Google Fiber

[ljbab728]

All that rural land and tax revenue doesn't come free to the city. The city is resposible for infrastructure construction (roads, sewers, etc) as well as providing public safety services (police stations, officers, fire stations, fire fighters, etc).

There is plenty of space in the exiting urbanized area that can be filled in and it would probably take another 50 years to do so. The city should also focus on increasing the current real estate values, and subsequent property taxes instead.

Of course it's not free but as I mentioned previously if OKC gets rid of that land you can bet that some suburbs will grab it quickly and OKC will eventually become closed in losing a possible tax base. The economy, transportation trends, and social preferences will dictate if and when infill happens not how much land is available within city limits 20 miles from downtown. That land will still be there even if it isn't within OKC city limits. What happens 50 years from now may not be that important to our lives but we have to keep it in the back of our minds.

[ljbab728]

Actually, I think the retail marketing people ARE that dumb. They also look at income rather than disposable income when making store location decisions. Those are two reasons why we don't have a lot of stores that other smaller cities do.

Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

[betts]

Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

So what would be the reasons then? Why are we passed over for stores that cities like Wichita, Omaha, Albuquerque and Tulsa get? There has to be some misjudgement of the market for that to happen, and I don't know what else it would be.

[Kerry]

Of course it's not free but as I mentioned previously if OKC gets rid of that land you can bet that some suburbs will grab it quickly and OKC will eventually become closed in losing a possible tax base. The economy, transportation trends, and social preferences will dictate if and when infill happens not how much land is available within city limits 20 miles from downtown. That land will still be there even if it isn't within OKC city limits. What happens 50 years from now may not be that important to our lives but we have to keep it in the back of our minds.

Yes - but the City of Oklahoma City won't be on the hook to provide services. If Edmond or Del City or some other town wants to grab up the land then let them be on the hook for building roads, sewers, police and fire protection.

I'll be willing to wager that if OKC deannex the rural land not one city would attempt to expand in size. Not only that but I'll bet a fair number of residents in these areas would prefer not to be part of a city. Let them get their services from the county.

[metro]

Betts, that might be true in a few cases but I just don't buy that as the main reasons.

You'd be surprised. Retailers aren't that flexible when looking at numbers they are used to. Our country is so backwards when it comes to looking at proper statistics. Debt score (oops I mean "credit" score) and how you manage debt instead of net worth or ability to pay cash, college graduates and net income versus amount of disposable income, they don't look at cost of living indices, etc. etc.

[Kerry]

You'd be surprised. Retailers aren't that flexible when looking at numbers they are used to. Our country is so backwards when it comes to looking at proper statistics. Debt score (oops I mean "credit" score) and how you manage debt instead of net worth or ability to pay cash, college graduates and net income versus amount of disposable income, they don't look at cost of living indices, etc. etc.

One of our resident bankers could probably elaborate but I imagine banks have near zero ability to use anything other than standard economic data. I don't see them using lots of asterisks to explain the numbers used when making a loan.

[ljbab728]

Yes - but the City of Oklahoma City won't be on the hook to provide services. If Edmond or Del City or some other town wants to grab up the land then let them be on the hook for building roads, sewers, police and fire protection.

I'll be willing to wager that if OKC deannex the rural land not one city would attempt to expand in size. Not only that but I'll bet a fair number of residents in these areas would prefer not to be part of a city. Let them get their services from the county.

Kerry, they would then also be "on the hook" to get tax revenues 50 years from now that OKC wouldn't get. Don't be so sure about other cities not willing to annex. I'm sure that Mustang would be very willing to grab some land surrounding them since they are totally inclosed by OKC and can't expand. Whether the rural residents want to be part of a city isn't always a deciding factor. It certainly hasn't been in the past.

[ljbab728]

So what would be the reasons then? Why are we passed over for stores that cities like Wichita, Omaha, Albuquerque and Tulsa get? There has to be some misjudgement of the market for that to happen, and I don't know what else it would be.

I agree and don't have an answer but I believe it is very easy for the retail marketing planners to see there isn't that much difference in the income and density information for OKC and the cities you mention. The retailers are in business to make money and if they think they can they will be doing what is necessary and where it is necessary to do it.

[Kerry]

Kerry, they would then also be "on the hook" to get tax revenues 50 years from now that OKC wouldn't get. Don't be so sure about other cities not willing to annex. I'm sure that Mustang would be very willing to grab some land surrounding them since they are totally inclosed by OKC and can't expand. Whether the rural residents want to be part of a city isn't always a deciding factor. It certainly hasn't been in the past.

Your argument would make sense if governments (at any level) were swimming in money - but they aren't. Being a city is not a money making exercise. They cost more to operate than they bring in in revenue. Imagine if every new home or business in OKC tapped into existing infrastrucutre instead of the city being on the hook for new infrastrucutre for the next 50 years.

Which do yo think is better for the city - a new house on 15th St or a new house on a dirt road near Piedmont? Clearly the new house on 15th St is. They use existing infrastructure, existing police service, existing fire service, and on and on. That is almost pure 'profit' for the city. We are at a point where the city nees to start maximizing 'profit'. We don't need more loss-leaders (to use a retail term).

[OU Adonis]

Hmm. So your saying that if OKC De-Annexed a ton of land and our population density suddenly shot up someone in Marketing will look at the numbers and say "Wow, since last year OKC must of had a population boom because their density is double of what it is."

[Kerry]

Hmm. So your saying that if OKC De-Annexed a ton of land and our population density suddenly shot up someone in Marketing will look at the numbers and say "Wow, since last year OKC must of had a population boom because their density is double of what it is."

Nope - that is not what I am saying at all. Last year doesn't have anything to do with it.

There are two different thing being discussed in a cause and effect relationship. Reducing the city limits has a definite tax advantage for current city residents. Increasing the demographics of OKC in general has a different positive impact.

The goal is to make OKC look better on paper.

[OU Adonis]

Nope - that is not what I am saying at all. Last year doesn't have anything to do with it.

There are two different thing being discussed in a cause and effect relationship. Reducing the city limits has a definite tax advantage for current city residents. Increasing the demographics of OKC in general has a different positive impact.

The goal is to make OKC look better on paper.

I understand the point of less area means less money spent on services. I get that.

But de-annexing the land won't change the feet on the ground in certain areas. It just looks good on paper. The money spent by Google to do their thing won't change. If they did come here they wouldn't be going to the under populated areas.

[Kerry]

I understand the point of less area means less money spent on services. I get that.

But de-annexing the land won't change the feet on the ground in certain areas. It just looks good on paper. The money spent by Google to do their thing won't change. If they did come here they wouldn't be going to the under populated areas.

Google is the perfect example. On paper they look at OKC and say we can provide service to 600,000 people but we have to do that over 640 sq mi. Then they say we can get the same 600,000 in Austin and only have to cover 300 sq mi. They will never get into "but OKC has large rural portions" arguement because we'll never survive the first cut.

BTW - if you only counted OKCs urban area we would have a higher propulation density than Austin.

[scootinger]

And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

I think some retail companies do focus on certain "milestones" as a deciding factor with regard to entering certain markets. The supposed reason that Target (among other retailers) has not opened a store in Stillwater yet is that the city has not reached a population of 50,000; therefore, the city is pushing efforts to get people (especially OSU students) registered as residents of Stillwater for the census this year.

[ljbab728]

Your argument would make sense if governments (at any level) were swimming in money - but they aren't. Being a city is not a money making exercise. They cost more to operate than they bring in in revenue. Imagine if every new home or business in OKC tapped into existing infrastrucutre instead of the city being on the hook for new infrastrucutre for the next 50 years.

Which do yo think is better for the city - a new house on 15th St or a new house on a dirt road near Piedmont? Clearly the new house on 15th St is. They use existing infrastructure, existing police service, existing fire service, and on and on. That is almost pure 'profit' for the city. We are at a point where the city nees to start maximizing 'profit'. We don't need more loss-leaders (to use a retail term).

And Kerry, you're missing my point. That land in the rural areas will be developed at some point even if a house is built on 15th street. You're only looking at the short term interests. Of course cities aren't money making entities, but as I said if a city is locked in like Mustang, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc. they would love to have more land area to eventually have more revenue potential in the future. I consider the large annextions that OKC did many years ago to be probably one the most forsighted things this city has ever done.

[Kerry]

And Kerry, you're missing my point. That land in the rural areas will be developed at some point even if a house is built on 15th street. You're only looking at the short term interests. Of course cities aren't money making entities, but as I said if a city is locked in like Mustang, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc. they would love to have more land area to eventually have more revenue potential in the future. I consider the large annextions that OKC did many years ago to be probably one the most forsighted things this city has ever done.

I don't think you can count Bethany and Warr Acres in this discussion because they are already surrounded by urbanized OKC (unless Bethany wanted to cross the river but I think that is Yukon). Now Mustang is another story. If OKC deannexed the land around Mustang and Mustang expanded, so what?

Let's say OKC kept that land and it was eventually developed and the city got back all the money it took to develope the infrastructure to where the city was at a break even point. Why wait 50 or 100 years to do that? We could accomplish that today if we just reduced the city limits. The city only collects enough money to break even. They aren't a compny that produces a profit and gives money to the shareholders. By increasing the density of the exiting city it will drive down the taxes each person has to pay to keep the city even.

upon further review... Take a look at Mustang. Clearly there are two different housing styles in Mustang - large low density lots that are older, and new high density housing. You can easily see this on Google Earth. This indicates to me that even Mustang knows high density development is cheaper to maintain on a per capita level.

[ljbab728]

I don't think you can count Bethany and Warr Acres in this discussion because they are already surrounded by urbanized OKC (unless Bethany wanted to cross the river but I think that is Yukon). Now Mustang is another story. If OKC deannexed the land around Mustang and Mustang expanded, so what?

Let's say OKC kept that land and it was eventually developed and the city got back all the money it took to develope the infrastructure to where the city was at a break even point. Why wait 50 or 100 years to do that? We could accomplish that today if we just reduced the city limits. The city only collects enough money to break even. They aren't a compny that produces a profit and gives money to the shareholders. By increasing the density of the exiting city it will drive down the taxes each person has to pay to keep the city even.

upon further review... Take a look at Mustang. Clearly there are two different housing styles in Mustang - large low density lots that are older, and new high density housing. You can easily see this on Google Earth. This indicates to me that even Mustang knows high density development is cheaper to maintain on a per capita level.

Kerry, I'm aware of which cities are surrounded by urbanized areas. That wasn't a literal example. Oklahoma City can't increase it's density in reality at all by deannexing land. There still has to be infill and deannexation won't change that. The rural areas will continue to be developed as long as there is a market for it. I'm not arguing that rural development is better at all, just that it will continue anyway and Oklahoma City will lose out eventually by giving that development away to other cities. I lived in Mustang for over 30 years so I know probably more than you do about how it was developed. My father was at one time on both the city council and planning commission. The type of housing built there has nothing to do with cheaper maintenance for high density development. Most of the newer developments are actually on larger lots and less dense than the older ones.

[Kerry]

Oklahoma City can't increase it's density in reality at all by deannexing land. There still has to be infill and deannexation won't change that.

I think people build in rural OKC for simple reason that they still have full access to city provided services. Do you think all of the 100,000 sq ft office buildings on Memorial would be there if they ran on septic systems?

[ljbab728]

I think people build in rural OKC for simple reason that they still have full access to city provided services. Do you think all of the 100,000 sq ft office buildings on Memorial would be there if they ran on septic systems?

Kerry, that might be true for a few people but not for the vast majority. Most just like a rural environment. My father built his last house in Mustang on a 3 acre plot with a septic tank and water well and loved every minute of it. Having full access to city services was the last of his concerns. Of couse large office complexes won't build without city services but that's not really the issue here. You're talking about population density.

[Kerry]

I think we are talking past each other so let me try a different approach.

At some point OKC is going to be built out. All 600+ sq miles will be urbanized. What are we going to do then? Expand the city limits even more? If the inevitable is "100% urbanization of the city" then why not just cut to the chase, reduce the city limits to the current urbanized area, and call it done? We reached the goal of "100% urbanized". At least my way we could enjoy the tax savings that come with 100% urbanization now, and not in 200 years.

[ljbab728]

I think we are talking past each other so let me try a different approach.

At some point OKC is going to be built out. All 600+ sq miles will be urbanized. What are we going to do then? Expand the city limits even more? If the inevitable is "100% urbanization of the city" then why not just cut to the chase, reduce the city limits to the current urbanized area, and call it done? We reached the goal of "100% urbanized". At least my way we could enjoy the tax savings that come with 100% urbanization now, and not in 200 years.

Ok, so OKC is finished now. Forget about planning for the future or what our grandchildren and great grandchildren will deal with. It's all about us and now.

If OKC builds out it's city limits in 150 or 200 years of course they should consider expanding. We will never be and really don't want to be New York or Chicago in many respects. The city can still do things to incourage infill and higher density. As I've said over and over, if OKC doesn't a surrounding suburb will.

[OKC@heart]

Ok, so OKC is finished now. Forget about planning for the future or what our grandchildren and great grandchildren will deal with. It's all about us and now.

If OKC builds out it's city limits in 150 or 200 years of course they should consider expanding. We will never be and really don't want to be New York or Chicago in many respects. The city can still do things to incourage infill and higher density. As I've said over and over, if OKC doesn't a surrounding suburb will.

If I may weigh in, I don't think this has to be a case of either/or. I think that Kerry is trying to suggest that an innovative way to limit the strain on the requirement of the City to provide infrastructure to the entire geographical area that comprises the City. This is certainly not intended to be the only solution, rather one that will aid the city in a multitude of ways.

• Lower pressures and demand for infrastructure
• Allow the budget the city does have to be more effectively spent on maintaining its current infrastructure
• The reduction of land area will improve the cities stats as it relates to density (meaning avg. population per square mile)

I am sure that there are additional benefits such as allowing desirable retail stores that use such data to then be able to make the numbers work and open shop in the city. This will further enrich the city and add value to its residents and aid in the cities national image.

Now ljbab your statement regarding other things the city can do also has just as much merit. Certainly the City should impose a well considered ring that will encourage greater density within such. This has been done by geographical features (or topographical in some cases), in areas where it is available, and by incentives and restrictions in areas where there is no physical barrier to unfettered sprawl and unsustainable growth. It begins to prevent the throw away mentality of many developers and requires them to acknowledge that if they are to build it has to meet density standards as well as design guidelines. So that our city begins to once more be built with the thought that the buildings are here to last and contribute in a meaningful way to the fabric of the city.

The combination of these types of strategies would further strengthen and act as a quality control as we work to continue the momentum and permanence of Oklahoma City as a world class city. We all have to think bigger and more long term. Make the necessary adjustments now so that the private dollars that flow as a result of OKC's Renaissance will have maximum impact! So good job your both right and neither argument is mutually exclusive! you both win!

[ljbab728]

If I may weigh in, I don't think this has to be a case of either/or. I think that Kerry is trying to suggest that an innovative way to limit the strain on the requirement of the City to provide infrastructure to the entire geographical area that comprises the City. This is certainly not intended to be the only solution, rather one that will aid the city in a multitude of ways.

• Lower pressures and demand for infrastructure
• Allow the budget the city does have to be more effectively spent on maintaining its current infrastructure
• The reduction of land area will improve the cities stats as it relates to density (meaning avg. population per square mile)

I am sure that there are additional benefits such as allowing desirable retail stores that use such data to then be able to make the numbers work and open shop in the city. This will further enrich the city and add value to its residents and aid in the cities national image.

Now ljbab your statement regarding other things the city can do also has just as much merit. Certainly the City should impose a well considered ring that will encourage greater density within such. This has been done by geographical features (or topographical in some cases), in areas where it is available, and by incentives and restrictions in areas where there is no physical barrier to unfettered sprawl and unsustainable growth. It begins to prevent the throw away mentality of many developers and requires them to acknowledge that if they are to build it has to meet density standards as well as design guidelines. So that our city begins to once more be built with the thought that the buildings are here to last and contribute in a meaningful way to the fabric of the city.

The combination of these types of strategies would further strengthen and act as a quality control as we work to continue the momentum and permanence of Oklahoma City as a world class city. We all have to think bigger and more long term. Make the necessary adjustments now so that the private dollars that flow as a result of OKC's Renaissance will have maximum impact! So good job your both right and neither argument is mutually exclusive! you both win!

Thanks, lol. What do I win?

[bretweller]

While Oklahoma City has a high penetration rate of people plugged into the World Wide Web, there are several other underserved communities that could make use of the technology, Yager said.

Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”

This above thinking is a false way of going about trying to bring Google fiber here. I'd like to point out the Q & A from Google's website.. Where the question was asked.. Google Moderator

"How large a geographic area can the Google project cover? We have urban areas but also rural areas that are in great need of this service for home and business use. We can reach 250,000 people over 2000 square miles. Is that acceptable?"
Google's Reply..
"We do not currently have geographic limitations, but we are most interested in deploying quickly and efficiently."


My name is Bret Weller and I'm a concerned citizen activist for Oklahoma City's push for Google Fiber. I spoke to City Council on 3/9/10 and was told the same thing as above by Mr. Couch.. After speaking to City Council I set up a website ( DreamBigOKC ) and a Facebook Group ( Bring Google's Gigabit Broadband to OKLAHOMA CITY! | Facebook ) Check them out..


I hope everyone of you did you part and submitted a "Nominate your Community Request!"

I'm really looking forward to seeing what are City Government can do to roll out the carpet for this revolutionary technology..



Here are a few clips and news stories I found very interesting, I hope you do as well.. Because even if we don't get Google Fiber we need to understand how the landscape of technology is going to be changing and we can facilitate this change if we're ALL ON BOARD!!

First take a look at this video.. Really an eye opener!

YouTube - Did You Know 4.0





CDC released a report in 2007, and Oklahoma is #1 state with "Cell-Phone ONLY households." Considering the above video, we are primed for this information expansion.
(Check out pages 2 & 3.)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr014.pdf



The conventional PC will be "irrelevant" within three years, or so
claims Google vice-president of Global Ad Operations John Herlihy.
Google Europe Exec: Desktop PCs 'Irrelevant' In Three Years - PCWorld



Google CEO Preaches 'Mobile First'
Google CEO Preaches 'Mobile First' - PCWorld



Google as well as Microsoft and other big name tech companies are going towards "Cloud Computing"
Cloud computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Digital for the first time will Outsell print advertising. Experts say this is "an industry milestone crossover event." ~~ All print advertising DOWN!
US advertisers to spend more on digital than print: study



Smartphones will shake up paid content debate | Reuters
Smartphones will shake up paid content debate | Reuters



Imagine if you will.. This current infrastructure, Oklahoma has in place
becoming available to ALL OF IT'S CITIZENS!!!!!
OneNet Research Corridor

Glad to meet you all!

[UnFrSaKn]

Next steps for our experimental fiber network

Official Google Blog: Next steps for our experimental fiber network