...to beautify the city as a whole? At 600 square miles, it is improbable to think that a population of 530,000 (estimate) can produce enough tax dollars to stretch out city wide and beautify the streets. Without density, the people would be expected to pay more to take care of so much land.

So, how much more do you think taxes would have to be raised for our current population to repair roads, plant trees, etc.? Also, how much state and federal funding could Oklahoma City receive?

Or, what would the population need to reach (estimate) in order to keep the current tax rate and beautify the city?

I just wish OKC could improve it's appearance but I think it is so far out of reach at the present time.

Actually OKC only has about 240 sq mi that are urbanized. The city should de-annex the rest to avoid the cost of maintaining roads to no where.

The city should not necessarily de-annex the outlying areas. That might cause more problems in the long run. In older cities with smaller geographic boundaries, the reality is the development continues to sprawl outside the boundaries and then the central city is deprived of the tax revenue that comes with such developments. We can bemoan the sprawl out north of Quail Springs, for example, but at least those new residents' tax dollars can be pumped back to help the inner city (at least in theory). That growth would happen out there regardless of whether it is in the city, or Edmond, or even in an unicorporated area. This is probably the biggest single problem St. Louis has, for example.

As far as beautification, I agree wholeheartedly with the need. But there are some relatively low-cost things that can be done. You could start with the existing major thoroughfares. For example, you could do some nice plantings, trees, etc. at highway intersections and along the most well-traveled roads. (Not just a few scrawny trees but real landscaping) Also, I notice when I come home that the private businesses generally do very little to upgrade their appearances. If all the new buildings along Memorial, or the strip-shops along May would follow the example of Spring Creek in Edmond (have you seen that lately?) it would be fantastic. If everyone took a little more pride in keeping up their own properties, then the city would look tons better.

In short, OKC's population could double tomorrow and if the amount of space taken up by development just doubles along with it, you're no better off.

the reality is the development continues to sprawl outside the boundaries and then the central city is deprived of the tax revenue that comes with such developments.

However, this seems to have happened in OKC, even with 600 sq miles under its belt. Hopefully this will begin to change as I think there is a lot more interest in living in the city than there was 10 years ago.

I think you make a valid point here, but it seems that Norman, moore, Edmond, Yukon, etc. have had the same effect. Oklahoma City seems to have the added expense of maintaining services for roughly 300 square miles that are aren't urbanized with any amount of density, in addition to losing tax revenues to the sprawling communities adjacent to its boundaries.

It seems that through deannexation, new municipalities may spring up that can better develop and maintain the rural areas that are currently in the city's limits and, in turn, the city would be able to spend its resources more efficiently with a reduced geography. It would be interesting to see what the ratio of increased tax revenue is to every undeveloped square mile currently in the city's limits. If you could, say, reduce the city's size by 50%, while only reducing it's tax base by 20%, I would think we would see great improvements as a result of increased efficiency. Don't grade me on this, but such a theoretical improvement would mean an increase of 60% in available funds for every square mile in the city, all other things being constant. (note that these numbers are only make believe and such gains would be completely dependant on the actual decrease in tax base vs. decrease in serviceable area). If such efficiencies could be realized in the real world, more could be spent on beautification, civics projects, schools, etc. in such a way that Oklahoma City would be able to compete with any outlying communities in quality of life and growth.

I can’t say any of this with any amount of certainty without knowing the actual revenue numbers, but it does seem like it would be worthwhile to study. In the end, Oklahoma City actually takes pride in its sprawling nature, often using its large size as a selling point. I would be very surprised if any local leadership ever had the guts to do something like this in my lifetime, even if the numbers were there to support it.

At the end of the day, we'd have to first agree that density matters. Then you can look at population or geographic size. I do know that I have been to much smaller cities, population wise, that are much more attractive. Is that the result of density, prioities, or both?

Well said BDP, I wish this city would really take a serious look at deannexing a portion of the city. I think it would really make for a more efficient municpal government that ultimately benefits everyone in the metro area.

Interesting question. I like the way it's posed with the relationship with exurban development and tax increases. It shows those leave-me-alone conservatives that their actions do have consequences.

I don't know if it's a question of population. To wait for a population increase is tough, you just can't engineer it. I would rather work with what's possible and what we already have. You can generate more tax revenues with more people within the region living and spending inside the city. You can also increase the number of wealthier residents by building attractive housing within the city limits. Thankfully we're doing that with the explosion of downtown and condo options.

IMO what beautfication and comprehensive roadway work requires is popular and political will. The people have to want it and and city leaders have to risk their political lives to push for it. I think a MAPS-like campaign for roadway work, public transportation, and beautification would be successful if city and opinion leaders would push it with as much passion as MAPS. The latter two would be tough sells, but imposing a tax increase would meet as much opposition.

I think we should deannex the Eastern portions of the city as well as the far west and south. This would be everything East of Midwest City, West of Sarah Road, South of the southern city line of Moore, and North of Quail. That would trim off some 200+ square miles and OKC would be roughly the same size as Los Angeles.

I think those 200 represent watershed and other areas that can't be urbanized anyways - so why not increas ACOG (Central Oklahoma Regional Government) role to manage the water and natural resources? We could also step up Oklahoma County's role in this regard - leaving OKC to the nurturing of its existing urban and growth area.

400 square miles is still large, but trims off the waste (so to speak) that will NEVER be urbanized. This will focus the dollars on what is needed - the inner city and growth areas.

Excellent input everyone. Would it even be worth our time to address the leaders of OKC about this issue? To me, this is an important matter. Beautifying OKC would help raise the quality of life. It seems like our politicians would rather wait until the money comes in before acting on anything, not realizing that if you spend the money upfront, it'll pay off in the end. You can't make money without spending it; now we just need to figure out how to spend it wisely. Having tax payers cover such a large geographic area is not prudent.

The people have to want it and and city leaders have to risk their political lives to push for it. I think a MAPS-like campaign for roadway work, public transportation, and beautification would be successful if city and opinion leaders would push it with as much passion as MAPS. The latter two would be tough sells, but imposing a tax increase would meet as much opposition.

Good points.

If the numbers bear out, deannexation could actually act as a sort of tax decrease. Anytime you get more out of every dollar, you are decreasing your real expenses and increasing your ROI. With increased effeciency, we could pay the same taxes and get more for them. And if the population does increase (which it probably will even if no change occures), you can maintain taxes or even decrease them while still getting the same or better services.

Repopulating the inner city, which is happening right now, is the biggest chance OKC in really generating more tax revenue that would compensate for the massive city limits boundaries. Areas of downtown and points north (Midtown), south (Riverside), east, and west should continue to be priorities for redevelopment at high densities. That revenue would be spent on improving streetscapes, schools, etc. in the inner city of course but also in areas that really need it like south OKC, Meridian Ave., the Adventure District, and the Quail Springs area. A citywide beautification of the interstates (using federal/state money) would also go a long ways. Kansas City and Dallas have more ugly areas than OKC but some of their heavily-traveled interstates are some of the nicest anywhere and it leaves a good impression on visitors and residents alike.

BDP-You make some good points. Seems all that land to the east, across I-35, etc., and southeast is never going to be developed. Growth goes in patterns. For example, 20 years ago, when I was growing up, there was very little between Broadway Ext and I-35, north of 63rd, and there still isn't. Not to be politically incorrect, but a lot of that reason probably lies in the fact that it is in the Oklahoma City public school district. In the meantime, growth has mushroomed due north and northwest, at least partially b/c of Edmond and Deer Creek schools. So maybe de-annex everything east of I-35 and leave the natural high-growth corridors inside the city limits. I acknowledge that I have no numbers to back this up, just my gut instinct.

But the absolutely essential thing. as someone said above, is to encourage density. The urban living movement has come slowly to OKC, but at least it is now picking up speed. A good thing.

Here is the only fly in the de-annexation ointment - developers. Developers need a sprawling OKC because the city is required to provide utility services to every residential unit in the city. That means the city has to pay for water and sewer to every house no matter how remote. Of course - this is the very same reason the city should deannex in the first place. Deannexing would remove a lot of financial burden on the city.

That's right. I think that's the driving idea behind de-annexation. The city has to continually build new infrastructure for developers within its 600 sq mile limits. And after this new infrastructure is installed, it has to be maintained along with all of the existing infrastructure. If you de-annex, you are asking developers to create density using the existing infrastructure or finance the infrastructure for sprawling developments themselves. The current model only promotes sprawl and the additional cost burdens that come with maintaining the added infrastructure. I don’t mind paying for infrastructure for new developments, but I don’t like the idea of being committed to paying for it within a 600 square mile area, especially when it seems that much of the 240 or so that is already developed could use some improvement.

Suppose OKC decided to de-annex portions of the city, what would they let go? I think most of the undeveloped land sits in the southwestern portion of OKC near Mustang but they can't de-annex that area because of Will Rogers. I would love to see my hometown of Mustang grow a little in territory, but I can't see them aquiring the area because of the airport. I think they should let go of everything just outside the Interstate loops.

The current urbazined area of OKC has density of around 2600 per sq. mi. When the whole city is factored in it drops to around 800 per sq mile. One way to start is devide the city into one square mile sections (actually this is easily done with the road networ). Every setion that doesn't meet the 800 person density would be subject to deannexation.

Anyone know what the process would be to de-annex anyway? I imagine that's it's a large political hurdle that most council members facing de-annexation would fight hard.

Not entirely familiar with this, but...what is the home/land owner's expense when new water/sewer lines are run on their property or connected to their house? I've lived in and visited several cities where this cost is billed directly to the home owner. The two sides to this of course are 1) owners with large properties have a massive bill on their hands, and 2) the city is spared a lot of the expense.

Mind you in this situation, the home/land owner is billed regardless if they hook up or not.

As far as deannexation. It is incredibly long and can back fire. Say 10 years down the road a project comes to town looking for a large plot of land and services. OKC, now consolidated, has one site, but now the surrounding cities have much more land to play with. They also come at the project with better incentives and then it is off to the burbs and not the city. Not saying that something that big will ever happen, but the city has a ton of flexibility right now.

Not sure what the OKC numbers are but here in Florida many areas have impact fees. These run between $5,000 and $10,000 per home depending on local government. This is just the break even cost for putting in the sewer, water lines and roads. I am pretty sure OKC doesn't charge this to homeowners which means the city picks up the tab. Here in Florida it is a line item at closing and comes directly out of the homeowners pocket.

They also come at the project with better incentives and then it is off to the burbs and not the city.

The flip side is that the city might have more resources for incentives. And, again, even within its "urbanized" areas there are plenty of undeveloped areas. We could probably put 20 more Dells in the city without tearing a single thing down.

Great input everyone! I wish OKC could consolidate city and county governments like Louisville, KY but I don't know how it would work with OKC encompassing three counties. I think merging governments could unify financial responsibility, but would also expand the geography of responsibility. I certainly don't think this would help alleviate suburban sprawl, which is the main problem Oklahoma City faces, in my opinion.

Great input everyone! I wish OKC could consolidate city and county governments like Louisville, KY but I don't know how it would work with OKC encompassing three counties. I think merging governments could unify financial responsibility, but would also expand the geography of responsibility. I certainly don't think this would help alleviate suburban sprawl, which is the main problem Oklahoma City faces, in my opinion.

I hope they never do that. Seperation of power is very important in American Government. Its a slippery slope once you start handing out more power. You can never take it back.