Population Growth for OKC

[PhiAlpha]

I think this is the case. The incarceration rate is another big one like you said. However, people don't seem to want to acknowledge that there's a problem especially if it concerns the state legislature. One can say other state legislatures are nutty, but there has to be a reason that states like Texas, NC, and Georgia get corporate relocations by the dozens while at the same time it's a very rare deal for Oklahoma. I think the bottom line is most people are happy with the status quo in Oklahoma, for better or for worse, and don't really see a need to change course.

To second what another poster said....where are the specifics that Dan asked you to cite? You say the same things over and over again but anytime some asks you to back it up, you, and certain others who constantly post similarly negative things, never do.

[bchris02]

The mega Texas cities do not have the tornado threats we have, and they all have mild winters. Okc seems to all have some extreme or another.

This is always going to be a disadvantage of OKC just like New Orleans is always going to have that ever-present risk of being drowned in another Katrina. Central Oklahoma is ground zero for tornado alley and while DFW still does get tornadoes and severe weather, it's typically not as bad down there as it is up here. Their winters are also quite a bit milder than OKC's. It's amazing the difference 200 miles south makes.

I agree with the posters that say too much growth would be tough. We can barely get an interchange built in 20 years. Growth would only exasperate some problems.

But that is an Oklahoma problem. Other states can get roads and interchanges built much faster it seems like. From what I understand, it has to do with the way ODOT is funded and once again that goes back to the state legislature.

You going to respond to Dankrutka's question for specifics? You like to play in generalities. Give him (and by proxy, us) some specifics answers to his question. See post 1235.

Elimination of SQ 640, increased teacher pay, school consolidation, increased higher education funding, allowing ODOT to take on debt to get projects done in a more timely manner, a GPT hike, and a public smoking ban is where I would start. I would also loosen the petition requirements to make it easier to get petition initiatives on the ballot. Candidates aren't talking about any of this. Instead, they are pushing the same old tired right-wing ideology responsible for getting the state into the mess it's currently in. "Cut spending, lower taxes" sounds good to the low-information conservative voter but there's only so far you can go before you start "cutting into the bone" so to speak.

[josh]

All I heard when moving back was about tornadoes, tornadoes, tornadoes. I used to think OK's problems were due to weather, but Texas has the same weather as here, maybe even hotter. Except for an incredible infrastructure and the amenities that come with size, Dallas is no better than OKC in anyway. It's not prettier, hillier, nearer a good ocean, or less conservative. I have to believe it had great support in DC to push for investments in the area and leadership that foresaw the value of building DFW and establishing international trade zones around it.

I don’t know much about Oklahoma, I won’t lie, I’m a Texas guy and I know Texas. Mainly San Antonio l, but I know the other cities well. So, with that said, you’re speaking of subjectives. Saying Dallas isn’t prettier, that’s subjective.

However, saying it’s not less conservative is actually untrue and can be proven.

The Economist released a study in 2014 that gauged and evaluated the political ideologies of a city/metro. Basically, it listed how liberal or conversative a city/metro area was.

OKC was the second most conservative city while Dallas was one of the more liberal cities.

Here are the findings.

As for everything else, you saying aside from the incredible infrastructure and the cosmopolitan amenities that come with the size and quality of life is like saying, aside from the fans, the hot wife, multiple Super Bowl rings and the millions of dollars that come from it, Tom Brady is no better than me. He has two feet like me, teeth like me, and poops like me.

[Motley]

That's my point. Tom Brady began with two feet and a full set of teeth and two arms. He worked hard to be the best, but he began just like everyone else.

San Diego and SF have great harbors for shipping and near perfect weather. Miami has unparalleled beaches and warm winters. Charlotte sits in a beautiful area, not overly far from major populations and has mild winters for retirees. They are blessed with natural features that can partly explain why they are so popular. Dallas and OKC are very similar geographically and weather-wise. No one is choosing Dallas for its climate or to revel in its oceans or mountains. Yet for some reason it explodes with growth compared to OKC.

Likewise, it is not the politics of the region. OKC may be more conservative than Dallas, but OKC is up there with Mesa, AZ, Anaheim, and Arlington, TX. Regions that are expanding or have expanded in the past at rates more comparable to Dallas. So it's not the politics that drive growth.

The point of this line of discussion is what keeps OKC from growing faster, and IMO, it's not due to geography, weather, or politics.

[dcsooner]

[QUOTE=Motley;1033935]That's my point. Tom Brady began with two feet and a full set of teeth and two arms. He worked hard to be the best, but he began just like everyone else.

San Diego and SF have great harbors for shipping and near perfect weather. Miami has unparalleled beaches and warm winters. Charlotte sits in a beautiful area, not overly far from major populations and has mild winters for retirees. They are blessed with natural features that can partly explain why they are so popular. Dallas and OKC are very similar geographically and weather-wise. No one is choosing Dallas for its climate or to revel in its oceans or mountains. Yet for some reason it explodes with growth compared to OKC.

Likewise, it is not the politics of the region. OKC may be more conservative than Dallas, but OKC is up there with Mesa, AZ, Anaheim, and Arlington, TX. Regions that are expanding or have expanded in the past at rates more comparable to Dallas. So it's not the politics that drive growth.

The point of this line of discussion is what keeps OKC from growing faster, and IMO, it's not due to geography, weather, or politics.[/QUOTE]

+1 but


11:05 AM - 4/6/18

Guest said:
Roy, what hurdles does the chamber constantly deal with that us readers might be surprised to hear?

Roy Williams replied:
The image that is created by our legislature in many, many ways such as our obsession over guns, social issues and other issues that continually get us national press that keeps companies from even engaging with us is a problem.

Steve Lackmeyer replied:
I am going to assume, Roy, that you cringe whenever you hear Oklahoma is about to be discussed on the Daily Show or This Week with John Oliver.


11:34 AM - 4/6/18

Ryan J said:
Regarding criminal justice reform and even mental health services, are these things that we can tackle as a city, or is it necessary to have the state’s backing?

Roy Williams replied:
Ideally you want the state's backing. But unfortunately, not just in Oklahoma but across the country we are seeing state legislators cut back resources that directly impact their cities. And it's not just in criminal justice, it's in education, it's in public safety, infrastructure, and more and more we as cities and regions are going to have to figure out a new model for back-filling what state government is no longer willing to do. Just because state government doesn't fund it doesn't mean the problem goes away.


Tony C said:
As far as more stable state and city revenue, I would be happy to have real estate tax rates double, income taxes raised, more street parking that requires payment, and especially car emissions standards and checks. Oklahoma is way more lax with regards to real estate taxes and emissions than in other states, and a stable revenue source would be extremely helpful to aid teacher salaries, infrastructure projects, and the like. Am I alone in my hopes to see the state pursue such revenue streams? Are you seeing any policy makers going in this direction?

Roy Williams replied:
I don't. Oklahomans have no desire for increasing property tax rates and using it in the manner other states (like Texas) use it. That's how Texas funds schools.

OU President David Boren slams governor's proposed funding cuts for higher education
President Boren says constant reductions are harming higher education in the state.
By KIM ARCHER World Staff Writer Feb 16, 2014

Oklahoma likely to lead the nation in incarceration by 2019 amid 'limited' reforms, DOC director says
State leads the nation in female incarceration, could pass overall leader Louisiana after it passed reform legislation
By Ben Botkin Oklahoma Watch Jan 21, 2018

Oklahoma ranks among worst in U.S. for health
Jaclyn Cosgrove
by JACLYN COSGROVE
Published: Thu, December 15, 2016 12:00 AM Updated: Sat, December 17, 2016 4:00 PM

LISTS-NEWS
15 States with the Worst Roads and Infrastructure in US
Published on March 26, 2018 at 3:25 pm by BOJANA PETKOVIĆ in Lists,News
Oklahoma #1

How do we stand up for Oklahoma and demand (vote) for leadership at all levels of State Government that enacts legislation that improves the Quality of Life and Standard of Living in the State? That is the fundamental question, not oceans, forests, hot weather,cold weather.

[Motley]

dcsooner. I agree completely. What I am surmising is that OK lacks leadership of any kind, from the left or right. I don't follow state politics, so I might be wrong, but from what I read on OKCtalk, at least Mick C. embraced ideas that where successful elsewhere and implemented them in OKC to its betterment.

I love OK, but I long accepted that our people don't like to think outside the box and are more than willing to accept the basics in aesthetics and from government in exchange for low taxes.

[Laramie]

As long as we get back to the growth levels we started from 2010-15 (Metro 20,000 annual growth average) we won't have to concern ourselves with over population; not being able to keep up with the influx of population. OKC's economy is more diversified (not energy dependent) than before--we still have a long road ahead.

Austin, Raleigh & Salt Lake City have braced themselves for growth; it appears to take us longer to get the infrastructure to support the corporate growth needed to sustain any kind of population boom.

Until our rural legislatures understand that they will benefit from the growth of Oklahoma's two major metro areas, they will continue to legislate for their own individual interest; therefore OKC has to continue to support its own agenda. We need to keep the incentives in place like Quality Jobs, MAPS etc.

Think of where OKC would be without MAPS? Aging city owned buildings & infrastructure, no downtown arena, ballpark, no 50-story Devon Tower, no NBA franchise; a city without a future. Our best educated talent sucked into Dallas while we play footsies with Tulsa & Wichita for scraps & crumbs.

[HangryHippo]

A major airline hub seems to be helping most of the places on this list.

[bchris02]

That's my point. Tom Brady began with two feet and a full set of teeth and two arms. He worked hard to be the best, but he began just like everyone else.

San Diego and SF have great harbors for shipping and near perfect weather. Miami has unparalleled beaches and warm winters. Charlotte sits in a beautiful area, not overly far from major populations and has mild winters for retirees. They are blessed with natural features that can partly explain why they are so popular. Dallas and OKC are very similar geographically and weather-wise. No one is choosing Dallas for its climate or to revel in its oceans or mountains. Yet for some reason it explodes with growth compared to OKC.

Likewise, it is not the politics of the region. OKC may be more conservative than Dallas, but OKC is up there with Mesa, AZ, Anaheim, and Arlington, TX. Regions that are expanding or have expanded in the past at rates more comparable to Dallas. So it's not the politics that drive growth.

The point of this line of discussion is what keeps OKC from growing faster, and IMO, it's not due to geography, weather, or politics.

Dallas has milder winters, is marginally more green (though I'm not sure how much of this is due to climate or better beatification), and has a lower tornado threat compared to OKC. The big thing there though is the entire DFW metroplex has over twice the population of the entire state of Oklahoma. Dallas proper, in my opinion, feels like another world compared to OKC. It has a very different culture. It's really hard to believe the two places are only three hours apart. On the other hand, parts of the metroplex, particularly on the Ft Worth side, have an more of an OKC feel to them. DFW is naturally going to have significant draw due to its size, still relative low cost of living, and major hub airport.

In regards to Anaheim, Mesa, and Arlington, first of all those are suburbs of major metro areas and not core cities. Edmond and Norman should be compared to those places, not OKC proper. Most suburbs lean conservative compared to their core cities.

[Laramie]

A major airline hub seems to be helping most of the places on this list.

Until OKC separates the umbilical airline cord it has with DFW, you'll then see accelerated growth. Development of a mini-hub at WRWA may be on the horizon.

[LocoAko]

This is always going to be a disadvantage of OKC just like New Orleans is always going to have that ever-present risk of being drowned in another Katrina. Central Oklahoma is ground zero for tornado alley and while DFW still does get tornadoes and severe weather, it's typically not as bad down there as it is up here. Their winters are also quite a bit milder than OKC's. It's amazing the difference 200 miles south makes.



But that is an Oklahoma problem. Other states can get roads and interchanges built much faster it seems like. From what I understand, it has to do with the way ODOT is funded and once again that goes back to the state legislature.



Elimination of SQ 640, increased teacher pay, school consolidation, increased higher education funding, allowing ODOT to take on debt to get projects done in a more timely manner, a GPT hike, and a public smoking ban is where I would start. I would also loosen the petition requirements to make it easier to get petition initiatives on the ballot. Candidates aren't talking about any of this. Instead, they are pushing the same old tired right-wing ideology responsible for getting the state into the mess it's currently in. "Cut spending, lower taxes" sounds good to the low-information conservative voter but there's only so far you can go before you start "cutting into the bone" so to speak.

By "candidates" I assume you only mean hard-right conservatives that it seems you think are the only candidates that exist? We have plenty of good candidates running this time around, many of whom are talking about these exact issues and are finding strong support.

[Motley]

No one is choosing Dallas for its weather. Same for Houston and San Antonio. We had a huge corporate presence in both Dallas and Houston, and the absolute consistent view was the weather was miserable in both places. OKC's weather is only incrementally worse than Dallas's, and probably better than Houston's. Most people at work would take Dallas's weather over Houston's when faced with a transfer.

[stlokc]

I realize everything is anecdotal, but is there really a huge percentage of the working age population that makes life-changing relocation decisions based on the weather? The group that does that in large numbers are 70 year old retirees that are moving from places like Michigan and Minnesota to places like Florida and Arizona. As much as I respect old people, that's not really an economic development argument. Besides, weather preferences are subjective. I have a friend in Connecticut that misses the thunderstorms in the midwest so much that she posts about it on Facebook almost daily.

How does population grow? It's "births over deaths" and it's "internal over external migration."

As for "births over deaths" that comes from having a younger-than-average population and also from attracting international immigrants since they tend to be younger and have more children.

As for domestic migration, that is largely a function of the employment situation. Quality jobs. However, it's not as simple as it might seem. St. Louis has 10 Fortune 500 companies, 19 Fortune 1000 companies, and dozens of huge private companies, all in wildly divergent industries, and the population here is the very definition of stagnant. I've come to the conclusion that job growth has to be organic, it has to be entrepreneurial and it has to come in a climate of innovation. Lots of small, breakout companies in lots of different types of fields. I'm afraid oil and gas will be largely done by mid-century.

So the conversation has to be around these topics. What is it that OKC can do with respect to skilled international and domestic migration? That's within the city's control. The city can't control the weather and sadly, it can't control the mentality of the rural 70 counties of the state.

[stlokc]

Of course, by "internal over external migration" I meant "inbound over outbound migration." Sorry. I hope you caught my drift, though.

[Motley]

I'm not saying they made a decision based on the weather. I'm saying that the weather in Dallas and Houston was not perceived as a particular plus by anyone. When determining why Dallas and Houston are growing, great weather is just not a factor, nor do I believe that weather plays much of a factor in decisions to relocate a business to Dallas over OKC.

Oddly, I found this on the web, reportedly from US News and World Reports. https://realestate.usnews.com/real-e...ather?slide=16

[josh]

That's my point. Tom Brady began with two feet and a full set of teeth and two arms. He worked hard to be the best, but he began just like everyone else.

San Diego and SF have great harbors for shipping and near perfect weather. Miami has unparalleled beaches and warm winters. Charlotte sits in a beautiful area, not overly far from major populations and has mild winters for retirees. They are blessed with natural features that can partly explain why they are so popular. Dallas and OKC are very similar geographically and weather-wise. No one is choosing Dallas for its climate or to revel in its oceans or mountains. Yet for some reason it explodes with growth compared to OKC.

Likewise, it is not the politics of the region. OKC may be more conservative than Dallas, but OKC is up there with Mesa, AZ, Anaheim, and Arlington, TX. Regions that are expanding or have expanded in the past at rates more comparable to Dallas. So it's not the politics that drive growth.

The point of this line of discussion is what keeps OKC from growing faster, and IMO, it's not due to geography, weather, or politics.

Not every place becomes a huge metropolitan area because of beauty or landscapes. Atlanta isn’t Atlanta because of oceans or mountains.

Oceans, mountains, hills, etc are all cherries in top of the sundae. They’re things that help and enhance the QOL in that city or metro.

But again, it was the putting in place, years ago, policies and industries that fostered growth and making sure its airport was a hub that helped Dallas grow. Making sure to be the midway Becca for America, the center point for commerce is why Dallas is the mega monster it is.

As for Mesa and Anaheim, Arlington. Those are conservative suburbs of Phoenix, Los Angeles and Dallas respectively. They’re growth is tied almost exclusively to the city they’re attached to and ideology has nothing to do with it. LA, Phoenix and Dallas all being left leaning cities themselves.

[gopokes88]

Not to get political but I think a significant chunk of this board will be surprised at the primary results and the general in November.

In my district alone the (R) incumbent is facing a primary from a teacher and the Dem side has two teachers running. Changes are coming. There's some white hot anger out there.

[josh]

No one is choosing Dallas for its weather. Same for Houston and San Antonio. We had a huge corporate presence in both Dallas and Houston, and the absolute consistent view was the weather was miserable in both places. OKC's weather is only incrementally worse than Dallas's, and probably better than Houston's. Most people at work would take Dallas's weather over Houston's when faced with a transfer.

99% of people aren’t afforded the luxury of choosing where to work based on weather. That is such a ridiculous metric to base things on. If given the choose based on weather, a majority are picking LA or San Diego but weather is the last thing anyone cares about. Salary and pay, cost of living, quality of life are much more essential to one’s motives than weather. Weather is a nice perk, or sometimes terrible aspect, that comes with the city you choose.

[josh]

I found this interesting. It’s a list by U-Haul tracking all the one way arrivals in the country used by their moving service.

Houston was number 1. My hometown of San Antonio was number 5. OKC was number 36.

Here’s the list.

[Isaac C. Parker]

Dallas has milder winters, is marginally more green (though I'm not sure how much of this is due to climate or better beatification),

Dallas has an immense population of Live Oak trees. These trees grow large and stay green (retain their leaves) through the winter, which is why they're called "live." Dallas's canopy is incredibly green compared to Oklahoma City's in the winter because of these trees. It's especially apparent in the older parts of Dallas where these trees are everywhere and quite large.

Oklahoma City does have some of these Live Oak trees present, but not to the extent that Dallas does. I'd bet the most numerous collection of these in Oklahoma are in and around Nichols Hills (check out the OKCGCC entrance for example), with the Great Plains Coca Cola bottling plant having some of the largest ones. Oklahoma City is about as far north as Live Oak trees will reliably grow, but I've noticed them in Stillwater and Tulsa too.

There are two types of these trees. The "Texas" or Fusiformis variety of Live Oaks are the hardier type, and their natural range extends into Southwest Oklahoma (around the Quartz Mountains and Wichita Mountains). They get pretty large, though not quite as large as the coastal/southeastern variety (Virginiana) that are much more famous. Dallas is full of both types of Live Oak trees. OKC still has a few Virginiana trees left, but I think there was a big freeze in the '80s that took a lot of them out.

Anyway, this is all to say that OKC could easily have a greener winter canopy if we planted more Live Oak trees. I'm a tree nerd and biased, but these are gorgeous trees. I see them all over the metro, but I don't see them as densely utilized as they are in Dallas or Texas generally. The trendy trees planted right now in new OKC developments are Baldcypress trees and Chinese Pistache, which are both deciduous. I believe they may have planted some Live Oaks outside of the new Street Car facility, probably because there are a couple of older Live Oaks right next to the old Union Depot.

[jonny d]

Man, I am not sure why anyone lives in this dump...that is what I get from the last 30 or so posts on here.

[gopokes88]

99% of people aren’t afforded the luxury of choosing where to work based on weather. That is such a ridiculous metric to base things on. If given the choose based on weather, a majority are picking LA or San Diego but weather is the last thing anyone cares about. Salary and pay, cost of living, quality of life are much more essential to one’s motives than weather. Weather is a nice perk, or sometimes terrible aspect, that comes with the city you choose.

Counter point,

20 million people live in that corridor.

[Bellaboo]

Dallas has an immense population of Live Oak trees. These trees grow large and stay green (retain their leaves) through the winter, which is why they're called "live." Dallas's canopy is incredibly green compared to Oklahoma City's in the winter because of these trees. It's especially apparent in the older parts of Dallas where these trees are everywhere and quite large.

Oklahoma City does have some of these Live Oak trees present, but not to the extent that Dallas does. I'd bet the most numerous collection of these in Oklahoma are in and around Nichols Hills (check out the OKCGCC entrance for example), with the Great Plains Coca Cola bottling plant having some of the largest ones. Oklahoma City is about as far north as Live Oak trees will reliably grow, but I've noticed them in Stillwater and Tulsa too.

There are two types of these trees. The "Texas" or Fusiformis variety of Live Oaks are the hardier type, and their natural range extends into Southwest Oklahoma (around the Quartz Mountains and Wichita Mountains). They get pretty large, though not quite as large as the coastal/southeastern variety (Virginiana) that are much more famous. Dallas is full of both types of Live Oak trees. OKC still has a few Virginiana trees left, but I think there was a big freeze in the '80s that took a lot of them out.

Anyway, this is all to say that OKC could easily have a greener winter canopy if we planted more Live Oak trees. I'm a tree nerd and biased, but these are gorgeous trees. I see them all over the metro, but I don't see them as densely utilized as they are in Dallas or Texas generally. The trendy trees planted right now in new OKC developments are Baldcypress trees and Chinese Pistache, which are both deciduous. I believe they may have planted some Live Oaks outside of the new Street Car facility, probably because there are a couple of older Live Oaks right next to the old Union Depot.

You know what happens to Live Oaks in an ice storm ? There is nothing left. Probably a pretty good reason for them to be more southern.

[Isaac C. Parker]

You know what happens to Live Oaks in an ice storm ? There is nothing left. Probably a pretty good reason for them to be more southern.

Common misconception!

Live Oaks have some of the toughest wood, and the branches tend to do pretty well in ice storms. However, the fact that Live Oaks retain their leaves mean that there is increased surface area for ice to accumulate, so younger trees are more at risk.

I see local pear trees having a much, much tougher time with ice storms than Live Oaks, and are several times as prevalent.

[Bunty]

Man, I am not sure why anyone lives in this dump...that is what I get from the last 30 or so posts on here.

A number of us are deeply devoted homebodies at heart. My family and myself never moved more than a county or two further away than where we were born.