Tulsa hates you.

[JWil]

I'll close this by saying that if it weren't for the states of Oklahoma and Sequoyah being joined together, OKC and Tulsa would be in two different states.

[okcpulse]

Post by JWil:
Uhhhh really? I don't know how you can say that when OKC has seen its rise from the ashes under three straight GOP Mayors. And oh, our congressional district has been GOP since Goldwater/LBJ, soooo.... yeah.

Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label. It is a non-partisan government. Nice try, though.

[solitude]

Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label. It is a non-partisan government. Nice try, though.

While that's true, Pulse, the last mayor of Oklahoma City who was a registered Democrat and had Democratic ties was Andy Coates. Norick, Humphreys and Cornett are all registered Republicans, all used their GOP contacts and the usual Republican donors financed their campaigns. The whole non-partisan thing is a tad disingenuous if you ask me.

[soonerguru]

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

[Saberman]

The thing to remember is that the taxes collected were used for public projects(not private), to make the city as a whole more enjoyable for all.

There was not a single group that was not effected by these improvements. Sports, Arts, Education, and entertainment were all included in the original MAPS package.

Current MAPS is improving the schools infrastructure, which was deplorable.

And this add on for the Arena were improvements that were talked about during the original MAPS. The only addition is the practice facility, which would not have been built if the team did not come to OKC.

These are all legitimate city projects no matter what your political affiliation.

[soonerguru]

Saberman,

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

[OUGrad05]

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

Tulsa taxes are higher though, so thats why their "anti tax hysteria" is worse than OKC's.

For example if my house were in OKC my annual property tax would be 1950 bucks, in Tulsa its 2112 dollars. Sales tax in Tulsa is already 8.65% they've wanted to tack on another half cent sales penny to that a couple of times since I moved up here in 2005.

Also, dont forget OKC has a pretty good history of spending tax dollars wisely. That helps bolster the public confidence in their government officials. I think Tulsa could easily turn a corner for the positive but its going to take solid leadership and someone willing to take a stand on some core issues and be honest with the people of Tulsa.

[OUGrad05]

What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade.

Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.

Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.

Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?

Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.

Not to mention, what do you ask of your elected representatives in OKC and Washington? Why do you continue to elect nimrods like John Sullivan and expect things to change?

Tulsa is also extremely segregated, one of the most segregated cities I've even seen. Now, it's a city in three parts: North Tulsa, Midtown, and 'Burbs, and no one in these areas even agrees what the city should do. The Burbies don't even think they should have to pay a shiny red penny to help the city since they don't live there (despite the fact they wouldn't have a job and shiny burb if the city weren't there).

Tulsa has deep problems that cannot and will not be solved by whining about OKC's relative success.

Not sure how I missed this, but this is an excellent post. I've noticed the rather odd political nature of Tulsa since moving up here. It seems there isn't much middle ground. There's a TON of far right wing, no tax for anything kinda people and then there's a bunch of pretty far left individuals that think the city/state/federal government should rebuild the north tulsa area as well as other areas of town.

It's kinda wierd actually seeing the two extremes. I've noticed it in discussions with people I work with too. Don't get me wrong, there's quite a few moderates and level headed people but it seems like there's far more at both extremes than I remember when I lived in OKC. Just makes for an interesting experience and it probably makes it difficult on city government as well since the city is divided.

[Saberman]

Saberman,

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

I understand, but the Bricktown investments were a direct by product of investment from MAPS, they weren't financed by MAPS.

Granted the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies, but...

1) the Skirvin was a landmark that the people of OKC did not want to loose, where it may have been questionable, we did do something right on this one. We lost a lot of great buildings in downtown because of Urban Renewal, this one felt like the last straw.

2) Bass Pro - leaders felt that they had to bring in a major business that would get the ball rolling in Bricktown, right or wrong, we did it. Would Bricktown have grow as fast without Bass Pro, that's going to be debated for a long time....

I could also bring up some bad moves OKC made in the past, Urban Renewal in the '60's and '70's, or even the String of Pearls along the N. Canadian ditch. Just to name 2. That's why we have the last 3 mayors to thank for bring in the public to monitor MAPS projects, to insure quality and spending.

[JWil]

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools.

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though.

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base.

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.

[OUGrad05]

I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though.

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base.

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.

I'm a republican and I am ok with taxes on a local level when they are defined and goals are achievable. I do not like federal tax increases because we almost never see the money and it adds numerous layers of government bull crap that you do not have to deal with on a local level. Local governments are the best at providing and performing vital services, like police and fire as well as infrastructure maintenance.

That doesn' tmean there isn't a place for federal funds, there is, but not for everything.

[soonerguru]

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.

[solitude]

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.

Oh yes. Like the projected 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS for an unnecessary war with Iraq. In perspective, a full-blown manned mission to Mars from scratch to finish is estimated at 450 billion dollars.

There's even a book out about what we could have done with the money we've already spent in Iraq:

[BigTulsa]

tulsa stinks, ou beats them 50 to 0 every time they play them. tulsa does not deserve exposure. that university needs to rid of the football program. all thier good for is someone to practice with untill ou/osu plays a real team. good grief

I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.

Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...

[AFCM]

I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.

Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...

First of all, Tulsa is not a state university. Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game. Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games. FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well. A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered. I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice. It seems that observation has already been addressed.

However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa. I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.

[soonerfan_in_okc]

First of all, Tulsa is not a state university. Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game. Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games. FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well. A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered. I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice. It seems that observation has already been addressed.

However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa. I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.

winner. end of thread.

[okcpulse]

"Hi, I'm Tulsa." "And I'm Oklahoma City."

"We have hills." "We have growth, momentum, and plenty of opportunity."

"We have trees." "We enjoy lakes and a river that is an Olympic Training Venue, right in our back yard."

"We have the Gilcrease and Philbrook museums." "We have art museums, art districts and an increading number of art galleries."

"We have a fair." "We have a theme park, the state's largest water theme park, all in addition to a fair."

"We have a river." "Tulsa, didn't I already mention water recreation? I guess you can safely walk across the Arkansas River. We have to swim across the Oklahoma River."

"But we have those boats that scoot across sandy banks AND water." "And Oklahoma City has actual BOATS on the river."

"We have TU sports." "And we have the NBA, Big 12 Tournaments and Triple A baseball. Don't forget OU and OSU are closer. Ahh, the choices."

"But we have trees and hills." "Tulsa, you mentioned that already. What do you do with your trees and hills?"

"Well, we look at them." "Oh. I thought your relationship with nature was more interactive."

"Ummm... we have a zoo." [sighs and pats Tulsa on the shoulder]"We get it, Tulsa."

[SoonerQueen]

I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?

[okcboy]

Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.

[Midtowner]

Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.

As a violinist, let me just mention this -- playing large ensemble music outside is absolutely miserable. Most serious symphonic pieces have fairly long parts to them -- lots of page turns. Those page turns become a big pain in the ass when you're having to use clothes pins to keep your music from blowing off the stand (and one good gust and your whole stand might be blown over). Then, string instruments and woodwinds to a lesser extent have HUGE tuning issues when exposed to temperature and humidity changes.

[Bunty]

I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?

Well, people are gonna get tired of George Strait, Allan Jackson, or whoever always coming in for a concert in OKC, sooner or later. The big names or old big names that the casinoes put on also provide competition.

[okcpulse]

Notice how Bunty mentions only country music artists. Forget about all of the other non-country music acts that tour Oklahoma regularly.

It doesn't matter anyway. Today's music from every single genre absolutely sucks.

[Steve]

How did this thread get revived? Geez, let's talk about something original... I know what, let's talk about how OU and OSU are rivals. Or maybe OU/Texas...
BTW: You're not seeing many concerts being booked at Ford Center because it's shutting down after NBA season is over for an expansion and remodeling.

[okcboy]

Check out Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre at Encore Park :: Atlanta, GA

[Generals64]

Man, you guys are on a roll....I'm going back to the nostalgia group and remember how much fun we have.....Sheesh....when you quit arguing come see us....