.

ljbab728
08-06-2011, 11:21 PM
That's part of the consequence of the city having annexed so much land waaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's when it was thought to be such a good idea, because no one lived out there. In retrospect, little ol' Moore turned out to be a bit of a visionary in that they fought the effort to be annexed, and won, maintaining their own identity as a city and their own school system......

I've had this argument several times with Just the facts (Kerry). While I'm totally in favor of urban development and infill, if OKC had not done the annexation many years ago nothing would be different. It just means that the suburbs would have all of that land in their city limits and it would be developed exactly the same way with the suburbs getting taxes from developments there instead of OKC. Nearby examples are Tulsa and Dallas. I know the suburbs would also be paying for infrastructure but that wouldn't change the reality of how it would have developed.

mcca7596
08-06-2011, 11:52 PM
Where do we draw the line? What is a reasonable area to stay within and say, "No infrastructure will be paid for if X development company builds past this boundary"? I know the I-240, I-35, and I-44 loop is talked about most often as being the "core". Furthermore, do we confine it to just trying to keep development itself within the urban core or is it feasible to actually try and dictate density based on radial distance from downtown? There are design and historical review districts (mostly around downtown), but I think it would be nice if we extended the reach of these. The biggest thing that jumps to my mind is to shorten the required setbacks for residential and most commercial buildings, perhaps even set a maximum distance for setbacks within a certain area. Of course, I understand there are instances where utility ROW would make this tricky. Just my personal wish to minimize the visual disadvantages of sprawl more than anything.

Larry OKC
08-07-2011, 12:18 AM
I've had this argument several times with Just the facts (Kerry). While I'm totally in favor of urban development and infill, if OKC had not done the annexation many years ago nothing would be different. It just means that the suburbs would have all of that land in their city limits and it would be developed exactly the same way with the suburbs getting taxes from developments there instead of OKC. Nearby examples are Tulsa and Dallas. I know the suburbs would also be paying for infrastructure but that wouldn't change the reality of how it would have developed.
But isn't that Kerry's whole point, who ends up paying for it and is it sustainable?

ljbab728
08-07-2011, 12:54 AM
But isn't that Kerry's whole point, who ends up paying for it and is it sustainable?

Yes that is Kerry's point but it still doesn't change anything about how the land would have been developed. The development would be the same if OKC had not annexed the land. He lives in an ideal world which doesn't and won't exist.

OKCJosh
08-07-2011, 05:47 AM
I had the chance to interview him one on one in 2006 for a public transportation research project while I was in graduate school. We agreed that the interview recordings would not be broadcast because it was for research purposes only which was unfortunate because he was able to step outside of the normal political guard he has to measure his responses with. I was very impressed with him, not because of his public speaking ability but for his absolute commitment to what is logical and best for OKC regardless of politics. My favorite part about the half hour or so that I got to spend with him was how much he taught me about politics.
He essentially said to me, and this is not a quote but a paraphrase: When the people of OKC want a lightrail system, they will get one. When the people of any community want something and are willing to be taxed to buy it, they usually get it. Right now, while some in OKC think a lightrail system would be really beneficial, theres just too many people who live too far away and would have little use for it and don't want tax increases to boot.
I found that to be totally refreshing, logical and completely absent of politics. Plain factual truth about how the political process works in a community; our community. I have been a fan of him every since then. A few years later, when MAPS 3 was passed I was very pleased. He did indicate to me in not so many words that he thought a mass transit for OKC would be beneficial but it was not up to him to decide what the people of OKC would pay for, it was up to them. I like him and I wish he would become a Senator.

soonerguru
08-07-2011, 11:50 AM
Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

Didn't you used to be a city employee? If so, I'm glad you're a retired city employee, as apparently this was the level of thinking going on in city government for the last 40 years.

Larry OKC
08-07-2011, 01:35 PM
When deciding on where to build sidewalks, we need not look further than the miles of dirt trails seen in various parts of the city by the side of the road.
Ding...ding...ding We have a winner!
Absolutely logical to build the path where it already exists (while following proper safety guidelines)


...He essentially said to me, and this is not a quote but a paraphrase: When the people of OKC want a lightrail system, they will get one. When the people of any community want something and are willing to be taxed to buy it, they usually get it. Right now, while some in OKC think a lightrail system would be really beneficial, theres just too many people who live too far away and would have little use for it and don't want tax increases to boot.
I found that to be totally refreshing, logical and completely absent of politics. Plain factual truth about how the political process works in a community; our community. I have been a fan of him every since then. A few years later, when MAPS 3 was passed I was very pleased. He did indicate to me in not so many words that he thought a mass transit for OKC would be beneficial but it was not up to him to decide what the people of OKC would pay for, it was up to them. I like him and I wish he would become a Senator.
Interesting observations. You do realize that what he was saying there isn't reflected with the reality?

He often spoke on the record of the comprehensive mass transit and strongly suggested that would be what we were going to be getting in MAPS 3.

The people have indicated they already want a light rail system and were willing to be taxed on it. This was evidenced by the City's MAPS 3 Survey site indicated that there was strong public support for a Mass transit solution (Light Rail, Streetcars, Commuter Rail, improved Bus System). Keep in mind that Survey was done without a list of items to choose from. It was a blank slate for suggestions. We don't know how those different components broke down in support as they were all lumped together in the Survey (again leading to the presumption that all of them would be addressed in MAPS 3 and not a single component). Not to suggest that the Streetcars aren't a logical place to start but it isn't what we was indicated was to come. He is correct that voters will probably approve it if given the opportunity to do so. However, the voters were not even given that opportunity.

The Mayor and Council collectively decided what would be put before the voters. We weren't given a list of projects (separate propositions) where those that passed got built. We were given an illegal all-or-nothing ballot that didn't include the very things the people already said they wanted and were willing to support. They included a piece here and there and something that the people said they didn't want at all.

I just wish he had followed through with what he said. That has been disappointing. I used to be a fan of Cornett (when he was a Councilman & voted for him twice for Mayor). But shortly after he won relection to a full term, he announced that he really wanted to be a Congressman. Instead of doing the right thing and resigning as Mayor (as Humphreys did before him when he decided to run for the Senate, he kept his day job. That was the turning point for me and after a string of disappointments, I would be hard pressed to ever vote for him again in any capacity.

soonerguru
08-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Ed Shadid just posted this on his wall. It's an invitation to a public event at OCU addressing the problems and costs of sprawl in OKC, which will be attended and led by important city leadership. It's about time we had this discussion! We OKCTalkers should make our presence felt.


https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=260628310616128

Spartan
08-07-2011, 09:17 PM
September 6. It will be a very huge event.


Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.

Are you seriously defending our NO SIDEWALKS? You are reactionary toward anything.

Snowman
08-07-2011, 09:50 PM
September 6. It will be a very huge event.


Just because an area doesn't have sidewalks, State or City Law doesn't require that you walk in the street. Most shoes/boots are compatible with walking in and or, on grass/dirt.


Are you seriously defending our NO SIDEWALKS? You are reactionary toward anything.

They do not seem to be supporting not having sidewalks built, but having an issue with one way people are dealing with the lack of proper sidewalks.

bombermwc
08-08-2011, 07:41 AM
I don't think he is saying "no sidewalks", but rather just because there isn't one, doesn't mean you have to walk in the street.

As others have said, sprawl would have happened regardless of which city owned the land. What the sprawl has done (and is probably why it was done in the first place) is given OKC a chance to keep a diverisifed tax base for the next century at least. Rather than being confied to a suburb sized boundary, there is the opportunity to keep expanding the tax base. Flawed or not (i'm not really taking a side), it has kept OKC from already being an urban hell. The core of the city would have been the entire city. Maps wouldn't have happened because the confined tax borders and the income levels within (thus meaning fewer retail locations to collect from) would NEVER have been able to provide the sales taxes to fund any of the measures. So OKC would have ended up in the true urban world...which i don't think we really are considering what sort of state it would be in right now.

Think about this for a minute...so we all hate sprawl huh. Think about all of the corporations that would be oustide the boundaries if we went back to the old city lines...basically any large company you mention would NOT be in OKC anymore. Hertz, Hobby Lobby, anything on Memorial or the NW Exway, etc. You can't honestly say that one sector just isn't going to ever produce because you don't know. Would anyone have guessed in 1940 that the NW side would look like it does today? Who's to say that the SE sector won't produce as the population there increases (with better income levels every day)?

Just the facts
08-08-2011, 08:19 AM
Bomber - you are assuming other towns around OKC would swoop in and take the land. My guess is that they wouldn't. The sprawl is a net money loser for OKC to the tune of $18 million per year according to recent new stories. What other towns around OKC want to sign to lose $18 million? My guess is none.

...and no one is suggesting going back to the City limits of 1950. We are saying reduce them to the current urbanized area. Companies aren't going to locate out in the SE sector if they can't get water, paved roads, and fire protection. They will have to locate where there is already water, paved roads, and fire protection. We are underutilizing the resources already in place and at the same time creating even more underutilized infrastructure.

Go from this.. (dark green) to this.. (bright green)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKCCityLimit.gif

okcustu
08-08-2011, 09:41 AM
Bomber - you are assuming other towns around OKC would swoop in and take the land. My guess is that they wouldn't. The sprawl is a net money loser for OKC to the tune of $18 million per year according to recent new stories. What other towns around OKC want to sign to lose $18 million? My guess is none.

...and no one is suggesting going back to the City limits of 1950. We are saying reduce them to the current urbanized area. Companies aren't going to locate out in the SE sector if they can't get water, paved roads, and fire protection. They will have to locate where there is already water, paved roads, and fire protection. We are underutilizing the resources already in place and at the same time creating even more underutilized infrastructure.

Go from this.. (dark green) to this.. (bright green)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKCCityLimit.gif

I completely agree. I think a lot of us are talking about the extreme sprawl: the area around Mustang and Yukon, far NE OKC, south of 240, and west of the Kirkpatrick in NWOKC. It would be fine if suburbs took this area. We are not going to be able to convince everyone sprawl is bad. Suburban cowboys will always exist, I'd just rather not pay for their lifestyle and delay services from those of us who live closer in (there's been a gaping hole in my street for 6 weeks now). On the other hand if Mustang wants to grow, we should let it; one of the last things we want is to kill affordable housing in the metro.

BDK
08-08-2011, 09:57 AM
The de-annexation of undeveloped areas is probably a good idea, I doubt a change in the property tax scheme to cover the sprawl would gain much traction.

Just the facts
08-08-2011, 11:19 AM
... I doubt a change in the property tax scheme to cover the sprawl would gain much traction.

Not only that but it doesn't work either. Lots of states, counties, and cities have tried 'impact fees' and other measures - none of them worked. In fact,a lot of cities ended up encouraging the sprawl just so they could fund their local government with the impact fees.

okcustu
08-08-2011, 12:01 PM
Not only that but it doesn't work either. Lots of states, counties, and cities have tried 'impact fees' and other measures - none of them worked. In fact,a lot of cities ended up encouraging the sprawl just so they could fund their local government with the impact fees.

Touche, I didn't even think of that.

Just the facts
08-08-2011, 12:31 PM
Touche, I didn't even think of that.

Don't worry, a lot of other people didn't think of it either. A good rule of thumb is, don't try to make money off of what you want to get rid of. Once you start making money off of it you find ways to spend the money, and if you make enough money you become dependent on it. In Florida, Arizona, and other places the impact fees accelerated the sprawl because people traded distance for cost. If impact fees went up $5,000 then builders found land further away that cost $5,000 less per lot. Then the states spent billions building new freeways, state roads, etc. to get these people back into town for work.

Want to shut down a website - launch a denial of service attack. Want to shut down sprawl - launch a denial of service attack. This can be done by de-annexing the land and letting market forces take over or artificially by creating no-growth zones. The no-growth zones don't seem to work well either. Just simply de-annexing the land seems to be the best way. If Norman, Yukon, or Edmond think the path to prosperity is by providing city service to rural populations let them try it.

Larry OKC
08-08-2011, 01:36 PM
Don't know what the process is of annexing and deannexing. I would imagine that it would require the approval of those living in effected areas (or is it affected). Unless an area is highly upset with the services they understandably see paying for and not getting or getting poorly, seems unlikely they would approve being deannexed.

bluedogok
08-08-2011, 04:08 PM
They would probably never give up the land around Draper Lake. That is important watershed for the city.

OKCJosh
08-08-2011, 05:47 PM
Cities like Portland, Oregon have a different circumstance when it comes to urban sprawl. Mainly, an ocean on one side, and mountains on the other. Prairie land for less than 1000 an acre is much more feasible. All that said, sprawl has to be contained.

Just the facts
08-09-2011, 07:56 AM
They would probably never give up the land around Draper Lake. That is important watershed for the city.

They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.

okcustu
08-09-2011, 11:51 AM
They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.

Right, or it can be marked a "no new build zone". However most of the east growth is contained in MWC, Choctaw, jarrah, or happening by Frontier City and the Turner.

Just the facts
08-09-2011, 12:27 PM
The problem with keep the land around Lake Draper is that the people already living out there are going to demand city services and the City has to maintain infrastructure already out there. Just deannex it and turn everything over to the county. If the City wants to maintain ownership of the lake then that is fine.

bluedogok
08-09-2011, 07:51 PM
They can protect the water supply without the land around it being inside the city limits. Lots of cities get their drinking water from outside their city limits, in fact, most do.
I know that can be the case, I just don't think the city leaders would go for it.

Just the facts
08-09-2011, 08:52 PM
I know that can be the case, I just don't think the city leaders would go for it.

You might be surprised what city leaders would go for. Losing $18 million a year on sprawl can get someone’s attention - especially when the conventional wisdom was for the sprawl to not only pay for itself, but provide a positive cash flow like many people thought it would. Some of the city's most influential leaders are now heavily invested in downtown and I am sure they have an opinion about development taking place 20 miles away that is diverting tax funds that could be used more effectively close to the center of the city.

bluedogok
08-09-2011, 09:08 PM
I think de-annexing the lake would be a hard thing politically, most of the population probably wouldn't understand they can still retain all their rights to it but not "own it". Although I also foresee many possible court rulings and legislation regarding water rights in future years which could change the legal rights greatly.

ljbab728
08-09-2011, 09:32 PM
It may be fun and interesting to discuss deannexation but it simply an exercise in discussion. It's not going to happen which is a good thing in my opinion. Some here are only thinking about what might happen in the next 10 to 20 years instead of the next 200 years.