Hello,

I am conducting research for a professor of mine who is writing a paper that involves OKC Plan 2000-2020 and PlanOKC. I've been unable to find any helpful articles online regarding the perception of the passing of these two plans. I was hoping anyone would be willing to offer any insight to what they remember about any points of contention at the time 2000-2020 was in the works. Even anecdotal evidence concerning a homeowners group or developer who was unhappy or unwilling to make a concession would be extremely helpful and well received.

Additionally, it is obviously not 2020 yet and OKC Plan was relatively new by national standards, so other than the population influx, if anyone could offer me any insight as to why the city decided to begin working on a new plan only around a decade in (not that it's a bad thing). Some helpful information may be which groups most strongly support the new plan or are most looking forward to its implementation because they stand to gain the most. Also, on the other hand, which groups fear they will lose the most.

Like I said, any information at all would be very much appreciated.

Thank you,
Jared

Jared, I don't have any inside information but I would suspect that the reason a new plan is being worked on is because of the dramatic changes which have taken place in OKC since 2000.

I would recommend that you call the source, the OKC Planning Department.

Jared - most of us on here feel that the Planning Department rubberstamps developments and does not do enough to raise the bar and get higher quality development downtown, curb sprawl, promote quality of life, etc. Most of us wish the planning department could be more proactive on those issues, and I think they wish they could be as well.

What will probably happen with any city plan is that suburban home builders will intervene at the latest possible moment and make demands to water it down and let them keep building huge subdivisions that we don't need at the expense of the inner city. Thing is, no citizens are paying attention to the plan. I'm not even paying attention to the plan, despite that I follow everything this city does very closely, because I know I can't make an ounce of difference on that.

The planning department has likely already made up their mind on how much they're willing to fight for better city planning, and the home builders will have the final say anyway. So what's the point?

Jared - most of us on here feel that the Planning Department rubberstamps developments and does not do enough to raise the bar and get higher quality development downtown, curb sprawl, promote quality of life, etc. Most of us wish the planning department could be more proactive on those issues, and I think they wish they could be as well.

What will probably happen with any city plan is that suburban home builders will intervene at the latest possible moment and make demands to water it down and let them keep building huge subdivisions that we don't need at the expense of the inner city. Thing is, no citizens are paying attention to the plan. I'm not even paying attention to the plan, despite that I follow everything this city does very closely, because I know I can't make an ounce of difference on that.

The planning department has likely already made up their mind on how much they're willing to fight for better city planning, and the home builders will have the final say anyway. So what's the point?

You really haven't ever spent time with the current City planners, have you Nick?

Jared, I don't think people have understood your comment. If you want a history of how the 2000-2020 plan was derailed, talk to Bob Bright and Nick Gales, two current Planning Commissioners. The 2000-2020 plan recommended by Planning Commission was much more strict than what City Council approved. The Planning Dept. and Planning Commission were trying to be proactive, but the home builders intervened between Planning Commission and City Council, and the plan changed dramatically. Items were dropped, definitions disappeared, etc.

You really haven't ever spent time with the current City planners, have you Nick?

Jared, I don't think people have understood your comment. If you want a history of how the 2000-2020 plan was derailed, talk to Bob Bright and Nick Gales, two current Planning Commissioners. The 2000-2020 plan recommended by Planning Commission was much more strict than what City Council approved. The Planning Dept. and Planning Commission were trying to be proactive, but the home builders intervened between Planning Commission and City Council, and the plan changed dramatically. Items were dropped, definitions disappeared, etc.

100% agree ... the current planning commission and City planning dept are not one of the "problems" causing okc sprawl

You really haven't ever spent time with the current City planners, have you

I'm good.

I'm good.

You have no credibility criticizing the current staff when you choose not to meet them and understand who they are, what they actually do, etc.

*Warning - this is probably a longer post than I should justify your pop off with.

Perhaps you guys should put up a form on okc.gov to gain the blessing of Planning in order to comment on planning in OKC. I actually think you guys' mission is too important to be represented on here pouting because someone commented on planning without your blessing.

I consider it pretty arrogant, not just to require your blessing on these issues (streetcar for example did not get Planning's blessing, and we've all seen how you guys don't go to bat for transit), but also to make this a personal issue. I keep my arguments impersonal, and issue-based, and while I'm never surprised when others rarely resist the temptation of resorting to personal attacks, I would normally expect a little more professional integrity from the actual planners. I know in my career I will never get personal with people or issues I disagree with.

By the way, just to illustrate how you seem to have a vendetta against me, here's the comment I made (regarding Planning) in this thread which you claim I lack the credibility to make:


Jared - most of us on here feel that the Planning Department rubberstamps developments and does not do enough to raise the bar (1) and get higher quality development downtown, curb sprawl, promote quality of life, etc. Most of us wish the planning department could be more proactive on those issues, and I think they wish they could be as well. (2)

What will probably happen with any city plan is that suburban home builders will intervene at the latest possible moment and make demands (3) to water it down and let them keep building huge subdivisions that we don't need at the expense of the inner city. Thing is, no citizens are paying attention to the plan. I'm not even paying attention to the plan, despite that I follow everything this city does very closely, because I know I can't make an ounce of difference on that.

The planning department has likely already made up their mind on how much they're willing to fight for better city planning, and the home builders will have the final say anyway. (4) So what's the point?

I went ahead and enumerated my separate points. 1 and 4 are definitely the harshest toward Planning, but even 1 is followed by point #2 which is the important distinction that Planning staff want to engage in more proactive planning that is currently tough politics. 3 speaks to the good guys/bad guys nature of the two sides hashing out the plan (to borrow completely jejune labels). 4 is probably harsh towards Planning, but very realistic towards the bigger picture.

If I was wrong about anything, feel free to correct me. Perhaps Planning is not inhibited and is empowered to do anything they want with OKC, which would be major news to me, and frankly much more indicting toward Planning. Perhaps the homebuilders will not stand in the way this time. I could have been wrong with other assessments as well. But to make it personal, particularly after a succession of popping off in other threads, suggests that you care less with what I said and more with trying to harm my credibility on the whole and get me out of the picture.

I'm also concerned about this notion of needing credibility in order to say anything. This is an Internet board. I don't know which planner you are, but I have an idea. You seem to know precisely who I am, so this isn't exactly a fair exchange. Furthermore, I post here as a citizen activist, not a planning expert - argue standards of credibility as you will. If you need established credibility to say something, then that's a bigger problem.

As for having credibility, at what point does engaging (and even initiating as you've done here) in online bickering begin to damage your credibility? I would consider that a bigger threat to OKC's planning than hits to my credibility, because you're the professional OKC is depending on for community planning, not me.

Spartan, as an educated planner, I feel it is entirely fair to criticize an architecture student who professes to have superior knowledge of planning principles and theory. Furthermore, I am no longer under the employ of The City of Oklahoma City, so what I says does not undermine what the planners at the City are doing. Russell will fully let you say your piece, no need for his approval either.

Your criticisms are misplaced because what you see the Planning Commission and then City Council approving is not always what the Planning staff desires to see happen in the City.

For instance, before I left the City, I wrote a pretty detailed ordinance that would require buildings along the canal and essentially eliminate any new surface parking in Bricktown. However, due to the political crying of one of the new property owners, that ordinance is STILL under review and hasn't even made it to Planning Commission and City Council. Steve can attest to the ridiculousness of that. He was at the last meeting and is entirely dumbfounded by it.

If you want to lay blame for recent zoning and development decisions, lay it at the feet of the Mayor for appointing who he has and at the City Council for ratifying his appointees. Furthermore, lay blame on the engineers who now run the day-to-day operations (Mr. Couch, Mr. Clowers, Mr. Wenger., etc). The Planning Dept. is well-educated and eager to make the City better, but can only do as much as the higher-ups allow.

I question where you get some of you information as well. For instance, you said "we've all seen how you guys don't go to bat for transit". Where are you getting that information, and what do you mean? Planning's Transportation Planner is full-on for transit, and is much more an advocate (and more educated) than COTPA's own planner.

It sounds like you saw some light criticism I may have had for planning and you're going berserk. You don't have to be aware of my rhetorical record because I'm not a civic official nor am I running for office any time soon (or ever), but it does seem a little insulting to suggest instead that I go after the higher levels, the engineers, and COTPA.

Congrats for no longer being under the employ of City Hall, but I would simultaneously suggest not pursuing a rift with everyone in favor of planning or even just myself. I also think it looks fairly prima donna to assert your education, which is a tactic I never use. First of all, here you are an internet screen name and little more, and second of all, why not judge people's ideas on the merit of the ideas themselves and less on the person's biography? A good idea can come from anyone, and you City Hall people fight so hard to preclude them. That bothers me.