http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boom-time-in-texas--jobs--traffic--water-worries-143250407.html

tl;dr version - Texas is experiencing too much growth and business is too good for the infrastructure to keep up with it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boom-time-in-texas--jobs--traffic--water-worries-143250407.html

tl;dr version - Texas is experiencing too much growth and business is too good for the infrastructure to keep up with it.

Good article.
But because of the great boom in the big city’s of Texas the mid size to smaller size city’s in the eastern half of Texas should see good growth rates too. They don't have nearly as much congestion. They often come with a preety good quality of life. Water is not nearly the problem as it is in the west. The property taxes are usually much lower. +They still have a great state business environment.

And, is good for OKC, much like Southern Cal problems were good for Phoenix. OKC and Austin are the next closest attractive cities and Austin is having its share of infrastructure issues.

And, is good for OKC, much like Southern Cal problems were good for Phoenix. OKC and Austin are the next closest attractive cities and Austin is having its share of infrastructure issues.

If DFW can do for OKC what SoCal did for Phoenix, then you guys will be in good shape.

Might be part of the reason GE came here and not Houston.

and it's full of Texans.

Might be part of the reason GE came here and not Houston.I thought GE was considering Austin? Anyhow, Texas is experiencing insane growth, and if Oklahoma gets it sh*t together and allows ODOT to take out loans for huge highway projects, kick these morons out of office that are prohibiting smart growth, and design our infrastructure to handle future growth, we will experience the same growth.

WWCD (What Would Charlotte Do)

I've now been in DFW for a month after spending my teens down here and living in OK the next 9 years thereafter. I actually am really liking DFW, but not because of its glistening infrastructure. Here are my observations:

I knew the traffic would be worse since last living here, but after experiencing it for myself, I just couldn't believe the increase. Around 50 minutes-1 hour to go 18 miles my first week here. I have thankfully moved closer to work. Another observation: the toll roads here are in great shape but a lot of the TxDOT maintained roads are starting to get a bit rough. Some of that can be attributed to the bad winter, but I've read some articles about how backlogged and in debt TxDOT is. Plus, tolls are not cheap. Some of my coworkers that live way up north in new suburbs like Little Elm or Frisco have little choice but to take them. I work across from one guy who has an annual toll bill of over $2K/yr and that is allegedly pretty common. The NTTA (N Texas Tollway Authority) is a ruthless Gestapo like organization and they WILL get their money. Even with that, they are delaying some of their projects because like TxDOT they are now deep in debt.

I live and work pretty close to the LBJ Freeway express project. It looks pretty impressive up front, but I kept thinking to myself that once this is at capacity, then what? It was my understanding the George Bush Turnpike 5 miles to the north was suppose to absorb traffic from LBJ until it reached capacity in 30 years. It reached that in 10. That's kinda this area's issue in a nutshell.

At the end of the day the traffic thing is at worst a huge pain. The water thing is far more critical IMO. I really don't know all the details of this and probably not as bad here in DFW or Houston as it is in Austin, SA, or points out west. Central/South Texas is in really bad shape with their water supplies. At one point Lake Travis was predicted to be a "dead pool" as early as 2016 and rice farmers downriver have lost all of their water allotments. Lake Meredith out by Amarillo is something like 5% capacity. I can see a future where Austin or Amarillo starts requiring xeriscaping or significantly curtailing development overall.

Is all of this enough to derail the current growth down here? No, not yet. If there are jobs to be had people will still continue to move here. The issues are all solvable at this point but its going to take some political will and a backing down from the small-government philosphy; that stuff works fine when you are the size of Wyoming or Montana, not Texas with 26 million people. There are a lot of moderate Republicans down here who realize this but can't say because they will get primaried by the tea party zealots.

I do think if OKC was smart it would start positioning itself as a nice alternative to TX, much like Rover suggested that was done with Phoenix to SoCal.

kick these morons out of office that are prohibiting smart growth

You do realize that Texas and Oklahoma are pretty similar politically, right? If Texas' politicians are experiencing so much growth that they can't keep up with it, then it doesn't make sense for Oklahoma to go in a different direction.

I live and work pretty close to the LBJ Freeway express project. It looks pretty impressive up front, but I kept thinking to myself that once this is at capacity, then what? It was my understanding the George Bush Turnpike 5 miles to the north was suppose to absorb traffic from LBJ until it reached capacity in 30 years. It reached that in 10. That's kinda this area's issue in a nutshell.


I thought about this when I read something in the Dallas paper. They're building that monstrosity, but what the hell will they do when that becomes crowded? Just unreal. They're going to have to change how expansively they develop. I don't think you can keep up with that.

Toyota moving U.S. base from California to Texas

By: Associated Press April 29, 2014 0
A Prius enters Toyota’s U.S. headquarters in Torrance, Calif. (AP file photo)

A Prius enters Toyota’s U.S. headquarters in Torrance, Calif. (AP file photo)
TORRANCE, Calif. – Toyota delivered a surprise pink slip to California on Monday, announcing the company would move its U.S. headquarters and about 3,000 jobs from the Los Angeles suburbs to the outskirts of Dallas.

The world’s largest automaker will keep a foothold in the Golden State – about 2,300 jobs will remain in California after the company settles into its new corporate campus in Plano, Texas. But the announcement is an economic and symbolic slap for California, a historic center of American car culture that has been trying to shake its reputation as a frustrating place to run a business, whether that involves shooting a film or selling a Prius.

“When you look at the whole package, it’s difficult to be a business here,” lamented Torrance Mayor Frank Scotto, whose community on the edge of the Pacific will suffer as the jobs migrate to Texas.

“If all these great, high-end jobs are leaving California, then we are going to turn into a place that’s a retirement community” with low-paying service-sector jobs, Scotto said. “We can’t have that,” he added, warning that unless the state has a change of attitude, “it’s going to be way too late.”

Toyota’s announcement comes about two months after Occidental Petroleum Corp. disclosed it was moving its headquarters to Houston from Los Angeles. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on a publicity campaign to promote his state as a haven for businesses seeking lower taxes and eased government regulation, but Toyota didn’t mention what, if any, role Perry played in the company’s decision.

Perry, who made two visits to California to lure employers to his state, said Texas offered Toyota $40 million in incentives from the taxpayer-funded Texas Enterprise Fund. The Republican governor said Toyota is expected to invest $300 million in the new headquarters.

Republicans in California quickly blamed Sacramento for the loss, where Democrats control both chambers of the Legislature and every statewide office. A statement issued by Gov. Jerry Brown’s Office of Business and Economic Development did not mention Toyota but stressed the state’s steadied balance sheet and jobs recovered after the devastating recession.

“Ford, Volkswagen and Nissan continue to invest in California, and the Golden State remains the center of new electric, zero-emission and self-driving vehicle manufacturing and technology,” the statement said.

Toyota will break ground this year on its new environmentally friendly headquarters in Plano, about 25 miles north of Dallas. Small groups of employees will start moving to temporary office space there this year, but most won’t move until late 2016 or early 2017 when the new headquarters is completed.

The new campus will bring together about 4,000 employees from sales, marketing, engineering, manufacturing and finance.

Toyota also plans to expand its technical center near Ann Arbor, Mich., and move about 250 parts procurement positions there from Georgetown, Ky., where the Camry and Avalon sedans are made. That will free up space for approximately 300 production engineers to move from Erlanger, Ky., to Georgetown. Toyota will have 8,200 employees in Kentucky after the moves are complete.

Jim Lentz, Toyota’s CEO for North America, said the new headquarters will enable faster decision making. Lentz told The Associated Press that the move is one of the most significant changes in Toyota’s 57-year history in the U.S.

“We needed to be much more collaborative,” he said.

Lentz said any employee who wants to move will be given a relocation package and retention bonus. The company is also offering to send employees and their spouses or partners to the new locations to look for new homes.

“Everything we are doing is encouraging people to go,” he said.

Plano Mayor Harry LaRosilliere said Toyota’s announcement was the result of an intense, three-month courtship but the company’s decision was “years in the making.”

Plano economic development director Sally Bane said when Toyota decided to hone in on Texas, the city jump-started its own campaign, hiring a private consultant who worked with Toyota to help close the deal.

Toyota will join Cigna Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Pepsico Inc.’s Frito Lay in a city with an unemployment rate lower than the state average. Plano’s 265,000 residents have a median income of $81,000, one of the highest in the country.

Toyota Motor Corp. has had a presence in California since 1957, when it opened its first U.S. headquarters in a former Rambler dealership in Hollywood. The following year – Toyota’s first in the U.S. market – it sold 287 Toyopet Crown sedans and one Land Cruiser.

By 1975, Toyota had become the top import brand in the U.S. It opened its current U.S. headquarters in Torrance in 1982. Toyota sold 2.2 million cars and trucks in the U.S. last year.

The company also maintains offices in New York and Washington. Plants in Mississippi, Texas and Indiana aren’t affected by the moves.

Lentz, who became Toyota’s first CEO for the North America region in 2013, said Toyota President Akio Toyoda encouraged him to think of ways to make North America more self-reliant. Lentz said he began working on the idea of a combined headquarters last April or May.

The company decided not to locate in California because it was too far from its plants in the Midwest. Kentucky was rejected because Erlanger wasn’t big enough, and Ann Arbor was rejected because it was too close to Detroit rivals like General Motors and Ford.

Lentz said the company ultimately came up with a list of 100 possibilities that it whittled down to four.

“As we visited those four primary locations, it became quite clear that the Dallas metro area was far and above the best choice,” Lentz said. He wouldn’t disclose the other three finalists

I thought about this when I read something in the Dallas paper. They're building that monstrosity, but what the hell will they do when that becomes crowded? Just unreal. They're going to have to change how expansively they develop. I don't think you can keep up with that.It's beautiful piece of infrastructure that will serve the area very nicely for awhile. When it reaches capacity, what do you do?, you add lanes to it. It is that simple. No city will ever need a 100 lane highway, so even try that argument. When a highway reaches its capacity, you widen it. You build for the future, but don't widen it too much to where it doesn't make sense. The LBJ expansion makes sense for the area. People really need to shut the hell up about Dallas highway widening and stop bitching, I only really see it on this website. They are great for the area and the 635 corridor is already seeing massive large-scale development beyond anything that this city is seeing and the highway isn't even done yet. Texas is doing great with their highways and DFW is spending big bucks on mass transit. Dallas is even considering a subway system, they connected their light-rail the airport to try and ensure you can travel Dallas car free, they are increasing their bus system funding and expanding the service. Stop bitching about expanding highways and making it easier for people who own cars to drive around.

PS, this comment came off as really rude re-reading it and wasn't meant that way nor was directed at any one person, it just gets annoying when people(namely urbanist and anti-highway crowd) complains about Dallas spending big bucks on massive, amazing highways when the city is also really tackling mass transit problem and has tons of new urban development going on.

You do realize that Texas and Oklahoma are pretty similar politically, right? If Texas' politicians are experiencing so much growth that they can't keep up with it, then it doesn't make sense for Oklahoma to go in a different direction.
I know Texas and Oklahoma are probably more similar than they are different, but as far as liquor laws, road funding, being pro-development, etc.... Texas leads the way and is almost opposite of Oklahoma. TxDOT is actively trying to get HSR a reality and ODOT is shrugging it off. The roads and infrastructure here is a joke compared to Texas. Experiencing that much is great and hopefully Oklahoma takes off to another level. It'd be nice to see Oklahoma get a population of 10 million by 2050 or less. See some other towns like Enid, Ardmore, Lawton, Woodward, and other smaller towns grow and become stable. Have Stillwater become part of OKC's MSA and have solid growth of suburban development all the way to Stillwater boosting OKC's metro pop. to 4-5 million by then. Have a massive urban core with an expansive skyline rivaling Dallas and have an urban core packed with density with a huge downtown population. Watch OKC become a regional powerhouse below Dallas and have Tulsa gain strong growth as well. It is our time to rise, but the maniacs in behind the wheel of this state is what worries me the most.

This is a good long-term goal and I believe is doable by 2050, perhaps even sooner, just depending on how big of boom we see and where our politics go.

I've now been in DFW for a month after spending my teens down here and living in OK the next 9 years thereafter. I actually am really liking DFW, but not because of its glistening infrastructure. Here are my observations:

I knew the traffic would be worse since last living here, but after experiencing it for myself, I just couldn't believe the increase. Around 50 minutes-1 hour to go 18 miles my first week here. I have thankfully moved closer to work. Another observation: the toll roads here are in great shape but a lot of the TxDOT maintained roads are starting to get a bit rough. Some of that can be attributed to the bad winter, but I've read some articles about how backlogged and in debt TxDOT is. Plus, tolls are not cheap. Some of my coworkers that live way up north in new suburbs like Little Elm or Frisco have little choice but to take them. I work across from one guy who has an annual toll bill of over $2K/yr and that is allegedly pretty common. The NTTA (N Texas Tollway Authority) is a ruthless Gestapo like organization and they WILL get their money. Even with that, they are delaying some of their projects because like TxDOT they are now deep in debt.

I live and work pretty close to the LBJ Freeway express project. It looks pretty impressive up front, but I kept thinking to myself that once this is at capacity, then what? It was my understanding the George Bush Turnpike 5 miles to the north was suppose to absorb traffic from LBJ until it reached capacity in 30 years. It reached that in 10. That's kinda this area's issue in a nutshell.

At the end of the day the traffic thing is at worst a huge pain. The water thing is far more critical IMO. I really don't know all the details of this and probably not as bad here in DFW or Houston as it is in Austin, SA, or points out west. Central/South Texas is in really bad shape with their water supplies. At one point Lake Travis was predicted to be a "dead pool" as early as 2016 and rice farmers downriver have lost all of their water allotments. Lake Meredith out by Amarillo is something like 5% capacity. I can see a future where Austin or Amarillo starts requiring xeriscaping or significantly curtailing development overall.

Is all of this enough to derail the current growth down here? No, not yet. If there are jobs to be had people will still continue to move here. The issues are all solvable at this point but its going to take some political will and a backing down from the small-government philosphy; that stuff works fine when you are the size of Wyoming or Montana, not Texas with 26 million people. There are a lot of moderate Republicans down here who realize this but can't say because they will get primaried by the tea party zealots.

I do think if OKC was smart it would start positioning itself as a nice alternative to TX, much like Rover suggested that was done with Phoenix to SoCal.

Santa Fe requires development to be water neutral. Developers pay into a fund to retrofit older structures w low flow toilets, for example, in exchange for a permit. I think they've run out of older folks to give new toilets.

It's beautiful piece of infrastructure that will serve the area very nicely for awhile. When it reaches capacity, what do you do?, you add lanes to it. It is that simple. No city will ever need a 100 lane highway, so even try that argument. When a highway reaches its capacity, you widen it. You build for the future, but don't widen it too much to where it doesn't make sense. The LBJ expansion makes sense for the area. People really need to shut the hell up about Dallas highway widening and stop bitching, I only really see it on this website. They are great for the area and the 635 corridor is already seeing massive large-scale development beyond anything that this city is seeing and the highway isn't even done yet. Texas is doing great with their highways and DFW is spending big bucks on mass transit. Dallas is even considering a subway system, they connected their light-rail the airport to try and ensure you can travel Dallas car free, they are increasing their bus system funding and expanding the service. Stop bitching about expanding highways and making it easier for people who own cars to drive around.

PS, this comment came off as really rude re-reading it and wasn't meant that way nor was directed at any one person, it just gets annoying when people(namely urbanist and anti-highway crowd) complains about Dallas spending big bucks on massive, amazing highways when the city is also really tackling mass transit problem and has tons of new urban development going on.

I think you believe that everyone down here has unbridled enthusiasm for 10 lane+ freeways when it is fact quite the opposite. A resigned inevitability more than anything and I think if someone comes in with the right ideas about transit and infrastructure it can change. The financial realities alone are putting the brakes on a lot of this stuff. Dallas is really not that different from most other big cities.

I believe I should clarify. The reason I stated my reservations with the 635 project is it has gobbled up all available ROW. Should the new express lanes reach capacity thats it. 635 cannot be widened anymore after this. That's one reason why they turned the express lanes into managed toll lanes with congestion pricing. The hope is they never reach capacity, and should the highway start getting close I imagine the drive on 635 will get quite expensive. Its a bit of a gamble IMO.

Its funny this came up now as the most recent D Magazine covered this very issue about highways in Dallas. Its an AWESOME magazine btw, really wish OKC had something similar. Read it here (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/04/28/inside-the-may-2014-issue-of-d-magazine/). There is quite a bit of momentum to tear down I-345 in downtown to reconnect neighborhoods. You won't find this interstate on any maps as its just an unmarked spur that connects US 75 and I 45. Because the real estate community is now on board (lots of new land opened up for development) this is actually possible. The hope is it can free up some badly needed funds for other projects. Also the Trinity Parkway, the highway that was supposed to run parallel to 35 and lie literally within the Trinity River floodplain is dead. Nobody wants to say it but its as dead as dirt.

I would also add that I finally made it to Klyde Warren Park this weekend. It is a cap park over Woodall Rogers Freeway. Its really a lovely park and great example of what can be done to keep highways from being so disruptive to their surroundings. You completely forget you are near a 10 lane freeway.

I don't think anyone is "bitching" about anything....that's a pretty childish thing to say. I just see a lot of concerned citizens worried that congestion is ruining their quality of life and maybe continually building freeways isn't always the best thing both from a traffic-relieving and fiscal point of view. If Dallas plays its cards right it could be a leader in finding a balance, but its going to take some people breaking away from the status quo.

Its funny this came up now as the most recent D Magazine covered this very issue about highways in Dallas. Its an AWESOME magazine btw, really wish OKC had something similar. Read it here. There is quite a bit of momentum to tear down I-345 in downtown to reconnect neighborhoods. You won't find this interstate on any maps as its just an unmarked spur that connects US 75 and I 45. Because the real estate community is now on board (lots of new land opened up for development) this is actually possible. The hope is it can free up some badly needed funds for other projects. Also the Trinity Parkway, the highway that was supposed to run parallel to 35 and lie literally within the Trinity River floodplain is dead. Nobody wants to say it but its as dead as dirt.

While I had heard about the plausibility of doing this, it was book-ended by TxDOT was putting out what it was considering for possible changes to it and removal was not even on the list considered

Folks, we dont WANT the traffic problems they have in Dallas. I have to admit, they are fun to watch them build.

I think you believe that everyone down here has unbridled enthusiasm for 10 lane+ freeways when it is fact quite the opposite.No I don't and I'd like to know what exactly made you think that. A lot of people down here don't even like how big the new I-40 is and that is mainly because they liked OKC being small and easier to get around in. If you're referring to Dallas, the same applies. Everyone I've talked to doesn't mind them. Didn't you just move there? Also, weren't you big on urbanism? So if that is the case, I'd imagine you be in an a more urban environment with people who favor urbanism which in turn, aren't the biggest fan of highways.


The financial realities alone are putting the brakes on a lot of this stuff. Dallas is really not that different from most other big cities.The financial realities are that 635 is already seeing huge investment as I have stated time and time again, the Dallas connector is getting increased funding and more massive highway projects are planned as well as the ones that are underway as posted in the Dallas thread(which I will be updating soon). Where did I say Dallas was different from big cities? Dallas wasn't all that big just 20-30 years ago. I'd Dallas is still a younger city maturing.


I believe I should clarify. The reason I stated my reservations with the 635 project is it has gobbled up all available ROW. Should the new express lanes reach capacity thats it. 635 cannot be widened anymore after this. That's one reason why they turned the express lanes into managed toll lanes with congestion pricing. The hope is they never reach capacity, and should the highway start getting close I imagine the drive on 635 will get quite expensive. Its a bit of a gamble IMO.I understand that. It is a huge highway. What would you have them do? The 405 freeway in LA has used up all of it ROW as well as a bunch of other highways there. You can only widen a highway so much before you either have to decide if traffic gets to the point where you start going underground or if it gets that cost prohibitive, you just can't do anything. In this case, Dallas has ROW to expand 635 and they are doing that, so again, what the hell would you do? They know darn well the highway will reach capacity again and once it does, that is that. When Dallas reaches that point, the city will have likely matured and it will become like NYC or L.A. A city so large you'll have people leaving because of major traffic and other issues, but the city will still grow due to its massive size.


Its funny this came up now as the most recent D Magazine covered this very issue about highways in Dallas. Its an AWESOME magazine btw, really wish OKC had something similar. Read it here (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/04/28/inside-the-may-2014-issue-of-d-magazine/). There is quite a bit of momentum to tear down I-345 in downtown to reconnect neighborhoods. You won't find this interstate on any maps as its just an unmarked spur that connects US 75 and I 45. Because the real estate community is now on board (lots of new land opened up for development) this is actually possible. The hope is it can free up some badly needed funds for other projects. Also the Trinity Parkway, the highway that was supposed to run parallel to 35 and lie literally within the Trinity River floodplain is dead. Nobody wants to say it but its as dead as dirt.I am very aware of the move to tear down the central expressway, and guess what, I SUPPORT IT! Also, the Trinity River Parkway is most certainly not dead and might be the only way the Central Expressway gets torn down, the are compromises trying to be made right now.


I would also add that I finally made it to Klyde Warren Park this weekend. It is a cap park over Woodall Rogers Freeway. Its really a lovely park and great example of what can be done to keep highways from being so disruptive to their surroundings. You completely forget you are near a 10 lane freeway.I am familiar with it. For some highway such as 235 in OKC, that is great. Other corridors such as 635 or 240 in OKC, that gets a fat no from me seeing as the highway and near development rely on each other.


I don't think anyone is "bitching" about anything....that's a pretty childish thing to say. I just see a lot of concerned citizens worried that congestion is ruining their quality of life and maybe continually building freeways isn't always the best thing both from a traffic-relieving and fiscal point of view. If Dallas plays its cards right it could be a leader in finding a balance, but its going to take some people breaking away from the status quo.People here do bitch about it and it is not childish to point that out. Not just on this thread, but I see it in other threads all the time. People have the right to their opinions, I also have a right to an opinion.

Adaniel, Dallas is going to become even more congested than it already is. OKC is going to start becoming very congested(I'm going to start a thread on it soon with pictures I've been taking). Ultimately when a city like Dallas starts reaching critical mass on a massive scale, you'll see this in Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, NYC, L.A., San Fransico, etc..... traffic gets to a point where it becomes a pain in the @ss. I'm sorry man, but there is not much you can do. You can't just leave the highways 6 lanes, and projects like the 635 project are needed, but it won't last forever and we know that.

Dallas is finding a balance man. I mean seriously, do you people not read my posts or just read what you want? I said; Dallas is spending billions on light-rail, actively working with TxDOT who is trying to work with ODOT(who is showing complete lack of interest) to create a HSR triangle going from Tulsa-OKC-Dallas-Austin-SA-Houston, Dallas is considering a subway or elevated rail in their downtown, they expanding their street-car system downtown, just finishing a new terminal station at the DFW Airport for light-rail, and they are also getting ready to put together a serious bike trail master plan according to one of the council members I spoke with. Dallas has tons of huge projects going on besides highway construction.

While I had heard about the plausibility of doing this, it was book-ended by TxDOT was putting out what it was considering for possible changes to it and removal was not even on the list consideredNot what I heard recently. A high-speed, 4 lane, limited access tollway along with a new park along the trinity river was still a very active possibility. My last update was about a month or two ago on this, so maybe it died since then.

Folks, we dont WANT the traffic problems they have in Dallas. I have to admit, they are fun to watch them build.I don't think anyone wants the traffic problems Dallas has lol.... no one wants traffic problems, Dallas doesn't even want to traffic problems they have haha

The way I look at it is like parking issues, it is good and bad. At least the city is prospering and isn't dead. Growing traffic means a growing city.

As conservative as Texas is, it seems like its downright liberal compared to Oklahoma. At least down there really is less government interference with the lives of individual citizens. Texas does also have liberal pockets in Austin and to a lesser extent Dallas and Houston. Oklahoma doesn't have any sizable liberal bastions in the entire state. Whatever your political alignment is, whenever one side has too much power that's never good. It's not just Republican states either. Look at where complete liberal control has taken California. I believe this far right wing, oppressive state government is the biggest obstacle to major growth in Oklahoma.

I know Texas and Oklahoma are probably more similar than they are different, but as far as liquor laws, road funding, being pro-development, etc.... Texas leads the way and is almost opposite of Oklahoma. TxDOT is actively trying to get HSR a reality and ODOT is shrugging it off. The roads and infrastructure here is a joke compared to Texas. Experiencing that much is great and hopefully Oklahoma takes off to another level. It'd be nice to see Oklahoma get a population of 10 million by 2050 or less. See some other towns like Enid, Ardmore, Lawton, Woodward, and other smaller towns grow and become stable. Have Stillwater become part of OKC's MSA and have solid growth of suburban development all the way to Stillwater boosting OKC's metro pop. to 4-5 million by then. Have a massive urban core with an expansive skyline rivaling Dallas and have an urban core packed with density with a huge downtown population. Watch OKC become a regional powerhouse below Dallas and have Tulsa gain strong growth as well. It is our time to rise, but the maniacs in behind the wheel of this state is what worries me the most.

This is a good long-term goal and I believe is doable by 2050, perhaps even sooner, just depending on how big of boom we see and where our politics go.

I guess you missed this part of the article then:


On the state level, Texas spends less per resident than all but three states: Florida, Georgia and Arizona, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the most recent state-government finance data from the U.S. Census Bureau. It ranked 45th in the nation in per-capita highway expenditures in 2012, spending about $260 per person, less than California's roughly $300 and well below the $493 spent by Oklahoma, according to the Journal analysis.

It just seems like the group think on this board believes that all the shortcomings Oklahoma might have comes from not being liberal enough. The coasts are liberal. The major U.S. cities are liberal. There should be some place that conservative people can live and call home and not have to hear how stupid and backward they are or be embarrased because of their views. I swear, I think some on here would like it if it were possible to make it illegal to be conservative.

That interesting. You can all these numbers you want on it, but why does Texas have better highways then?

A few weekends ago I went down to Dallas to view GWB's paintings at his presidential library. I thoroughly enjoyed the George's place but as usual totally turned off by the mix master highway exchanges and suicidal Texan drivers. Going to dallas always makes me homesick for OKC. How do folks live that way?

It just seems like the group think on this board believes that all the shortcomings Oklahoma might have comes from not being liberal enough. The coasts are liberal. The major U.S. cities are liberal. There should be some place that conservative people can live and call home and not have to hear how stupid and backward they are or be embarrased because of their views. I swear, I think some on here would like it if it were possible to make it illegal to be conservative.

I think what so many people have a problem with about Oklahoma lawmakers' brand of conservatism is its actually very oppressive against individual liberty. People can disagree over things like the budgets, taxes, or what services should or should not be funded by the government. Few people will leave the state over that. However, the radical quasi-religious social agenda of the state's GOP is divisive and ostracizing to anybody who may disagree and makes this state a nanny state in many ways. Until moving to Oklahoma I voted pretty reliably Republican. Chances are I still will for President but I will vote solid Democrat when it comes to state elections.

I know Texas and Oklahoma are probably more similar than they are different, but as far as liquor laws, road funding, being pro-development, etc.... Texas leads the way and is almost opposite of Oklahoma.

I live in Denton and I can't buy liquor in the county or buy a case of beer past midnight. I have to become a "member" of a bar just to have a beer. It's ridiculous and a hassle. When I was in St. Louis for a conference you couldn't get beer at gas stations or pharmacies. I was recently in Philly and you can't get beers at gas stations or pharmacies there. I was told you have to buy beer and liquor at separate, individual stores. Anyway, my point is, Oklahomans think their liquor laws are ridiculous, but that seems to be fairly universal. These are all anecdotal experiences so please feel free to add to it.

I think what so many people have a problem with about Oklahoma lawmakers' brand of conservatism is its actually very oppressive against individual liberty. People can disagree over things like the budgets, taxes, or what services should or should not be funded by the government. Few people will leave the state over that. However, the radical quasi-religious social agenda of the state's GOP is divisive and ostracizing to anybody who may disagree and makes this state a nanny state in many ways. Until moving to Oklahoma I voted pretty reliably Republican. Chances are I still will for President but I will vote solid Democrat when it comes to state elections.

I recently conversed with an official of the State Chamber of Commerce. He was utterly oblivious to how this crap is affecting our state's image. A lot of these folks are braindead morons who still think we can cut state income taxes and magically create jobs. Meanwhile, education is the bottom of the barrel in terms of their funding priorities. Half of our state is illiterate and poor, while we have gilded energy executives getting free handouts from the governor and legislature.

I tried to explain to him that people in the tech industry and the serious entrepreneurs will never consider moving anything to Oklahoma as long as the American Taliban is running things. He didn't think we had an image problem! (as I was reading about the latest Failin' execution disaster in the New York Times from my iPad).

OKC is being fueled by an oil boom and a minor cultural/urbanization boom. That's great. But it's not gonna last forever.

We really need to vote these fools out.

This could be our future in Oklahoma. Remember Sam Brownback crowing about Kansas' "great economy" and "low taxes?" Well, this genius and his accomplices in the Kansas leg just killed his state. It's hilarious the douche is trying to blame Obama for his own state fiscal policies. Total train wreck. They're down almost $.5 BILLION from last year's revenues. This is a total death spiral.

Kansas tax revenue off $92 million in April | Wichita Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/2014/04/30/3431703/kansas-revenues-off-92-million.html)

I recently conversed with an official of the State Chamber of Commerce. He was utterly oblivious to how this crap is affecting our state's image. A lot of these folks are braindead morons who still think we can cut state income taxes and magically create jobs. Meanwhile, education is the bottom of the barrel in terms of their funding priorities. Half of our state is illiterate and poor, while we have gilded energy executives getting free handouts from the governor and legislature.

Some people in older generations are simply clueless to the worldview of the younger generation. It kind of reminds me of Mick Cornett originally wanting Bricktown to become a mini-Branson rather than the bar/entertainment district it has become. It's a great thing that didn't happen because if anybody has been to Branson recently you know it is dying off because its target market is dying off. You are also completely right about the tech industry and entreprenuers. They gravitate to Austin because although its a conservative state, Austin is a very liberal and live and let live city. The conservative principles are less-intrusive to an individual's lives than they are in Oklahoma. In Austin, I could by a cold beer at 11PM on a Sunday or a bottle of wine! Does OKC even have much of an LGBT community? If so, I don't know how they sit back and take being constantly demonized and scapegoated by the state government.

I live in Denton and I can't buy liquor in the county or buy a case of beer past midnight. I have to become a "member" of a bar just to have a beer. It's ridiculous and a hassle. When I was in St. Louis for a conference you couldn't get beer at gas stations or pharmacies. I was recently in Philly and you can't get beers at gas stations or pharmacies there. I was told you have to buy beer and liquor at separate, individual stores. Anyway, my point is, Oklahomans think their liquor laws are ridiculous, but that seems to be fairly universal. These are all anecdotal experiences so please feel free to add to it.

Oklahoma's liquor laws aren't as out of the main-stream as a lot of people think, or want others to believe. Now having said that, they could still be improved and the state needs to break-up the liquor distribution monopoly if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.

Oklahoma's liquor laws aren't as out of the main-stream as a lot of people think, or want others to believe. Now having said that, they could still be improved and the state needs to break-up the liquor distribution monopoly if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.

It wouldn't take many changes to the current laws to make them less liberty-intrusive. Allow liquor stores to sell cold beer and allow them to stay open later - until at least 11PM and I will stop complaining about the liquor laws here. Sunday sales would also be nice but Oklahoma is hardly unique in disallowing them.

It is the Oklahoma retail liquor store owners' lobby dictating the 9 PM Monday through Saturday closing times. They prefer not to be open later due to security reasons. Cold beer sales in package stores is a quid pro quo with other retailers. Convenience stores and grocery stores don't offer liquor, wine, spirits and higher alcohol beer; retail package store owners don't sell groceries, gas or cold beer. That suits the package store owners just fine.

That interesting. You can all these numbers you want on it, but why does Texas have better highways then?

I don't know that they do. I've driven a lot of miles around both states in my lifetime and I don't recall ever thinking that there was a huge difference in road quality. Now that's just anecdotal evidence, but that's my experience. The only thing I can think of is that our winters are more harsh in Oklahoma. Our summers are pretty similar. Other than that, I don't know.

Some people in older generations are simply clueless to the worldview of the younger generation. It kind of reminds me of Mick Cornett originally wanting Bricktown to become a mini-Branson rather than the bar/entertainment district it has become. It's a great thing that didn't happen because if anybody has been to Branson recently you know it is dying off because its target market is dying off.
I think that idea was floated because Branson, at one time, was a successful destination. There have been a lot of ideas floated for Bricktown that it's good they didn't happen. Over the decades there was talk of putting in a Hard Rock because those were still popular at the time. It's good that didn't happen. There was talk about an ESPNZone once. It's good that didn't happen because it make Bricktown too much like other cities where you can go to an ESPNZone.


You are also completely right about the tech industry and entreprenuers. They gravitate to Austin because although its a conservative state, Austin is a very liberal and live and let live city. The conservative principles are less-intrusive to an individual's lives than they are in Oklahoma.
I read an article once about the tech industry in Austin. It may have been Texas Monthly. At one time, probably late 80s early 90s, Austin was struggling because they were too reliant on the energy sector. They made a concerted effort to try to win tech companies to Austin. Which at the time was unheard of. But it was an effort to diversify their dependancy away from solely relying on the energy sector. So a lot went into it, it wasn't just that tech companies said "Hey, Austin is a fairly liberal city. Let's move our business there."

And as far as conservative principles being less intrusive on an individual's life, it's a matter of perspective. If a conservative person were to move to California or Massachussetts, then they would feel that the liberal principles were intruding on their life. But the residents of those states, especially the liberal ones, probably think that their liberal government is pretty much perfect. It's different strokes for different folks. Oklahoma doesn't need a lot of liberals to move in and change its government and its ways in an effort to "fix" Oklahoma. Just like Massachussetts doesn't need a lot of conservatives to come in and fix their state. Some people like living in a city. That doesn't mean that everyone should have to live that way. Some like the suburbs and some like rural life. Different strokes.


Does OKC even have much of an LGBT community?
Does OKC need one? Is it a neccessity? If they choose to live somewhere than OKC that doesn't hurt OKC. OKC doesn't have to have one of eveything that another city might have. Maybe the more liberal folks think we need it to help OKlahoma's image but that just goes back to worrying too much about what others think of Oklahoma. I think some people are just trying too hard to make Oklahoma something it is not. The thing is, Texas has Austin, but for the most part Texas is just as conservative as Oklahoma and maybe more so. I've known a lot of Texans in my life and I know this to be true. But Texas doesn't worry about what the rest of the country thinks about it. And Texas gets away with it because of the enourmous economic power that it weilds. An Arkansas or New Mexico or Oklahoma is looked at a little more critically because the rest of the country likes to make fun of someone that they don't feel they have to listen to. But the country is forced to deal with Texas because of it's population size and the size of its economy.

The missions of both OU & OSU is the advancement of the state and the lives of all of its people.

There are degree programs at both OU & OSU that on completion have very few desirable jobs in Oklahoma... As a result they are pretty much a big waste of state resources however small they are. In some cases the degree programs are duplicated at many of the various university’s in our state. Our states universitys really need to be better managed and shift more of their limited resources to degree programs that have respectable and needed jobs waiting on them, with a preference given to the jobs that Oklahoma employers need.

If our states university’s would be more willing and quicker to reform I have a gut feeling their state funding situation would improve too.

I think some people are just trying too hard to make Oklahoma something it is not.
Yep... we shouldn't be to worried about small sectors of the population but instead concentrate on creating opportunity for all.
That starts by having a vibrant economy for all and not wasting our limited time and limited resources on social engineering for a select few. This is were a rising tide will lift all boats if we do it right.

I read an article once about the tech industry in Austin. It may have been Texas Monthly. At one time, probably late 80s early 90s, Austin was struggling because they were too reliant on the energy sector. They made a concerted effort to try to win tech companies to Austin. Which at the time was unheard of. But it was an effort to diversify their dependancy away from solely relying on the energy sector. So a lot went into it,
The heath care industry that sprung up near the Oklahoma state capitol is a direct result of Oklahoma’s efforts to diversify its economy after oil & NG bust of the 80's... This is something that David Boren pushed very hard to help develop. Boren also pushed the development of the weather industry in Norman. The states quality of job act is also a result of the 80's bust.
Not that a new bust wouldn’t hurt, but as a result of the 80's bust most oil & NG company’s with a few notable exceptions have not become as exposed to a down turn.

I don't know that they do. I've driven a lot of miles around both states in my lifetime and I don't recall ever thinking that there was a huge difference in road quality. Now that's just anecdotal evidence, but that's my experience. The only thing I can think of is that our winters are more harsh in Oklahoma. Our summers are pretty similar. Other than that, I don't know.

Its the rural roads & highways in the most isolated parts of each state is where the major differences in roads can best be seen.
There is a clear difference, with isolated areas of Texas being far better. I'm talking about places like Kermit, Wink, Happy and Gruver

Texas uses higher institutional construction standards for its roads from the very start....and the difference shows up years later.

I live in Denton and I can't buy liquor in the county or buy a case of beer past midnight. I have to become a "member" of a bar just to have a beer. It's ridiculous and a hassle. When I was in St. Louis for a conference you couldn't get beer at gas stations or pharmacies. I was recently in Philly and you can't get beers at gas stations or pharmacies there. I was told you have to buy beer and liquor at separate, individual stores. Anyway, my point is, Oklahomans think their liquor laws are ridiculous, but that seems to be fairly universal. These are all anecdotal experiences so please feel free to add to it.I understand about Denton; Richardson is the same way. At least you are able to buy liquor in the grocery stores in other places around the metro. I am very aware of dry counties in Texas.

Some people in older generations are simply clueless to the worldview of the younger generation. It kind of reminds me of Mick Cornett originally wanting Bricktown to become a mini-Branson rather than the bar/entertainment district it has become. It's a great thing that didn't happen because if anybody has been to Branson recently you know it is dying off because its target market is dying off. You are also completely right about the tech industry and entreprenuers. They gravitate to Austin because although its a conservative state, Austin is a very liberal and live and let live city. The conservative principles are less-intrusive to an individual's lives than they are in Oklahoma. In Austin, I could by a cold beer at 11PM on a Sunday or a bottle of wine! Does OKC even have much of an LGBT community? If so, I don't know how they sit back and take being constantly demonized and scapegoated by the state government.
You can't buy beer or wine at the grocery store in Austin (and the rest of Texas that is wet) before noon on Sunday.

Austin is "liberal" compared to the rest of Texas but then so is urban Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and a lot of the area around the Rio Grande Valley. Austin is not liberal compared to the coasts (or reputation) and the City of Austin keeps enacting regulations that restrict what you can and can't do much more than the suburban (and more conservative) counties around it. Suburban counties around the metro areas are where the conservatives live. When I moved to Austin in 2003 Texas was for the most part more conservative in state politics than Oklahoma, that did change as the Sally Kern types started getting elected but don't kid yourself, there are areas of Texas that are more conservative than Kern, it is just the legislature is larger and they have to cover a much larger constituency that it dilutes those types and the more extreme liberals and makes it somewhat harder for them to get elected. Austin also has a lot of of liberals but most are probably a bit more like most of the population, somewhat libertarian, a bit more socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The real problem is neither party at the state or federal level represents what most of the population feels.

Population based on 2010 Census
Oklahoma: 3,751,351
Texas: 25,145,561

Oklahoma Legislature Seats
House: 101
Senate: 48

Texas Legislature Seats
House: 150
Senate: 31

Oklahoma legislative district size by persons based on 2010 Census
House: 37,142
Senate: 78,153

Texas legislative district size by persons based on 2010 Census
House: 167,637
Senate: 811,147

I understand about Denton; Richardson is the same way. At least you are able to buy liquor in the grocery stores in other places around the metro. I am very aware of dry counties in Texas.
It was just recently that the Dallas area went fully wet instead of the wet/dry by voting district like it was when I lived there in the 90's. I remember going to Buckingham or the wet/dry line just south of Royal Lane on Greenville and having a Unicard for restaurants by my area (635/Forest Lane).

Its the rural roads & highways in the most isolated parts of each state is where the major differences in roads can best be seen.
There is a clear difference, with isolated areas of Texas being far better. I'm talking about places like Kermit, Wink, Happy and Gruver

Texas uses higher institutional construction standards for its roads from the very start....and the difference shows up years later.
Not anymore, they are chip sealing Central Texas with that crap and the counties are adopting some of their own standards for paving instead of following TxDOT standards. Many are letting the paving companies build crap, I saw plenty of road failures in the Hill Country including a 6 month old 500 foot section of asphalt on 290 washed off the base just east of I-10 out near Kerrville. Just like everywhere else, they are playing shell games with their money and shuffling of projects. Ben White/US-290 in Austin has been under construction since my wife moved there in 1988 and they have major issues at TxDOT including a $1.1 billion "accounting error" a few years ago and faced a Sunset Review.

In reference to the mega-highway planned for 635, they have been talking about that since 1992. Back then they unveiled a model of a 26 lane 635 from I-35 to US-75. They also floated a Texas Triangle high speed rail system connecting DFW, Austin/San Antonio, Houston and back to DFW. It was pretty much killed by the airlines based in Texas, Southwest, American and (then) Continental.

I much rather have Texas problems than Oklahoma's set of their problems. Yes, DFW has a traffic problem with issues and it can get frustrating navigating the highways and streets. The driver's are pretty aggressive in DFW, however, my perception is DFW has a bright future and will continue to grow and prosper! Texas has a better image than Oklahoma. More friendly business environment, no taxes on groceries, no state income tax, better roads.

... Texas has a better image than Oklahoma. ... I have seen much comments about Texas than Oklahoma, though part of that is just a higher profile.

The tax burden on individuals are pretty similar if you own a house, our property taxes in Austin went up an average of $200-300 a year the nine years that I lived there. A house "valued" at $155,000 (that sold for $130,000) was $3,900 our last year there (2012). It doesn't matter that Texas does not have an income tax, all states are going to get "their money" somehow, some way, they just use different means and methods to get it. They also tend to fee you to death in Texas to make up for the lack of other taxes which wasn't the case when I lived in Dallas in the early 90's.

I thought GE was considering Austin? Anyhow, Texas is experiencing insane growth, and if Oklahoma gets it sh*t together and allows ODOT to take out loans for huge highway projects, kick these morons out of office that are prohibiting smart growth, and design our infrastructure to handle future growth, we will experience the same growth.

Kicking out the morons won't work, if there are only more morons to replace them. Maybe that explains the problem. Morons have been replacing the morons.

I live in Denton and I can't buy liquor in the county or buy a case of beer past midnight. I have to become a "member" of a bar just to have a beer. It's ridiculous and a hassle.

Is the Denton area ran by a bunch of Baptists?

I don't know that they do. I've driven a lot of miles around both states in my lifetime and I don't recall ever thinking that there was a huge difference in road quality. Now that's just anecdotal evidence, but that's my experience. The only thing I can think of is that our winters are more harsh in Oklahoma. Our summers are pretty similar. Other than that, I don't know.

That's another thing. Denton has the absolute worst roads I've ever encountered. It's unbelievable.

Yeah, the roads in Denton are pretty bad.

I much rather have Texas problems than Oklahoma's set of their problems. Yes, DFW has a traffic problem with issues and it can get frustrating navigating the highways and streets. The driver's are pretty aggressive in DFW, however, my perception is DFW has a bright future and will continue to grow and prosper! Texas has a better image than Oklahoma. More friendly business environment, no taxes on groceries, no state income tax, better roads.
Probably Oklahoma's state legislators don't get out of state much, so they are out of touch as to how other states have it better than Oklahoma.

I much rather have Texas problems than Oklahoma's set of their problems. Yes, DFW has a traffic problem with issues and it can get frustrating navigating the highways and streets. The driver's are pretty aggressive in DFW, however, my perception is DFW has a bright future and will continue to grow and prosper! Texas has a better image than Oklahoma. More friendly business environment, no taxes on groceries, no state income tax, better roads.

Bad comparison. Oklahoma Republicans are trying to get rid of the income tax, but in so doing, are destroying our education system and replacing the income tax with more regressive fees and hidden taxes. We are booming economically but because so many of these morons think we should be like Texas, and that we should remove the income tax, that now, despite our good economy, we have a government funding crisis.

The reason Texas has no income tax is because they charge higher property taxes, higher corporate franchise taxes, and they charge more for everything from tires to car tags. No thanks. Texas looks really good because of all of the corporate headquarters but it is a regressive, third-world state with massive income disparity.

You know why Texas doesn't have an income tax? Look at how high their property taxes are. I've said this a million times, let cut our income tax, that is fine, but raise the property taxes through the roof to cover for that.

You know why Texas doesn't have an income tax? Look at how high their property taxes are. I've said this a million times, let cut our income tax, that is fine, but raise the property taxes through the roof to cover for that.

True, assuming citizens in counties and cities would want to vote higher property taxes upon themselves.

Raising property taxes would be fine with me…in theory, it would do a better job of burdening the well-off rather than the average joe because many average joe's own no property so they would have more disposable (assuming that rents don't get jacked up over the amount that they would have paid in income tax).

Bad comparison. Oklahoma Republicans are trying to get rid of the income tax, but in so doing, are destroying our education system and replacing the income tax with more regressive fees and hidden taxes. We are booming economically but because so many of these morons think we should be like Texas, and that we should remove the income tax, that now, despite our good economy, we have a government funding crisis.

The reason Texas has no income tax is because they charge higher property taxes, higher corporate franchise taxes, and they charge more for everything from tires to car tags. No thanks. Texas looks really good because of all of the corporate headquarters but it is a regressive, third-world state with massive income disparity.

Car tags are absolutely cheaper in Texas.

Raising property taxes would be fine with me…in theory, it would do a better job of burdening the well-off rather than the average joe because many average joe's own no property so they would have more disposable (assuming that rents don't get jacked up over the amount that they would have paid in income tax).

Generally that will not be the case for the most well off, there property is a much smaller percentage of wealth. It ends up putting a disproportionate share of tax on the middle class and of course it affects rent.

Car tags are absolutely cheaper in Texas.

Car tax is MUCH higher though on purchases though. Also, you have to get yearly inspections (although I am not complaining on that one given how many smoky jalopies were putting around OKC with their bumper/muffer/lights about to fall off)

Raising property taxes would be fine with me…in theory, it would do a better job of burdening the well-off rather than the average joe because many average joe's own no property so they would have more disposable (assuming that rents don't get jacked up over the amount that they would have paid in income tax).
When renting property the tenant is paying the property taxes, it is just bundled with your rent. If a property owner isn't doing that then they are losing money.

Our house was somewhat cheap by Austin standards at an appraised value of $155,000, I looked up what the taxes are this year and it went up another $260 from the appraisal for 2012 (when we sold it) and is now over $4,000 a year in property taxes alone. You also have higher homeowners insurance in the state due to hurricanes, wildfires, hail damage and mold lawsuits which drove some insurers out of the state for a year or two, we had 30 days to find new insurance after a decision by the insurance commission. Our taxes in Aurora on a house appraised around $240,000 is less than half that in Austin and the insurance is about a third of what it was in Austin.


Car tags are absolutely cheaper in Texas.
Not really, they are pretty similar in price now but back when I lived in Dallas and moved back to OKC there was a significant difference in the tags alone. Then only to get a bill for personal property tax on my vehicle in Dallas County which brought the total up to pretty much the same as Oklahoma back then, not sure if they still do that. We didn't have a separate vehicle tax in Travis County. As Snowman stated property taxes do hit the middle income people much harder than the wealthy.

As adaniel stated, the initial purchase taxes are much higher in Texas than in Oklahoma. They are pretty high here in Colorado, for renewals there is a big difference between my car (2003 BMW Z4) and my wife's car (2007 Toyota 4Runner), my car was around $80, hers was almost $300. The motorcycle I moved up here was around $45 (2000 Triumph Sprint ST), my new one (2012 Kawasaki Concours14) is about $200 for renewal. The initial taxes between the state and county were almost $2,500 on a $13,000 motorcycle. Part of that was an increase in vehicle taxes voted on by the people a year or so before we moved up here that almost doubled the taxes. We also have a small (5x7) utility trailer, that costs us about $40 a year and was about the same in Texas, you don't have to tag those in Oklahoma. Our vehicle insurance is also cheaper here and it was in Oklahoma before I moved in 2003.

Like I stated before, states/counties are going to get their tax money but use different methods to get it.

Does OKC need one? Is it a neccessity? If they choose to live somewhere than OKC that doesn't hurt OKC. OKC doesn't have to have one of eveything that another city might have.


Yep... we shouldn't be to worried about small sectors of the population but instead concentrate on creating opportunity for all.
That starts by having a vibrant economy for all and not wasting our limited time and limited resources on social engineering for a select few. This is were a rising tide will lift all boats if we do it right.

With all due respect, these posts are so clearly written from the perspective of a member of the majority they are painful to read.

Yes, OKC needs one. Diversity is good for everyone (just like your focus on economics). There's a reason most world class "big league" cities have notable LGBT populations. More to the point, is there no focus on being a WELCOMING place for people (these so-called "small-sectors" of the population)? Is everything just about job growth and keeping up with highways for you folks? "Social engineering"? Is that what we're calling inclusiveness these days? *eyeroll*

Not to mention the obvious stupidity that creating a welcoming community for LGBT folks is somehow counteractive to economic growth in any way (hint: it'd probably help). These are separate issues.