Amazon

[erfalf]

It's true of most every big city that isn't on the east coast.  (And most of those states have decent park and rides, but still not enough to do away with a car all together.)    We aren't Europe.

Consider Oklahoma wasn't a state until AFTER the automobile was invented, and only a year before the Model T went into production. Tulsa was incorporated in 1898, a good 250 years after some of the noteworthy cities on the eastern seaboard were founded.

[Conan71]

Rapid growth isn't all it's cracked up to be.  Who here has driven through Austin in the last few years?  There's a perfect example of what happens when you cannot keep up with the infrastructure to move people through the city.  Anecdotally, people are finding affordable housing impossible to find.  If I had owned a house in Austin I'd purchased 20-25 years ago, I think I'd cash out and go elsewhere.  It's unreal what people are paying there. 

In an ideal world, it would be best for a 50,000 person employer in our region to locate somewhere north of the city where there's still room to build and you could also count on Bartlesville, Owasso, and other areas north and east without over-taxing the infrastructure within Tulsa.

I admire GT, he gets that real economic growth happens when you land well-paying professional jobs not by luring a bunch of retailers which only serves the purpose of further diluting the tax base.  He might be from a legacy Tulsa family, but he's pretty progressive when it comes to development and he seems to have a better sense of economic sophistication than his predecessor did.  Give a few more administrations with similar vision as GT some time and I think Tulsa is going to look a lot more attractive to major employers.  Another ten years of renewal will make Tulsa look a whole lot better to potential employers as well. 

The last piece, in my mind, is a four year public university program, but Tulsa is stuck with what it has thanks to the Oklahoma Board of Regents.  With TU and the proximity of OSU, OU, and Arkansas as recruiting bases, I don't think it's too much of a handicap.

The most unfortunate aspect is that Tulsa is still located in Oklahoma and therefore, also a victim of a legislature which gives more to OKC, less to public education, and has the image of trying to create a theocracy.  More moderates need to find their way to the state house and into positions of leadership throughout the state.  In my mind, the bizarro far right legislature is the one thing which really makes Tulsa look bad when competing for a major employer.

Things which make an area more liveable are unfolding in front of you with the Gathering Place and the re-birth of the downtown area as well as other parts of "old Tulsa".  Tulsa is a very liveable city.  Had it not been for what I consider a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I would still live there.

[rebound]

The most unfortunate aspect is that Tulsa is still located in Oklahoma and therefore, also a victim of a legislature which gives more to OKC, less to public education, and has the image of trying to create a theocracy.  More moderates need to find their way to the state house and into positions of leadership throughout the state.  In my mind, the bizarro far right legislature is the one thing which really makes Tulsa look bad when competing for a major employer.

This piece is, to me, the biggest obstacle.   The Tulsa area is an amazing place.   (I left and moved back because I liked it so much, hence my user name...)  And when you look at specifics, a very strong case can be made for locating a company here.  But overall, the emotional perception (right or wrong, but not without reason) is that OK is a backward, very religious fly-over state, and while they might listen to a pitch, they won't end up moving here.  It will take electing new leaders, with a new vision, to change these macro perceptions.  We've got the basics, but until we appreciate the need to manage public/National perception and actually "sell" the state, we won't see any major changes in how the rest of the country views us.

[DTowner]

I'm not so sure the political environment is nearly the impediment many on here believe it to be.  The biggest obstacles we face in landing Amazon are the same we face in landing other businesses - the inability to compete with other states in the "incentives war" and our airport/direct flight limitations.  Simply put, we can't afford the economic bribes that others offer and we lack direct flights to the major cities that companies want.

Every city on that shortlist will struggle to accommodate a sudden influx of 50,000+ people, but for differing reasons.  Given Austin's current rapid growth and existing transportation and housing problems, such an influx might blow the lid off.  Same with DC, which already has an incredibly tight housing market and enormous traffic problems.

I also don't understand the claim that growth that would come from landing Amazon would create a water problem in Tulsa.  In my 20 years here there has never been water rationing, and I think the last time that occurred was in the early 1980s.  Indeed, when Susan Savage was making a pitch for a semi-conductor plant one of our biggest selling points was our abundant supply of water.  Besides, how can we have a worse water problem than Dallas or Austin, and they seem to have no problem landing major employers and growing rapidly.

[Townsend]

I'm not so sure the political environment is nearly the impediment many on here believe it to be. 

I don't believe it's just the idiots Oklahoma has in office.  It's the things they've done to hurt Oklahoma and thus Tulsa for almost anything.

We don't have a lot of what other states have.  No coastline, no mountains, no system for ease of travel.  No "holy smile, what a great idea!" ideas.

The education system after Pre-K to University has been enormously harmed by the cut in support.  Sadly, the pre-K system is feeling the harm.

We have outdated laws governing booze, gambling and cannabis.

We have hate speech and religious speech making it to law only to be shot down by the OK supreme court.

I can go on but what for?

The longer Oklahoma has a severe case of the stupids, the more of the open minded, fair minded, intelligent population will move to states with more to offer.

As this population moves, the worse the stupids will get.  It's a cycle that builds on itself.

It's too easy to see the negative in Oklahoma and too hard to see the positive.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We have hate speech and religious speech making it to law only to be shot down by the OK supreme court.

I can go on but what for?

The longer Oklahoma has a severe case of the stupids, the more of the open minded, fair minded, intelligent population will move to states with more to offer.

As this population moves, the worse the stupids will get.  It's a cycle that builds on itself.

It's too easy to see the negative in Oklahoma and too hard to see the positive.

I can see the positives, but the blinding glare of the negatives overloads the retina!  It's a lot like looking at the eclipse - all the stupids blasting your eyes, with the positives appearing just for a few minutes.  Every few dozen years....

[erfalf]

Look, I think Tulsa is great also, but I'm not delusional. There are real hurdles that are pretty impossible to overcome in such a short time in order to entertain Amazon here in the near term. None of which deal with the perception of the state/city/area.

Mr. Cash (a BTW grad, and Stanford student) is apparently equally hyped about the prospect, all though not near as realistic.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/dear-mr-bezos-tulsa-is-the-best-candidate-for-amazon/article_7a4b3f80-7138-5f3f-a063-e991aaf5fcea.html

His first plus for Tulsa, central location. Look, we're looking to host a headquarters, not a warehouse. Proximity to the most customers don't count for much if anything in this case.

Next, low cost to develop. I will give him that one, but the reason it's so cheap to develop here is because pretty much no one else wants to develop here either, for a multitude of different reasons obviously.

Next, making it in Tulsa would be a statement move. Ok...

Next, Tulsa's philanthropic and educational resources. He mentions A Gathering Place. I guess I'm just not making the connection as to how this lures Amazon. He then goes on to tout our "World Class" universities. OU is a fine institution, but I think they just recently cracked the top 100 public universities. We have a ways to go. On that note, I will say that not having a major U in Tulsa is not that big of a deal in my opinion. OSU, Arkansas, OU, Kansas and Kansas State should do just fine in providing talent. Does the university really have to be footsteps away. You know that a campus of this magnitude is going to be recruiting from more than a dozen universities probably.

I can't go on after that.

You know the winner is going to be the one that can hore itself out the most. Bezzos knows what he is doing. I think Tulsa will loose because we can't pony up the dough, simple as that.

[swake]

Look, I think Tulsa is great also, but I'm not delusional. There are real hurdles that are pretty impossible to overcome in such a short time in order to entertain Amazon here in the near term. None of which deal with the perception of the state/city/area.

Mr. Cash (a BTW grad, and Stanford student) is apparently equally hyped about the prospect, all though not near as realistic.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/dear-mr-bezos-tulsa-is-the-best-candidate-for-amazon/article_7a4b3f80-7138-5f3f-a063-e991aaf5fcea.html

His first plus for Tulsa, central location. Look, we're looking to host a headquarters, not a warehouse. Proximity to the most customers don't count for much if anything in this case.

Next, low cost to develop. I will give him that one, but the reason it's so cheap to develop here is because pretty much no one else wants to develop here either, for a multitude of different reasons obviously.

Next, making it in Tulsa would be a statement move. Ok...

Next, Tulsa's philanthropic and educational resources. He mentions A Gathering Place. I guess I'm just not making the connection as to how this lures Amazon. He then goes on to tout our "World Class" universities. OU is a fine institution, but I think they just recently cracked the top 100 public universities. We have a ways to go. On that note, I will say that not having a major U in Tulsa is not that big of a deal in my opinion. OSU, Arkansas, OU, Kansas and Kansas State should do just fine in providing talent. Does the university really have to be footsteps away. You know that a campus of this magnitude is going to be recruiting from more than a dozen universities probably.

I can't go on after that.

You know the winner is going to be the one that can hore itself out the most. Bezzos knows what he is doing. I think Tulsa will loose because we can't pony up the dough, simple as that.

Tulsa biggest asset is lower wages. The average expected pay for these Job is $100k per year as reported, Tulsa is generally ~20% cheaper so the same job will pay ~$80k, with a probably higher standard of living as well due to lower cost of living.

That's a billion dollars a year in cost savings. Real money. That's the lead to the bid. Airport connections are easy to solve. We have good potential sites and can waive property taxes as incentives. Tulsa has overbuilt on infrastructure and can absorb lots of new people rather easily.

Our downfall I expect is lack of an large STEM educated workforce, poor secondary and public university education systems and lack of mass transit.

[erfalf]

Tulsa biggest asset is lower wages. The average expected pay for these Job is $100k per year as reported, Tulsa is generally ~20% cheaper so the same job will pay ~$80k, with a probably higher standard of living as well due to lower cost of living.

That's a billion dollars a year in cost savings. Real money. That's the lead to the bid. Airport connections are easy to solve. We have good potential sites and can waive property taxes as incentives. Tulsa has overbuilt on infrastructure and can absorb lots of new people rather easily.

Our downfall I expect is lack of an large STEM educated workforce, poor secondary and public university education systems and lack of mass transit.

For whatever reason that doesn't work with big time companies. Apparently companies like paying high wages.

At least it doesn't work for Bartlesville.

[swake]

For whatever reason that doesn't work with big time companies. Apparently companies like paying high wages.

At least it doesn't work for Bartlesville.

I work in the tech industry and if I wanted to move to our offices in San Jose or Philly I would get a 20% pay bump. And a much higher cost of living, unaffordable housing and in the case of San Jose, most likely a lovely 1.5 hour commute. My division also has an office in Plano, but I don't think that pays differently than Tulsa, or not much. Or I could move to Bangalore and make 20% of what I do here.

[DTowner]

I don't believe it's just the idiots Oklahoma has in office.  It's the things they've done to hurt Oklahoma and thus Tulsa for almost anything.

We don't have a lot of what other states have.  No coastline, no mountains, no system for ease of travel.  No "holy smile, what a great idea!" ideas.

The education system after Pre-K to University has been enormously harmed by the cut in support.  Sadly, the pre-K system is feeling the harm.

We have outdated laws governing booze, gambling and cannabis.

We have hate speech and religious speech making it to law only to be shot down by the OK supreme court.

I can go on but what for?

The longer Oklahoma has a severe case of the stupids, the more of the open minded, fair minded, intelligent population will move to states with more to offer.

As this population moves, the worse the stupids will get.  It's a cycle that builds on itself.

It's too easy to see the negative in Oklahoma and too hard to see the positive.

It's not like Oklahoma has ever been known as a high spender on education.  It is easy to lay blame on the party in charge now (and there is blame due), but this state was basically a one-party state for decades before it transitioned to a one-party state of the other party.  Indeed, Oklahoma's prohibition and many of its other backwards looking laws were put in place by the Democrats/progressives who ruled for decades.

You can argue that states on the coasts have moved away from those values about which many voters in Oklahoma still care about and vote on, but the same can be said for other states, like Texas, that are attracting many companies from those so-called progressive parts of the country.  I think too many on this board tend to try and jam their own dissatisfaction with Oklahoma politics into everything that does or does not happen to our state.

Undoubtedly Oklahoma's negative national reputation in many areas hurt it when it comes to recruiting companies to relocate to here.  However, in the end I think these are primarily business decisions driven by business factors.

[TulsaBeMore]

Find myself agreeing, in large part, to the last two posts of DTowner.  I think a lot of the reasons we don't attract companies are well-worn excuses.

I looked at the "worst state legislatures" in the country and found a 5-year-old article in the uber-liberal Mother Jones.  Oklahoma was on the list of the worst of the worst, but so was North Carolina (uber-booming Charlotte, Raleigh, etc.), Georgia (booming), Florida (booming), Missouri (Kansas City has had exponential quality growth since I lived there in 2000), Tennessee (booming Nashville), New Hampshire.  So, I don't think the state legislature is the reason we don't attract businesses.

Education - I went to a school where we were taught in surplus Quonset huts from WWII. Guaranteed teachers made a fraction of what TPS teachers at the time made and still to this day. That school was honored by the White House several years after I left for being one of the nation's best.  Sure, parents took an active role in their kids' education, but the money issue can't be everything.  Yes, we need to get teacher raises. First, have McKinsey or somebody do a full statewide audit on the public education system. Surely they'd say start by consolidating 500+ school districts to 200 at least.  We have more school districts than Texas.  Why do we need a superintendent earning $80,000-120,000 to run 1-2 60-student schools? Any savings could go to teacher raises. They may find other areas of savings and other areas where we need to invest more. We still rank 30th best in the nation combined K-12 & Higher-Ed. That means 20 states and I think DC rank lower according to U.S. News & World Report.   I just think this is overblown as a reason we don't attract businesses. I also think people would be willing to invest more if they thought there was stringent accountability. 

Nobody has mentioned Health.  Ours isn't great but I don't see that being the problem either.

I agree other states pony up more money to lure companies.  What happened with Macy's is routine elsewhere.  It was a Herculean effort of many groups here.       

Our negative national reputation is driven by our own people.  We lack self-confidence when talking about ourselves. We have almost created the negative national reputation and fostered it. I can find significant negatives in about every state you can mention.  New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.     

[heironymouspasparagus]

Tulsa biggest asset is lower wages. The average expected pay for these Job is $100k per year as reported, Tulsa is generally ~20% cheaper so the same job will pay ~$80k, with a probably higher standard of living as well due to lower cost of living.

That's a billion dollars a year in cost savings. Real money. That's the lead to the bid. Airport connections are easy to solve. We have good potential sites and can waive property taxes as incentives. Tulsa has overbuilt on infrastructure and can absorb lots of new people rather easily.

Our downfall I expect is lack of an large STEM educated workforce, poor secondary and public university education systems and lack of mass transit.

We have NO lack of STEM workforce!  We have a LOT of STEM workers around - and GOOD ones!!  Many looking for those 'good' jobs that the local RWRE is always slapping their jaws about.  And many, MANY, more who have had to leave to find work - brain drain is real here and is a problem, but I bet many would come back if they could.  I could supply a list of at least a dozen unemployed and underemployed, highly educated, massively experienced engineers and technicians (mostly electrical/electronics) who would love to get a good job in northeast Oklahoma!  (Me included).  Take one off that list - he just got a job here after having to move to St Louis and then Phoenix area for about the last 10 years!  He was hammered in one of those deals where local company sold out to national firm (Stanley) and then the place got shut down and moved out.  (The more informed, or locally tuned in, among us will be able to figure that one out easily.)

Usually, at least once a week, I get to talk with a couple of EE's who have been actively looking and haven't found anything better than the mediocre, mind-numbing, low satisfaction grunt work they have been doing for many years.  Working WAY below what I would have them do if could hire them.   One is the absolute "poster child" of what a company should be looking for - all the right boxes checked, flexibility to move pretty much anywhere, works well with others, is still young - mid 30's - and has reasonable salary expectations to the area.  Not happening.  Many of the "jobs" you see out there posted are just fishing expeditions.  They advertise on the job boards, may even occasionally interview someone - I have had a couple of those, but essentially none ever get hired...  There are a few out there, in Tulsa, ( I can list 5 without even having to look at notes) who have had the same "jobs" posted for anywhere from 1 to over 3 years.  If one is really looking for people, it doesn't take more than a few weeks tops to find a good choice here.  

Disclaimer;  I know that at least part of my problem is the age.  Have even had one admit it to the headhunter and they let it slip...in code, of course.  Too experienced - I would never be happy with the job.

When people talk about "can't find" <fill in the STEM blank>, especially in NE OK, they are lying!  Not just confused and befuddled - they are flat out lying!

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's not like Oklahoma has ever been known as a high spender on education.  It is easy to lay blame on the party in charge now (and there is blame due), but this state was basically a one-party state for decades before it transitioned to a one-party state of the other party.  Indeed, Oklahoma's prohibition and many of its other backwards looking laws were put in place by the Democrats/progressives who ruled for decades.

In the last 6 years or so, funding has gone down about $400 million or about 35%.  That is WAY below the mostly inadequate funding we had before that.  Both parties had a miserable performance for a long time.  It IS the Republicans who have actively worked to destroy public education in this state in these last few years.  Just like Kansas - but Kansas FINALLY has started to pull their collective head out of the dark places, in spite of their deplorable Governor.

[rebound]

Our negative national reputation is driven by our own people.  We lack self-confidence when talking about ourselves. We have almost created the negative national reputation and fostered it. I can find significant negatives in about every state you can mention.  New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.     

I pondered this for a while and decided it was worth a comment.   "We have almost created the negative national reputation and fostered it"  is the piece I can't let go of.  There is a lot of truth to that.   OK has been a little strange from the start.  We are a state formed, for the most part, in land taken back from the various Indian tribes after we forcibly moved them here in the first place.  Then of course we had the boomers, then the Sooners, then the dust bowl.  Only the vast wealth, albeit limited to a select few, created by oil kept us from being generally forgotten by the rest of the US.  (I mean, hey, at least we aren't Kansas...)   Even being an "Okie" was still so derogatory in the 80's that California almost wouldn't let a restaurant have that word in the name.  ("Okie Girl" restaurant, look it up if you are interested...)

Growing up around Lawton, in SW OK,  we went on vacations to TX, NM, CO, NV, etc. But never Eastern OK.  My first trip to Tulsa was after my first year of college, at OSU.   I had no idea about the Talimena Drive, or Heavner Runstone, or Broken Bow, or any of the other cool places in Eastern OK.  And I lived in the state!    I travel on business basically every week (I'm sitting in the Tulsa airport as I type this) and regularly when I tell people that I am from Tulsa, they say something like "man, isn't it hot and dry there?", or I get some comment about it being so conservative, etc.   I think, seriously, that their mental picture of OK is somewhere along the line of Waco, TX. 

We have a great state.  The Tulsa area in particular has so much to offer.  But even internally we don't promote ourselves.  How do we expect to attract outsiders when don't even have a high mind share among the locals?