People often get hung up on OKC's low population density, which is merely a mathematical result of the large rural areas that have been annexed over the years. It tells us nothing about the density of the built environment or the actual "sprawl". The US Census Bureau has just come out with its revised "Urbanized Area" numbers, based on the 2010 Census. These numbers give us the relevant density. Below are OKC's urban population and density along with a number of other cities that are either somewhat similar in size to OKC or are often discussed on this board, arranged in order from highest to lowest density:



Metro Area
Urban Population
Density


Houston
4,944,332
2978.5


DFW
5,121,892
2878.9


Omaha
725,008
2673.3


Austin
1,362,416
2604.8


Kansas City
1,519,417
2241.6


Memhis
1,060,061
2131.6


Oklahoma City
861,505
2098


Louisville
972,546
2040.1


Tulsa
655,479
1951.3


Nashville
969,587
1720.7


Atlanta
4,515,419
1706.9


Birmingham
749,495
1414.4

So we gained 61,506...nice

Oklahoma City's urban area population in 2000 was 747,003 - so we actually gained 114,502 people. Wow!
The actual urban area also increased from 322.4 square miles in 2000 to 410.6 square miles in 2010.

These urbanized area numbers for OKC still dont account for Norman,or they used to be seperate!

Oil Capitol,do you have a link?

These urbanized area numbers for OKC still dont account for Norman,or they used to be seperate!

You are right. I had not noticed that. Norman is listed separately with an additional 103,898 urban population . . . 2315.2/square mile


Oil Capitol,do you have a link?

Go to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists. Then under the heading "Lists of 2010 Census Urban Areas", click on whichever list you want to see.

Interesting data. Shows that the cities are indeed more dense than perceived to be, but also shows that the share of people in the OKC and Tulsa MSAs living in urbanized areas is low compared to the Texas cities--less than 70% for OKC and Tulsa but 80% and higher for Austin, Dallas, and Houston (the highest at 83%).

Kind of shocking just how small Tulsa is--plus it doesn't have any neighboring UAs like OKC does with Norman. On the other hand, DFW and Houston have another 400k+ in UAs adjacent to their primary UA (e.g., the Denton-Lewisville area). Their total UA cluster will probably be 10x the size of Tulsa's by the end of the decade!

I knew I liked Houston more than Dallas.

If only it weren't so hot.

I knew I liked Houston more than Dallas.

If only it weren't so hot.

I also like Houston more than Dallas. Much better city for young people, more things to do and more concentrated inside the loop. Dallas is so sprawled out; if you live in the suburbs and want to go out, you may be driving 20-25 minutes. Restaurants are much better in Houston as well. You also don't have as much of an uppity feel when hanging out in Houston.

However, I disagree that it's hotter in Houston. Much more humid, but temperature is right on par if not lower than Dallas.

I also like Houston more than Dallas. Much better city for young people, more things to do and more concentrated inside the loop. Dallas is so sprawled out; if you live in the suburbs and want to go out, you may be driving 20-25 minutes. Restaurants are much better in Houston as well. You also don't have as much of an uppity feel when hanging out in Houston.

However, I disagree that it's hotter in Houston. Much more humid, but temperature is right on par if not lower than Dallas.

This is very accurate. I LOVE Houston, and I know my other fellow urbanists will call me out for this, but I absolutely think it's a "model city"... IF you have over 5 mil in metro and 30-40% growth each decade. Houston is interesting because it's one of the few places where the "free market" has naturally reversed itself into a more urban pattern, due to the lack of restricting zoning and poor traffic planning that makes commuting from suburbs so undesirable. I wish that there was a way to get urban construction numbers for each city, but I have a feeling that no city has added more urban housing units than Houston.

Too many people judge Houston by its suburbs (which may or may not be part of the city limits, granted) rather than by the actual city portion inside 610. If you regard everything (except the Galleria area) outside of 610 as farmland that you don't need to go see, Houston suddenly becomes like Austin on steroids. Overwhelmingly young population, people flocking for high-paying jobs, large amounts of disposable income, more human diversity than just about anywhere on Earth (even NYC), etc.

That said, I do think Houston is probably one of the worst places to raise a family. And the humidity and smog make the city a pretty far cry from an "outdoors paradise" like Austin or Denver. It just depends on your values, I suppose.

I guess I'll be the dissenting voice. I actually lived in Houston for 2 summers (2005 and 2007) for internships and did not like it at all. In fact I thought it was quite dumpy. And for the record I stayed in the inner loop both times. It was for a myriad of reasons; the traffic, the flooding, the humidity. But the biggest thing that bothered me was the extremely nice inner loop, the extremely nice brand new suburbs on the outskirts, and miles upon miles of decaying suburbia in between (they call it "ring rot") I'll say this though, the place has a ton of potential, and now may have the leadership and political umph to start transforming into a special place. I was just there on a business trip 2 months ago and it looks a bit better than when I was there.

IMO DFW is currently the bigger of the two on a national scale, thanks in large parts to cultural references (JR Ewing, Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones, now GCB). But given the importance of the oil and gas industry, Houston may be the bigger player on the international level. And that could change too given the growing awareness of energy independence in the US against the backdrop of several corporate pillars in DFW (American Airlines, RIM, etc.) biting the dust.

I wonder how many square miles OKC urban area covers (within the city's city limits), and how many people live within it? Wikipedia says 244 sq mi (from 2008), but gives no population number. Would that be the best way to calculate OKC's overall population density?

On other, national forums I've been on, there is a lot of OKC bashing based on the population density numbers. They never respond when you tell them how much rural land was annexed by OKC and that it should be treated as a city/county consolidation when discussing density.

I wonder how many square miles OKC urban area covers (within the city's city limits), and how many people live within it? Wikipedia says 244 sq mi (from 2008), but gives no population number. Would that be the best way to calculate OKC's overall population density?

621.2 Square miles / population 579,999 City of Oklahoma City (http://www.okc.gov/about/index.html)

I think the urban area population is something like 550K. So 550K/244 = 2254 people per square mile; I'd probably agree with that as OKC's true density.

Our population estimates for 2012:

599,199

Link: Oklahoma City (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html)

Population density maps made using Social Explorer (http://socialexplorer.com). Keep in mind, these numbers are from the 2010 Census. I've also attached a few other cities for comparison. If you have a request for another city just let me know!

OKC
http://s9.postimg.org/oa8mxhyu7/pop_density_okc.png

Tulsa
http://s14.postimg.org/xyoio47v5/pop_density_tulsa.png

Memphis
http://s29.postimg.org/hvq3qxdlz/pop_density_memphis.png

Nashville
http://s29.postimg.org/4vecuhr1j/pop_density_nashville.png

Omaha
http://s30.postimg.org/fsamg1xz5/pop_density_omaha.png

New Orleans
http://s29.postimg.org/ah0ryjrqf/pop_density_nola.png

Charlotte
http://s29.postimg.org/ayrc0nrxj/pop_density_charlotte.png

Denver
http://s29.postimg.org/abx0ovkfb/pop_density_denver.png

Kansas City
http://s29.postimg.org/t2yxz1ezr/pop_density_kc.png

Salt Lake City
http://s30.postimg.org/d0rcpfzgh/pop_density_slc.png

Omaha and Salt Lake are denser than you'd think...

Also, we are NOT more dense than Louisville (regarding the earlier chart in this thread). Maybe our suburbs are denser than Louisville's suburbs (quite possible), but the city density is not even close.

Here's Louisville for comparison:
http://s7.postimg.org/7y267v2i3/pop_density_louisville.png

Omaha and Salt Lake are denser than you'd think...

Also, we are NOT more dense than Louisville (regarding the earlier chart in this thread). Maybe our suburbs are denser than Louisville's suburbs (quite possible), but the city density is not even close.

My time was limited, but when I was in downtown Salt Lake City I was pretty unimpressed with the urbanism and vitality of the area. However, I only had a little bit of time before/after the Thunder/Jazz game so maybe I just went to the wrong places around the arena.

Salt Lake isn't a dense urban environment. However, I think having the university in close proximity to downtown helps the density numbers, just as UT does for Austin and tOSU does for Columbus.

Louisville is what OKC could have been if urban renewal didn't happen. It is nearly the exact same size as OKC, but you feel like you are in a much bigger city when you are there because of the dense, historic building stock that has survived. Imagine how cool downtown OKC would be if the original Main St would have survived and it was revitalized as mixed-use. Louisville is definitely a hidden gem in my opinion.

OKC is still recovering from the fact that its urban core nearly completely depopulated to an extent not seen in many other cities. By the time of the 2030 census, if current trends continue, OKC's downtown and surrounding neighborhoods should be dark orange.

With density in those legends topping out at 6000/sq mile the whole metro displayed should just be 2 or 3 shades of green.

OKC population density map by block
http://s8.postimg.org/6t3dq2cat/block_pop_density_okc.png

http://s14.postimg.org/gnhiveybj/block_pop_density_okc_2.png

Map I made using Google Earth. I used Census 2017 5-year population estimates to add up the densest block groups within OKC (2017 5-year estimate for the city is 629,191).

The areas shaded in white contains approximately 531,762 residents (84.5% of total pop.) within 166 sq mi (27.7% of total land area) for a density of 3,204/sq mi.
The remaining 435 sq mi shaded in red contains approximately 97,429 residents for a density of 224/sq mi.

15234

Thats cool thanks for posting!!

I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.

I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.

Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.

I really wish the city could find a way to give away/sell off some of those outskirts to surrounding cities. It seems like a good trade off to lose some OKC residents, while also shedding 400+ square miles of land to provide for and maintain. I would think our tax dollars could go a lot further if we were able to do that.

keep in mind that about half of those 400+ miles are the area for TINKER AFB and the crash runway zone south and Draper (water supply) and the land next to draper that may become a future water source ...

then the land for the okc airport and crash zone south ... and the i40 west strip that has little residents but lots and lots of commercial ..

the other 2-3 hundred miles i absolutly agree with

Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.

I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.

I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.


No I don’t agree with that at all. The city needs to keep its land. If OKC can fill its land with a mix of suburban and urban development, it would boost a very high population one day. Furthermore it can master plan and urban farmland is a great use of land to experiment with. Having lots of land to develop is a great thing. Why would the city get rid of land that could benefit it one day? That is short sighted.

No I don’t agree with that at all. The city needs to keep its land. If OKC can fill its land with a mix of suburban and urban development, it would boost a very high population one day. Furthermore it can master plan and urban farmland is a great use of land to experiment with. Having lots of land to develop is a great thing. Why would the city get rid of land that could benefit it one day? That is short sighted.

Oh I know it is not good for OKC. I am arguing from one who lives in Yukon, for what would be better for Yukon. If I was in OKC I wouldn't want to loose any amount of tax base to a neighboring city.

http://wakefulnessmagicpill.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Okc-Ideal-Oklahoma-City-Map.jpg https://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15234&d=1555036857

The bulk of residents in OKC live in core of our city. We need to keep & maintain the 620 square mile radius for future growth.

I don't think it is crazy. Why should OKC have the land all around Mustang? At least for out west, Yukon, Piedmont, and Mustang should all be share boarders. The land OKC does have out there is not taken care of very well by the city. Plus it is confusing for those residents to say they live in Yukon, and use Yukon roads and schools, but pay taxes and utilities to OKC. I don't really understand how the city came up with these areas where everything is with a different city. I would think we could start with OKC giving up the areas outside of Oklahoma County.

I can agree with small sections where borders are whacko. But he is suggesting getting rid of 2/3rds of OKC lol

Are you serious? I guess you could build a wall lol. So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects. And those outskirts likely pay higher taxes in property with all those houses and gas tax from driving.

Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts. And in time that land will fill in too. I don’t think you realize how many businesses (taxes) are based in those areas. Take a suburban house and imagine all the ripple effect taxes collected by OKC. They have fences and need to replace often enough. The fence builder pays taxes to the business to buy fence. The home owner pays money to the fence company who pays OKC taxes. Yard cutters pay taxes from mowing yards. Weed company pays taxes for all those homes using then. Garage door companies pay taxes for house garage door work. Roofers pay taxes for re-roofing work. Then all the eating and shopping places pay taxes plus customers.

Keep in mind a lot of house/yard related business is not needed for condo’s and apartments in relation to houses.

This is just crazy and I hope you were joking.

Huh? The outskirts absolutely do not pay more or higher property taxes than the more urban areas. The denser it is the more property taxes paid. Besides, the city doesnt benefit much at all from property taxes, the county does.

The ripple effects of these taxes you talk about dont bring into consideration where the materials are actually bought. The fence material could be bought at the Mustang Lowes. And yard cutters and weed companies are paying no sales taxes since its a service. All the eating and shopping isnt happening in places that have no eating and shopping options. Sure, commercial development usually follows the rooftops but the city doesnt gain much from a smattering of homes on acreages, just a little from water, trash, sewer. The only hope is commercial development comes at some point in the future. In the meantime it costs money for road upkeep and expansion, utility extensions, police and fire.

So if you got your way you do realize downtown would not have enough money to pay for all those projects.

The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.


Just remember the cost per square mile of upkeep is also cheaper in those outskirts.

Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.

I can agree with small sections where borders are whacko. But he is suggesting getting rid of 2/3rds of OKC lol

I should have phrased that better. I didn’t mean all 400 square miles. But shedding areas around Mustang and Yukon, and some of the excess in the NE corner really wouldn’t hurt tax revenue streams, and it wouldn’t affect future growth much either. OKC is already a massive city in terms of land area. We are not going to run out of space, even if you get rid of 100 square miles in strategic areas.

I only mentioned that because every time I read up on why OKC has poor transit, poor road conditions etc., one of the main reasons given is always “because OKC is spread too thin”. Many people always make the argument that our roads in the core suffer because we are forced to also maintain 100s of square miles where effectively nobody drives comparatively. How come our buses don’t serve the whole city? “Because we have too much area to cover”. We end up having to spend money on police, fire, radio, transit, and many more services in areas that are extremely rural currently. Sure in 50-100 years those areas may very well be suburban and bring in businesses and revenue. They could also remain undeveloped and sparse. We have no idea how some of the outskirts will play out. They could developer into residential areas that feed people into Mustang or Yukon where they will spend all their money instead of in OKC.

I’m all for holding on to MOST of what we have, but looking at future growth, cost to maintain and serve the area, and ability to increase revenue, there seems to be some areas where the city can shed some of these excess land and better serve its community with services.

The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.


Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.


Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.

Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.

You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.

The core would have more money because OKC would not have to subsidize these far flung areas.



Cost per square mile is incredibly more expensive in the outskirts because there are far less people to pay for the same area. Its just basic math.
What about the areas where people actually live? Because if you are referring to those areas, those are the suburbs, not the core. Though more people in dense areas, the case could be made it is still cheaper to build with less people in the same area when you have projects like the Big Dig or 2nd Ave. subway extension which costs billions per mile vs. millions per mile in suburbs.

You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.

But my main point is you would shrink your tax base no matter how a person wants to spin it. Streetcar would still have less payers so each person in downtown area he proposes keeping would either have less projects or pay more taxes. Business would pay more taxes.

The new “cities” would not be paying for mega projects only their own lesser city projects.

Those mega projects only work on the bigger scale. And besides Streetcar I like all of them for the community. If you break up OKC your tax base goes down there is no other way to spin it. Those businesses would be paying tax in the new city not OKC.

As for the general topic unless each city in these fringe areas (where borders are whacko) agree to swap land it will never happen. No city gives up land unless they get land. Its all taxable.

You are mixing sales tax with property taxes to justify your point here. Those people who live out in the areas that OKC would lose, probably would still drive to OKC limits for their jobs and to shop. The streetcar was funded by more than just OKC residents.


No, both are applicable here

Not true. Outskirts don’t have streetcar and arena and on and on and on. If not for those massive costing projects they would be fine cost wise. More OKC tax money is channeled downtown than out of downtown. Not saying good or bad it just is.

For example, streetcar would only have tax money from a smaller area so it would have cost those less people more per person to build the same route.

this is absolutly not true the core funds the entire city

this is absolutly not true the core funds the entire cityHow does that work? If you’re going to try and use the argument that most employers are located there(which I don’t how true that is as I haven’t looked at the facts around that) then it should be noted that what you are insinuating is a two way street and they couldn’t operate without the people which live in the areas outside of the core.

That said, many of the metros largest employers like Tinker and Education are outside of the core. Most OKC schools are outside of the core. I am really interested to know your logic in the core funds the entire city unless you’re being sarcastic. The only other thing I could think of city halls which collects and allocate city funds being located in the core, but then again, see my earlier argument.

How does that work? If you’re going to try and use the argument that most employers are located there(which I don’t how true that is as I haven’t looked at the facts around that) then it should be noted that what you are insinuating is a two way street and they couldn’t operate without the people which live in the areas outside of the core.

That said, many of the metros largest employers like Tinker and Education are outside of the core. Most OKC schools are outside of the core. I am really interested to know your logic in the core funds the entire city unless you’re being sarcastic. The only other thing I could think of city halls which collects and allocate city funds being located in the core, but then again, see my earlier argument.

again i didn't say down town or the CBD sales tax dollars in the core is what funds our city

If you break up OKC your tax base goes down there is no other way to spin it.

Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.


No city gives up land unless they get land. Its all taxable.

this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.

Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.



this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.

Link to all these cities giving away land recently

Yes, Tax base would go down but the amount of land the city has to maintain goes down.

if i can keep 85 percent of my tax base and get rid of of 70 percent of the area i had to service, i'm doing that every time. its a financial winner.



this is not true. CIties who understand economies of scale are already doing this.

So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes. Ripple effect of higher taxes means some companies might skip OKC too. More citizens move out due to higher taxes. In fact NYC is seeing that out migration due to higher taxes. Same for high tax Cali cities and companies.

There is so much more to OKC than just downtown.

So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes. Ripple effect of higher taxes means some companies might skip OKC too. More citizens move out due to higher taxes. In fact NYC is seeing that out migration due to higher taxes. Same for high tax Cali cities and companies.

There is so much more to OKC than just downtown.

ummm... i think you missed his point, as he sure didn't make yours

So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes.

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

Not true.

The cost of services per square mile for those outer areas is les than the cost per square mile of inner city - in relation to taxes.

Even though the tax base is higher in the inner city the cost is even higher in relation.

These numbers are only to provide perspective. So if it costs $100 per square mile of services in outer area the cost per square mile in the inner city would be $2,000. Those are not exact numbers just for talk. But the amount of taxes per that $100 in outer city is higher in relation to taxes in the inner city in relation to $2000 cost. The outer city costs less per square mile but tax rates are the same as inner city. They don’t get a tax break for less cost per square mile.

So the outer city has a higher tax going to inner city in relation to costs for that outer square mile.

This is not to discount image. OKC likely never has the Thunder in a smaller OKC population. Yes, metro TV is used to decide how large audience is but city is as well for image. The perception of OKC would be different if you chopped off 150,000 in population.

Anyways, outer city supports more inner city in relation to costs of each area in services and taxes paid. Another way to look is inner city gets more bang for the buck because of the outer city helping pay an higher share per.

Regardless, it will never happen so is moot. I just hate that over 3/4 of this posting board is so anti outer city and wants all money spent in the inner core and the rest be damned. I like “all” of our city. All 600+ square miles of it.

I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

Except in the real world it doesn’t work that way. Just a small problem with your logic: reality.

Link to all these cities giving away land recently

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.



The cost of services per square mile for those outer areas is les than the cost per square mile of inner city - in relation to taxes.

Even though the tax base is higher in the inner city the cost is even higher in relation.

These numbers are only to provide perspective. So if it costs $100 per square mile of services in outer area the cost per square mile in the inner city would be $2,000. Those are not exact numbers just for talk. But the amount of taxes per that $100 in outer city is higher in relation to taxes in the inner city in relation to $2000 cost. The outer city costs less per square mile but tax rates are the same as inner city. They don’t get a tax break for less cost per square mile.

So the outer city has a higher tax going to inner city in relation to costs for that outer square mile.

Anyways, outer city supports more inner city in relation to costs of each area in services and taxes paid. Another way to look is inner city gets more bang for the buck because of the outer city helping pay an higher share per.


You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.

Someone said "So you made my point. You would have less major projects or higher taxes." then GoGators said...


I would have more major projects AND lower taxes lol.

I thought Okies liked the idea of running govt like business. So lets cut the fat.

GoGators - I'm curious, why do you not quote the username along with their text? You actually have to go out of your way to delete the username, and it makes things confusing, so why do it?

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.



You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.
You are assuming a bit as well. Have you not seen the astronomical costs of building infrastructure in dense urban areas?

With your sort of logic, why should the city invest in poor areas since they don’t pay as much in taxes as the middle class areas do? Why invest in streets there since another area might pay more taxes? The greater good of pooling money in for infrastructure wins. There is a reason we don’t build infrastructure that way.

Look at P180. I bet you it costs less to build a same road in lower density suburb.

Travelers, i use the wrap quotes tag when quoting. I've noticed my quotes do not show the username. I do not intentionally do this. not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Travelers, i use the wrap quotes tag when quoting. I've noticed my quotes do not show the username. I do not intentionally do this. not sure what i'm doing wrong.

Ah, OK, gotcha. I just hit "Reply With Quote" and it puts everything in there, including the username. If I have to quote multiple parts of a post and reply in between like you do, I generally just don't do it 'cos it's too hard to get right and too much manual work has to be done. :) Was just curious since your posts are the only ones like that...

Ah, OK, gotcha. I just hit "Reply With Quote" and it puts everything in there, including the username. If I have to quote multiple parts of a post and reply in between like you do, I generally just don't do it 'cos it's too hard to get right and too much manual work has to be done. :) Was just curious since your posts are the only ones like that...

Haha now I feel dumb. Appreciate the pointer. I will do this from now on as it is confusing the other way.

OKC de-annexed some land west (I think) of Yukon a few years back that Yukon wanted for itself. In another event, a developer wanted to develop land on edge of Mustang but OKC did not de-annex land. There were no OKC utilities coming to it so it made sense for Mustang to try to annex it. OKC said no and for now nothing is happening on it.



You are assuming way too much here and you simply are wrong. The city's revenues vs costs are much rosier in denser areas than in rural/suburb areas.

So 1 example of a very small land swap? I thought there were many cities and lots of land?