Amazon

[hello]

For God's sake please do not refer Amazon to this website. No one in their right mind would move to Oklahoma if they read what Oklahomans post about their own state.

Go to a forum of any city/state and you'll see complaints about it from the people who live there.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm pretty sure the influx of new people (50K employees means 100K+ new people when accounting for families) is the reason they are looking only at metros of 1million+, and which takes us out of the running right off the bat.  It's not a transformative change for metros like Dallas, Atlanta, and even Denver, but it would be a huge change for Tulsa, and they don't want to take a chance that we can't handle it.  They want a "turnkey" city that doesn't require massive risky changes.  Same with our airport.  DFW and ATL can serve exactly what they need, TUL would require an overhaul in routes.   Too risky for them.  Again, Im all for making the bid though.  You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

The more I've read about this, I'm changing my prediction from Austin to D.C./Northern VA.  Austin has their own deficiencies, while D.C./Northern VA checks all of the boxes.

I think we have to make a pitch to them, even if there is no chance of it happening.  Just to keep our hand in the game for future efforts.  If you 'no-bid', then it means 'out of business'.

That's what I was getting at - easy 100k+ population increase.  We just couldn't build up that fast for that influx.  It will likely spread over a few years, but even a 5 year plan would be difficult if not impossible for northeast OK.  And if they did choose here, I suspect it would be over by the Google place in Pryor rather than very close to Tulsa.  Better shot at water...and plenty of electricity!   But then, the personnel issue is even bigger cause there aren't 50,000 around.  Imagine trying to build up that part of OK with all the necessary infrastructure...can't get there from here. 


Plus, Amazon has already left the Coffeyville area, so that is kind of a semi-No vote. 

[swake]

I'm pretty sure the influx of new people (50K employees means 100K+ new people when accounting for families) is the reason they are looking only at metros of 1million+, and which takes us out of the running right off the bat.  It's not a transformative change for metros like Dallas, Atlanta, and even Denver, but it would be a huge change for Tulsa, and they don't want to take a chance that we can't handle it.  They want a "turnkey" city that doesn't require massive risky changes.  Same with our airport.  DFW and ATL can serve exactly what they need, TUL would require an overhaul in routes.   Too risky for them.  Again, Im all for making the bid though.  You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

The more I've read about this, I'm changing my prediction from Austin to D.C./Northern VA.  Austin has their own deficiencies, while D.C./Northern VA checks all of the boxes.

The million people requirement shouldn't remove us. The July 2016 estimate for Tulsa's MSA was 987,201 and the CSA was 1,157,465 so our CSA is well over a million and by now our MSA probably is too.

I am guessing this goes to North Texas, Denver or somewhere in North Carolina.

[DowntownDan]

I'd like to see the pitch include a large downtown campus where they can take over multiple square blocks of currently unused land (i.e., one of the many parking craters).  Maybe the Nordam site, or anywhere on the southern part of the IDL.  A bunch of buildings, none more than 10 stories, connected, with green spaces, and underground or otherwise concealed parking.  It would be preferable, in my opinion, than another boring sprawling suburban campus in north DFW.  I bet Tulsa could provide a cool urban campus for less than a bland suburban campus in a larger metro.

[TulsaBeMore]

While I respect and value most all opinions, I don't understand why some people live here.  Cyrus Avery wouldn't have A "not possible here" attitude.  It's like the people who said the BOK Center would be a failure, etc. Geographically there is nothing Dallas or Kansas City have over Tulsa. How smaller would OKC seem without nearly 84,000 taxpayer paid jobs (State Govt., Tinker, OU, FAA Center) The state legislature is changeable, not an insurmountable road block. Realism/skepticism is great. I live by it. But don'tt confuse realism with cynicism/negativity.  I almost guarantee people who don't dream big either never have much (as much as they could have) or inherited someone else's wealth and play defense with it. I'm sure there are exceptions.  Atlanta got billions in long-term impact from the Olympics --- other cities haven't because they didn't do it right.  Google how the IOC is working to make future bids more sustainable.  But I don't really care about the Olympics. Before it happened, how many would have said you were high to think the Seattle Supersonics would move to OKC? How many would have laughed in your face if told OKC would build a canal and turn a drainage ditch into a river/lake that's now an official Olympic training site?  How many would have laughed if told someobody was going to build the world's biggest vacation spot on 27,000 acres of unusable swampland in central Florida?  Water is an issue for Tulsa? You have to be kidding.  North Texas sued Oklahoma because it has few if any major water sources.  Has that impeded its growth? No.  Ever heard of Las Vegas or the state of California?  Water, really?  As a native, I think small-time thinking has not gotten us very far.  Our population is about the same in the city as it was in the 50s, isn't it? That would be more justifiable if the quality of life for most Tulsans was as good it has been in the past. KC, OKC, Dallas & NW Arkansas have grown because they've dreamed much bigger than we have. I think a lot of people are happy to keep it the way it is and go away when they want something more. We study everything to death and then often do nothing with the results.  It's like the study is the thing. Most of my contemporaries had to move away for opportunity.  I argue that it all starts with a defeatist attitude. Discouraging.           

[guido911]

I'd like to see the pitch include a large downtown campus where they can take over multiple square blocks of currently unused land (i.e., one of the many parking craters).  Maybe the Nordam site, or anywhere on the southern part of the IDL.  A bunch of buildings, none more than 10 stories, connected, with green spaces, and underground or otherwise concealed parking.  It would be preferable, in my opinion, than another boring sprawling suburban campus in north DFW.  I bet Tulsa could provide a cool urban campus for less than a bland suburban campus in a larger metro.

Me too. In fact, let's not do anything else but develop downtown. Let's spend all of our money, focus all of our attention there. Better yet, let's pass some city ordinances that prohibit developing anywhere BUT downtown. Because that's where everybody hangs out. And our streets down there are wonderful. And this is the 1950s.

[guido911]

While I respect and value most all opinions, I don't understand why some people live here.  Cyrus Avery wouldn't have A "not possible here" attitude.

 

You are in the wrong place. This is not a place to make Tulsa better. This place is about whining about republicans, and lower to middle class people that have really no track record of individual accomplishment telling people that are accomplished what they should do.

Welcome though. And I look forward to reading your posts because you made a lot of good points.

[BKDotCom]

This place is about whining about republicans, and lower to middle class people that have really no track record of individual accomplishment telling people that are accomplished what they should do.

Sounds like Trump's "I don't want poor people in my cabinet" comment

[TheArtist]

I think we have to make a pitch to them, even if there is no chance of it happening.  Just to keep our hand in the game for future efforts.  If you 'no-bid', then it means 'out of business'.

That's what I was getting at - easy 100k+ population increase.  We just couldn't build up that fast for that influx.  It will likely spread over a few years, but even a 5 year plan would be difficult if not impossible for northeast OK.  And if they did choose here, I suspect it would be over by the Google place in Pryor rather than very close to Tulsa.  Better shot at water...and plenty of electricity!   But then, the personnel issue is even bigger cause there aren't 50,000 around.  Imagine trying to build up that part of OK with all the necessary infrastructure...can't get there from here. 


Plus, Amazon has already left the Coffeyville area, so that is kind of a semi-No vote. 

Let me make the pitch.  I could sell this city.  Oh and as for that kind of growth... we have done it before, we can do it again.

[guido911]

Sounds like Trump's "I don't want poor people in my cabinet" comment

Yeah. Sounds just like that.

[cannon_fodder]

Actually, most of the posts in this thread seem to be fairly pragmatic but also encouraging of the effort.    That would make a lousy sales pitch, but explain to me how that's so horrible when discussing the actual prospect of luring a major employer when the City doesn't check off the requirement boxes of the company?  This isn't raw negativity, there are pragmatic and identifiable issues that may preclude Amazon from choosing Tulsa as an HQ, by discussing them maybe we can find ways to address those issues now or in the future.

Look, cheerleaders are great.  When Tulsa is playing a top 10 Oklahoma State in football - I fully expect the cheerleaders, coaches, and players to 100% buy in and go for it. But from the perspective of a fan trying to look at the match up objectively, I have no problem admitting Tulsa probably won't win.  I still hope Tulsa wins, and if we don't win I hope we gain something anyway - exposure, experience, contacts, attitude, whatever.  Go play the game and do the best you can.

But just because not everyone is a cheerleader, doesn't mean they don't support the team.

[DowntownDan]

Actually, most of the posts in this thread seem to be fairly pragmatic but also encouraging of the effort.    That would make a lousy sales pitch, but explain to me how that's so horrible when discussing the actual prospect of luring a major employer when the City doesn't check off the requirement boxes of the company?  This isn't raw negativity, there are pragmatic and identifiable issues that may preclude Amazon from choosing Tulsa as an HQ, by discussing them maybe we can find ways to address those issues now or in the future.

Look, cheerleaders are great.  When Tulsa is playing a top 10 Oklahoma State in football - I fully expect the cheerleaders, coaches, and players to 100% buy in and go for it. But from the perspective of a fan trying to look at the match up objectively, I have no problem admitting Tulsa probably won't win.  I still hope Tulsa wins, and if we don't win I hope we gain something anyway - exposure, experience, contacts, attitude, whatever.  Go play the game and do the best you can.

But just because not everyone is a cheerleader, doesn't mean they don't support the team.

Yep, everyone on here seems to be on board bur realize the reality that it won't happen.  And it's not "whining" or "complaining" to acknowledge the very real problems we have in attracting business to this state.  The opposite would be to ignore them, do nothing about it, and keep losing out while refusing to fix what is holding us back.  Unfortunately, our biggest problem--education funding--and the negative impact is has to outsiders, and the need for many companies to have a well educated local workforce, is a very real problem.  It's unfortunate that this issue is considered a left/right political issue, but it is a very real problem that needs to be fixed.  If it's not, we will not be attracting major employers, and will continue to be at risk of losing some we have.  Amazon won't happen for a number of reasons, but we have to put it out there and hopefully get some much needed feedback as a dose of reality to maybe spur change.

[BKDotCom]

explain to me how that's so horrible ...

Troll's gotta troll?

[BKDotCom]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/technology/amazon-cities/index.html

Mayors from Toronto to Tulsa, Oklahoma rushed out responses, calling their cities prime candidates...

[SXSW]

Somewhat related: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/10/new-corporate-recruitment-pool-workers-in-2.html

In Tulsa, Okla., prospective employers usually cut to the chase and ask for estimates of the city's underemployed, the so-called hidden-labor market, said Brien Thorstenberg, the senior vice president of economic development for the Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Tulsa based its talent-pool estimates on worker surveys distributed through local technical and community colleges that gathered information about income, age, skills and a desire for better opportunities.

The chamber in June released a survey showing a 13.5% underemployment rate, compared with an unemployment rate of between 4% and 5%. The analysis revealed a sizable group of people who have been working for three to five years but aren't using the full range of skills from their technical training.

"When it's a tight labor market, it's nice to know," Mr. Thorstenberg said.