Tulsa Mayor: "OKC > Tulsa"

[Midtowner]

All the credit to The Lost Ogle for finding this gem:

“We can look down the turnpike to Oklahoma City as an example,” (Tulsa Mayor Dewey) Bartlett said during the noon Tulsa Metro Chamber-sponsored luncheon at the Tulsa Convention Center.

That city’s successful, long-standing Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPs) initiative is now in its third wave of public improvement projects.

“Mayor (Mick) Cornett, we continue to look to you and Oklahoma City for inspiration as a leading example of rebirth, renewal and breaking new ground,” Bartlett said.
“You’ve turned Oklahoma City into a destination, and we are so proud to be your sister city.” -- Tulsa Mayor, Dewey Bartlett

Tulsa mayor announces what we all suspected: they want to be like OKC | The Lost Ogle

[Pete]

Tulsa has some good things going but they are way behind in terms of job and population growth and in those respects the gulf is only widening between the two cities.

The looming AA and Dollar/Thrifty issues are cause for even greater concern.

[adaniel]

Tulsa is a nice town and great day trip from OKC for someone who wants to go to a city close by. After a late start, they are starting to make some progress downtown.

With that being said, their Vision2 proposal is just a disaster. I'm worried they are really about to snuff out the progress they made.

As controversial as MAPS 3 was, at least it didn't contain $100 million just in "transaction costs" and another $250 million in handouts to an airline on its last leg. I would be shocked if folks in Tulsa pass it.

Fun fact: In 1990, after both cities endured a pretty rough decade, there was about 98,000 population difference between the two. In 2011, its about 196,000.

[Pete]

Recent trends show OKC is growing much faster.

Looking at the respective MSA's, in 1990 OKC was 210K larger (971 v. 761). In 2000 that difference had only grown to 236K (1,095 v. 859).

But by 2011 that number had swelled to 332K (1,278 v. 946). So, OKC added almost 100K more than Tulsa in the last 11 years, and the difference in the growth rates seems to be increasing with every passing year.

Looking at the current situation and especially given the job discrepancy between the two cities, I would expect that trend to continue and maybe even accelerate.

[dmoor82]

Pete,over on another forum I suggested that in the future(10-20 years) OKC might add 15-20k/year,just in the city alone,is this guestimate feasible?OKC in the 2010 census was 580k and today it is over 600k,so based on those figures and the fact that OKC hasn't experienced a true population boom yet,15-20k shouldnt be absurd,right?

[Pete]

It's hard to extrapolate on just one year but that does seem reasonable as it seems OKC is just now really starting to move in terms of substantial population growth.

[OKCTalker]

Great information Pete. Can you (or anyone) weigh in on why? Why has OKC outpaced Tulsa since the 1980s? Will it continue to do so? Beyond the comparison, why is OKC doing so well? Why is Tulsa NOT doing so well?

We're only a hundred miles away from each other, sharing comparable climates, geography, tax structures, politics, access to capital and education, so why the diverging fortunes?

[Pete]

Great information Pete. Can you (or anyone) weigh in on why? Why has OKC outpaced Tulsa since the 1980s? Will it continue to do so? Beyond the comparison, why is OKC doing so well? Why is Tulsa NOT doing so well?

We're only a hundred miles away from each other, sharing comparable climates, geography, tax structures, politics, access to capital and education, so why the diverging fortunes?

I would say the #1 reason is jobs. All the big energy companies, several new call centers, Express Personnel, Tinker/Boeing and government have all grown substantially and added a lot of new jobs.

Also, OKC is now perceived as being more dynamic and that has a certain draw.

[Bellaboo]

I would say the #1 reason is jobs. All the big energy companies, several new call centers, Express Personnel, Tinker/Boeing and government have all grown substantially and added a lot of new jobs.

Also, OKC is now perceived as being more dynamic and that has a certain draw.

As of 4 years now we are a Major League sports city.............. and that has a lot of weight with it. For nine months out of the year, you see a reference to OKC on ESPN.

[Spartan]

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

[Dubya61]

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

I don't think you're wrong, but I hope you're wrong. A dynamic Tulsa spurs on OKC to better things, as well.

[1972ford]

Wonder how much of the population growth is due to Okc expanding its borders.

[adaniel]

Wonder how much of the population growth is due to Okc expanding its borders.

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

[Dubya61]

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

I think that it's easy and probably correct to say that OKC's growth is forced growth -- if all you're looking at is footprint. OKC's recent growth is very inward focused.

[Oil Capital]

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

What is "organic" growth as opposed to "forced" growth? Sounds to me like something that Tulsans would say to make themselves feel better about losing out to the city they have all been brought up to believe is vastly inferior.

To get back to the question originally posted. The core reason for Oklahoma City having surpassed Tulsa over the last couple of decades can be summed up with one word: LEADERSHIP.

Starting with Ron Norick, Oklahoma City has had a series of very strong and effective leaders, both in public office and in corporate/community leadership.

Tulsa just hasn't that kind of effective leadership.

Also, Tulsa is exhibit A for the hazards of overconfidence. The city got some good press back in the 50s or so and had some very early and impressive (for their time and for Tulsa's size at the time) cultural amenities. They were fat and happy and insular. They spent 50 years telling each other that they had so much more to offer than their peer cities. That was perhaps true 50 years ago. But they just kept repeating it and believing it and never noticed that other cities were catching up and passing them. FINALLY, a few started noticing in the 90s, but the leadership was not sufficient to get anything done until about 2002, when they finally passed Vision 2025.

[Midtowner]

What is "organic" growth as opposed to "forced" growth? Sounds to me like something that Tulsans would say to make themselves feel better about losing out to the city they have all been brought up to believe is vastly inferior.

Agreed that's a really strange distinction. OKC's growth certainly hasn't been forced or directed. If it was, we certainly wouldn't continue developing the nether-regions of northern Oklahoma County into a resource-sucking suburban wasteland.

[Snowman]

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

Tulsa's Vision extension seemed totally out of left field till hearing about those issues.

[Spartan]

Vision2 sounds like sheer idiocy to me. $120+ million of it is eaten up by financing costs. To fund these projects they're voting on a tax that will span from 2017 to 2029 or something like that. Why don't they tax themselves, like now? If they want things now..

I want some of what they're smoking... somebody is confused enough to treat a sales tax package the same as a bond issue. So they have masterfully devised a strategy (that makes zero sense) of foregoing any and all benefits of doing a sales tax package and assuming all of the financing problems with bonds.

There is no way this is going to pass. I would vote against it..

[Oil Capital]

Vision2 sounds like sheer idiocy to me. $120+ million of it is eaten up by financing costs. To fund these projects they're voting on a tax that will span from 2017 to 2029 or something like that. Why don't they tax themselves, like now? If they want things now..

You are quite right, but understate the problem.

They are not proposing to tax themselves now for things they want now because they ave already taxed themselves now (and through 2017) for the things they want now.

That is one of many problems with this proposed Vision2. Calling it sheer idiocy is being kind.

They have already taxed themselves through 2016 for things they wanted in the 2004-2012 period.

NOW, they are proposing to tax themselves for the years 2017-2029 for things they want NOW. Even IF there was a well-thought-out plan to use these funds, this is irresponsible, idiotic, unsustainable, and a path to bankruptcy.

[BG918]

Vision2 is an extension of the Vision 2025 tax passed in '03. It's not well-thought out and includes corporate welfare for AA...it likely won't pass. They'll have to go back to the drawing board and try again. The tax doesn't expire until 2016, I believe (13 years).

That being said while there has been some issues with the stability of the local companies in Tulsa, notably DTAG and AA, the city itself is doing well and is up there with OKC in terms of strongest economies especially through the recession. Population growth is slightly lower, yes, but Tulsa doesn't have as much land to sprawl and doesn't have a dynamic suburb like Norman to greatly increase suburban growth.

[Spartan]

Vision2 is an extension of the Vision 2025 tax passed in '03. It's not well-thought out and includes corporate welfare for AA...it likely won't pass. They'll have to go back to the drawing board and try again. The tax doesn't expire until 2016, I believe (13 years).

That being said while there has been some issues with the stability of the local companies in Tulsa, notably DTAG and AA, the city itself is doing well and is up there with OKC in terms of strongest economies especially through the recession. Population growth is slightly lower, yes, but Tulsa doesn't have as much land to sprawl and doesn't have a dynamic suburb like Norman to greatly increase suburban growth.

I don't think Norman is nearly as dynamic as it should be, or as it was showing the potential to become before Rosenthal took over. In fact I'd argue last decade has seen OKC really reassertion itself over everything in Central Oklahoma.

[ZYX2]

To second BG918, and despite some of the opinions expressed, the sky is not falling on Tulsa. Actually, I would say Tulsa is just now heating up. While there are the obvious concerns over AA and Dollar Thrifty, overall the economy in Tulsa is pretty good. The medical industry, in particular, is really trying to get going, with the Saint Francis expansion slated to include a Level I Trauma center, and the developing OU-TU Medical School. From what I hear, many hospitals actually have nurse and doctor shortages, and need to fill some slots.

Williams is growing again, and Cimarex is building themselves a new "tower." There's also no shortage of entrepreneurial start ups and new to Tulsa chains.

Overall, I think Tulsa will be just fine in the long run. Downtown truly is exploding, and seems as though it will continue to do so. The suburbs definitely aren't hurting either, with development increasing in nearly all of them. I fully expect the Tulsa metro region's growth rates to accelerate in the next few years.

More than likely, Tulsa will never be as big or as powerful as OKC. And, honestly, that's fine by me. I am A-ok with Tulsa being the little sister of OKC. Great things are happening here as well as down the pike, so I will continue to cheer on both cities as they make huge strides in becoming better places to live.

[Spartan]

You are quite right, but understate the problem.

They are not proposing to tax themselves now for things they want now because they ave already taxed themselves now (and through 2017) for the things they want now.

That is one of many problems with this proposed Vision2. Calling it sheer idiocy is being kind.

They have already taxed themselves through 2016 for things they wanted in the 2004-2012 period.

NOW, they are proposing to tax themselves for the years 2017-2029 for things they want NOW. Even IF there was a well-thought-out plan to use these funds, this is irresponsible, idiotic, unsustainable, and a path to bankruptcy.

I think the list is pretty questionable too. A a certain point, no matter how important AA is, you have to realize when an issue keeps coming up every ten years. How will Tulsa keep AA put in 2022 when they've taxed themselves until 2029 once the reliably expensive issue comes up again.

Oh wait, obviously they'll just pass another tax then through 2050 even though it will only be 2022. The financing costs will probably be a billion dollars alone and that's not even the biggest problem I see. Then they won't even be talking about renovating the hangars anymore because they will be 80 years old.

I just question the sustainability of Tulsa's economic development. AA hasn't even requested tricks yet...

[Larry OKC]

Dont know the particulars of the Tulsa plan, but in OKC's experience it really doesn't make much of a difference if they are using a primarily pay-as-you-go sales tax or bond issue as the length of time for completion of all of the projects is roughly the same (10 to 12 years). As Spartan pointed out, the advantage is avoiding the long term debt issues, so that money can be used for other things. Be it a better project or maint etc. All of that said, for all of OKC's MAPS successes, we still utilize bond issues too.

[metro]

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

Why is the state only big enough for one dynamic metro? Where is the logic in that thinking? People have to remember that population, immigration and the economy are ever expanding, aka we are always making more pie, there is not just one pie and you only get so much.