2nd & Greenwood

[guido911]

I will defend guido on one thing. He is right that we have spent a ton of money on downtown to the detriment of other areas. At some point, downtown should be able to survive without additional government subsidy. If it can't, then we have wasted millions of dollars.
 

And that is really all I am saying. I want money for the homeless, but more for our public schools. But that would be real thread drift.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ah, how about that virtue signaling! We have a real saint on our hands.

Come on...don't go RWRE on us, here!!  It's beneath you.


We should never disparage someone's good works!  Even Trump has done some good - he is paying someone to raise and care for his son Barron.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And that is really all I am saying. I want money for the homeless, but more for our public schools. But that would be real thread drift.

Common cause!!   The gutting of education in Oklahoma over the last 5 years is the biggest disgrace this state has ever done!

[Conan71]

I will defend guido on one thing. He is right that we have spent a ton of money on downtown to the detriment of other areas. At some point, downtown should be able to survive without additional government subsidy. If it can't, then we have wasted millions of dollars.
 

Other than the BOK Center, OneOk and re-makes of streets (some in TIF districts) I'm not seeing downtown getting an unfair advantage over other areas.  I believe those were reasonable expenditures and they were done some time back.  I'm not seeing where there's a disproportionate amount of public money spent in downtown now vs. outlying areas, which is not being done without a TIF to repay it (i.e. Santa Fe Square).  You may have a better view than I do of current expenditures, but it seems that private investment has been outstripping public investment downtown for several years now and it's backed up by demand.

I do recognize there are streets which should have been widened years ago in south and east Tulsa but this is nothing new.  When I lived at 85th & Toledo 40 years ago, that's when everything south of 71st to 121st and from Riverside to at least Garnett should have been in the works to widen to accommodate future growth like OKC was doing at the time.  We weren't spending a ton on downtown back then either.  The biggest infusion of cash in downtown has been literally the last 15 years or so.  In that same time frame we've been re-habbing roads which were neglected for years instead of widening projects.

[guido911]

Common cause!!   The gutting of education in Oklahoma over the last 5 years is the biggest disgrace this state has ever done!

Oh Oklahoma has done far worse than that. Hell, Tulsa has done worse. But our public education system SUCKS and needs priority funding--and this from a guy whose kids went to private school.

[RecycleMichael]

Other than the BOK Center, OneOk and re-makes of streets (some in TIF districts) I'm not seeing downtown getting an unfair advantage over other areas.  I believe those were reasonable expenditures and they were done some time back.  I'm not seeing where there's a disproportionate amount of public money spent in downtown now vs. outlying areas, which is not being done without a TIF to repay it (i.e. Santa Fe Square).  You may have a better view than I do of current expenditures, but it seems that private investment has been outstripping public investment downtown for several years now and it's backed up by demand.

I do recognize there are streets which should have been widened years ago in south and east Tulsa but this is nothing new.  When I lived at 85th & Toledo 40 years ago, that's when everything south of 71st to 121st and from Riverside to at least Garnett should have been in the works to widen to accommodate future growth like OKC was doing at the time.  We weren't spending a ton on downtown back then either.  The biggest infusion of cash in downtown has been literally the last 15 years or so.  In that same time frame we've been re-habbing roads which were neglected for years instead of widening projects.

BoK Center, OneOk Field, and road projects have equaled over $300 million public dollars into downtown in the last ten years. Add to this almost every new apartment and hotel has been given subsidy or no interest loans and I would say that it is equal to the discretionary funding of all the rest of Tulsa combined.

Tulsa is 192.1 square miles and downtown is three square miles.

I have supported everyone of those dollars spent downtown to date, but at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.

[guido911]

BoK Center, OneOk Field, and road projects have equaled over $300 million public dollars into downtown in the last ten years. Add to this almost every new apartment and hotel has been given subsidy or no interest loans and I would say that it is equal to the discretionary funding of all the rest of Tulsa combined.

Tulsa is 192.1 square miles and downtown is three square miles.

I have supported everyone of those dollars spent downtown to date, but at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.

Argument concluded.

[MostSeriousness]

Does the economic impact of those projects matter at all, though? BOK Center alone has peaked that $300M. That's the end game with these projects, right?

Same thing applies to all private developments that get subsidies or abatements or whatever - there's a return that goes back to the city

[RecycleMichael]

Does the economic impact of those projects matter at all, though? BOK Center alone has peaked that $300M. That's the end game with these projects, right?

I am not sure we can prove economic impact of the BoK Center that easily. Ticket sales are money that also leaves with the artist.

Don't get me wrong. I love that Tulsa has such a facility and we go often. I am willing to pay for such an attraction. But I question how much longer we must subsidize every new apartment being built.  

[erfalf]

I am not sure we can prove economic impact of the BoK Center that easily. Ticket sales are money that also leaves with the artist.

Don't get me wrong. I love that Tulsa has such a facility and we go often. I am willing to pay for such an attraction. But I question how much longer we must subsidize every new apartment being built.  

Especially when they generally demand much higher rent/prices. It seems counter intuitive to give someone help for selling something that prices seem to indicate are pretty high in demand. Confusing to say the least.

[rebound]

Especially when they generally demand much higher rent/prices. It seems counter intuitive to give someone help for selling something that prices seem to indicate are pretty high in demand. Confusing to say the least.

The help is not for the selling, but the building/converting.    Based on previous discussions on apartments on this site, it is difficult to build from scratch at low price-points.   But, I agree with your basic question.   If we (Tulsa) are going to subsidize building apts, could we stipulate certain constraints regarding rents, etc, for a period of time?

[Conan71]

BoK Center, OneOk Field, and road projects have equaled over $300 million public dollars into downtown in the last ten years. Add to this almost every new apartment and hotel has been given subsidy or no interest loans and I would say that it is equal to the discretionary funding of all the rest of Tulsa combined.

Tulsa is 192.1 square miles and downtown is three square miles.

I have supported everyone of those dollars spent downtown to date, but at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.

Thank you for taking the time to seriously address my points.  BOK Center, the remake of the Civic Center, and OneOk Field consumed over 2/3 of that investment, IIRC.  Total for those projects should be in the $210 to $220 million range.  That is a 40 or 50 year investment based on how long the Maxwell Convention Center served as our primary performance and convention venue and it still continues as our convention venue today.  Deduct that  from your $300 million figure and that leaves $80-90 million spent in various downtown projects.

If I also recall some projects which we would refer to as subsidized like the Mayo renovation was done with a TDA loan which I believe has been repaid.  Others have been done with TIFs which utilized repayment from realized sales tax revenue like the Brady District TIF which I think has paid out.

Our street package we passed about 10 years ago was to fund about $1 billion in repairs, I believe over ten years.  Based on that package alone, it would pretty well squelch the notion that we've spent more on downtown (even including OneOk and BOK) than the rest of Tulsa combined in the last 10 years.  

A city's civic center is a source of self-esteem and commerce.  It's been that way throughout recent history around the world (at least for 2-3 millennia).  That is why there is more investment geared in that direction in Tulsa after the real downturn it took as corporations moved to the suburbs in the 1970's and to other cities in the 1990's.

You know we don't measure the impact of a BOK center or OneOk solely in gate receipts though.  By adding about 10,000 or so seats to our single night performance capacity we now book musical acts and sporting events we could never get before.  It's proven events like that have regional draw which means hotel, dining, and shopping receipts do go up as a result.  I have no idea how much putting the ball field in an urban setting has actually improved sales tax receipts on game days at area businesses from when it was at a suburban setting with zero walkability factor built in to nonexistent area food and beverage venues.  I do think it would be fair to say it has at least increased the likelihood people are spending more money in area businesses than they would have at 15th & Yale.

I know you realize I am a huge skeptic when it comes to "sales taxing" our way to prosperity.  Even with all the investment downtown and elsewhere, our sales tax collections have been flat for 30 plus years now.  There's been no significant uptick since the BOK and OneOk and all the other venues downtown opened.  It's entirely possible additional collections there have managed to offset online spending (I'm sure there is data somewhere within OTC we could mine for that) or infrastructure investment is simply a zero sum game no matter what or where you build it.

Real growth happens when you make a city more livable and more attractive for companies and professionals to relocate to the area.  Without all the influx of people looking to move to Austin, their fortunes might look a good deal more like Tulsa's.  I personally was always thankful Tulsa did not end up with the problems of Austin's growth.

In terms of ROI in sales tax dollars, we've had many discussions on here as to why supporting dense redevelopment is far more cost-effective than supporting sprawl.  I am not ignoring one of one areas of your wife's suburban council district which does need improvement to support, I believe it is, 3000 apartment units.  That is density.  It's not the urban density idealized by many on this board, but it is density nonetheless and there is a real problem with bottlenecks in the area.

I was a vocal detractor of the original V-2025 and I voted against it.  But take a look at what all happened downtown as a result and think about what 15 more years of neglect and little public investment on downtown would look like now.

And finally, in the next 10 years I believe we will have exhausted most redevelopment opportunity in downtown- for the time being and as developer's focus shifts to redeveloping outdated parcels in the suburbs so will public spending.

Tulsa has always been a lot like an alcoholic or drug addict.  It's never known real balance when it comes to development.  It's been a ton of focus in one area to the neglect of others then on to the next instead of steady in all directions.

[DowntownDan]

No other part of town was treated with such disdain as downtown had in the 50 years prior to the last decade.  When you destroy more than half of what was built, it takes money to build it back up.  All the while, we've subsidized for decades the ever widening roads and bridges to for the city to sprawl outwards.  The hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure built over the last 60 years for sprawl far outweights what has been spent on revitalizing the three square miles of downtown in the last ten years.  During that time, the only money being spent downtown was for wrecking balls.  Downtown is the heart of a city, and every major city that allowed their downtowns to crumble while catering to white flight are realizing their mistake and spending what it takes to make their downtowns lively and livable.  There are hundreds of articles on the economics of a strong downtown.  Here is one I found in 30 seconds.

http://plannersweb.com/2013/09/healthy-downtown-key-strong-community/

If Tulsa ignores the trends, we can expect to fall even more behind in competitiveness while young people flock even more than they do now to competitor cities who are doing things right.  And to attract conventions and other forms of tourism, people don't want to rent a car to get around, and don't care to stay chain restaurants on 71st Street, they want to see local restaurants, art, and public spaces in downtown.  Let's also recognize that the private sector, Kaiser especially, has largely matched public investment.  I don't think complaints about downtown investment over the last ten years is justified.  It's a net economic positive for the city.

[cannon_fodder]

In addition to what Conan said:

1) It is worth noting that downtown and a few select districts in Tulsa are the only competitive advantage Tulsa has over Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, and Owasso.  They win for cheap land, new subdivisions, and [whatever the current euphemism is for safe from diversity].  Tulsa can't offer that same package, and shouldn't really.  While Tulsa needs nice suburbanneighborhoods to be a successful city of its size in the midwest, we don't have a competitive advantage in that area.

If we are trying to attract the coveted "young professional,"  they tend to move to places with a lively urban core.  Some may filter out to the suburbs when they settle down, some won't. 

Ignoring them, suburban Anytown USA with a Starbucks, Applebees, and strip mall every mile has a place, but it supplies zero in the way of interest, identity, or a draw for people to come to that area (when was the last time someone from Tulsa went to Owasso to go to Applebees?  Or they to South Tulsa for the same?).  Visitors to Austin, Kansas City, Little Rock, Minneapolis or Tulsa don't head for the suburbs to see the sites.   And Jenks can't offer a real urban environment.

If Tulsa focuses on trying to compete for new subdivisions, new strip malls and the latest big box, we will lose. That isn't our competitive advantage.


2) Investments in downtown tends to generate synergy with other developments.  A ballpark in the Brady District attracts hotels, more bars and restaurants, and life in the area because people "go out" to the area and do things.  Generally, when something goes in a car-centric part of the city, its just another stand alone entity.  Going to a ballgame or concert in south Tulsa (or Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc.) is just that - you drive to the event, attend, then get in your car and drive home.  If you want dinner or drinks before or after you drive there too.


3) Tulsa's formerly shiny new subdivisions that are getting to the point of needing major street replacements, sewers, and other infrastructure don't pay for themselves.  Over a 40 year timeline, they are cash flow negative for the City - the tax revenue per property is not high enough to pay for the infrastructure cost required to support it.  In the long run, you can't grow your way out of a ponzi scheme.  The result is urban areas have been and will continue to subsidize suburban areas, at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.


Everywhere needs to stand on their own eventually.  I don't think anyone is proposing a vast new spending spree of government money downtown.  So unless the argument is that we squandered our funds thus far, I don't see the contention.  And while quality suburban neighborhoods are essential for a successful Tulsa, a thriving urban core provides a competitive advantage that they cannot provide.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh Oklahoma has done far worse than that. Hell, Tulsa has done worse. But our public education system SUCKS and needs priority funding--and this from a guy whose kids went to private school.

Ok has been worse, but was always improving.  Now, we have been better and are (rapidly) declining.  Huge difference in attitude and approach.