More Good News! Tulsa #6 for Jobs!

[Chicken Little]

Tulsa World:

quote:  ...Tulsa ranked 35th in a similar poll by the publication two years ago.

Forbes ranked the nation's largest 100 metropolitan areas using data compiled by Moody's Economy.com.

While the study does not measure job quality or stability, it takes into account a variety of factors in quantifying job-market strength.

For example, Tulsa ranked seventh in income growth, 10th in cost of living, 18th in job growth and 23rd in low unemployment.

Taylor said the overall ranking shows the strength of the city's expanding "industry clusters"
in fields such as aerospace, energy and manufacturing...  

From forbes.com

quote: To compile the rankings for the Best Cities for Jobs list, we used five data points, weighted equally: unemployment rate, job growth, income growth, median household income and cost of living for full-year 2006 (only partial data is so far available for 2007). We measured the largest 100 metropolitan areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, and obtained the data from Moody's Economy.com.

Tulsa, by the numbers:

   #6. Tulsa, Okla.

   2005 Rank: 35

   Median Household Income Rank: 93
   Unemployment Rank: 23
   Income Growth Rank: 7
   Cost Of Living Rank: 10
   Job Growth Rank: 18

[Ed W]

There are a couple of interesting tidbits in the Tulsa World today.  The front page has "Tulsans Rank Concerns":

Crime/gangs..................36%
City streets/roads...........32%
Education.....................7%
Jobs/economic development.....4%
Immigration...................3%
Lack of leadership............3%
Taxes/government spending.....2%
River development.............1%
Downtown development..........1%
Health care...................1%
Other.........................4%
Don't care....................6%

There's no mention of sample size or accuracy.

Another story says Oklahoma ranks third in the nation in slot machines.  I wonder what the correlation is between this statistic and math education, particularly that stuff about probability.

Finally in yet another poll, Mayor Taylor's approval rating is at 55%.  Her disapproval rate is 33%.  Yet the city council gets a dismal 44/33/23 split.

[Chicken Little]

Here's the link to the Tulsa World article, "Tulsans rank concerns".

Soltow from TU is surprised a the low number for people concerned about education.  I wonder if Tulsans are feeling complacent about recent changes, sort of a "Progress as Promised" effect. Granted, a lot is happening:  new buildings and growth and OU Tulsa, TU, and OSU Tulsa; new classes added at TCC due to the wonderful new tuition and books program; our state's lead in early childhood development; school uniforms; etc.  I know it's human nature to declare victory and move on to the next problem, but I wonder if that is the proper approach.  Who's watching for objective results?  For instance, the latest TPS scores show we are making modest improvements.  How does this compare to other cities?  Aside from just measuring outcomes, what is the bigger scheme?  Is modest improvement good enough?  What would it take to make Tulsa a world-class competitor?    

Similarly, Vision 2025 was, in large part, a vote about "economic development", at a moment in time when Tulsa had just lost 20,000 jobs.  Now we're doing much better, economic development has dropped off the radar (4%).  To go from 2nd worst to 6th best for jobs in four years might indicate one of two things:  1) That somehow, we "fixed" the jobs problem really, really, well, or 2) That job and income growth in Tulsa is extremely volatile, with lots of peaks and valleys to come.  Again, whose keeping up with the numbers?  What's the bigger picture?

I truly believe that Tulsa can be a world-class city, but we are not going to do it by running from poll to poll, and crises to crises.  We need a better game plan.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Here's the link to the Tulsa World article, "Tulsans rank concerns".

Soltow from TU is surprised a the low number for people concerned about education.  I wonder if Tulsans are feeling complacent about recent changes, sort of a "Progress as Promised" effect. Granted, a lot is happening:  new buildings and growth and OU Tulsa, TU, and OSU Tulsa; new classes added at TCC due to the wonderful new tuition and books program; our state's lead in early childhood development; school uniforms; etc.  I know it's human nature to declare victory and move on to the next problem, but I wonder if that is the proper approach.  Who's watching for objective results?  For instance, the latest TPS scores show we are making modest improvements.  How does this compare to other cities?  Aside from just measuring outcomes, what is the bigger scheme?  Is modest improvement good enough?  What would it take to make Tulsa a world-class competitor?    

Similarly, Vision 2025 was, in large part, a vote about "economic development", at a moment in time when Tulsa had just lost 20,000 jobs.  Now we're doing much better, economic development has dropped off the radar (4%).  To go from 2nd worst to 6th best for jobs in four years might indicate one of two things:  1) That somehow, we "fixed" the jobs problem really, really, well, or 2) That job and income growth in Tulsa is extremely volatile, with lots of peaks and valleys to come.  Again, whose keeping up with the numbers?  What's the bigger picture?

I truly believe that Tulsa can be a world-class city, but we are not going to do it by running from poll to poll, and crises to crises.  We need a better game plan.

The comprehensive plan update is a great opportunity to develop a plan, not a concept, to  address the challenges we face in order to be a world class city.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Double A


The comprehensive plan update is a great opportunity to develop a plan, not a concept, to  address the challenges we face in order to be a world class city.

I hope so.  I voted for the River because it was so heavily leveraged.  I thought it would produce some good and I thought we could afford it.  But I never got the impression that it was a great plan.  We've spent hundreds of millions on downtown, and there wasn't much discussion at all about how to connect the River to downtown, which seems critical to me.  These improvements needed to bolster each other, and I never got a feeling of how they worked together.  I don't know much, but I know enough to know that that it will take more than just a sidewalk through the underpasses.  It's a complicated, built-up, area and it's going to be a real challenge to make that connection...highways, hills, distance, historic properties, a residential neighborhood, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with them asking for my money.  I just hope they aren't surprised when they get the boot for putting forth plans that are disjointed and incomplete.  One thing that Pinc said at the debate that really rubbed me wrong was that paying for plans and designs before actually funding the improvements is not the way it's done (I'm paraphrasing).  If that's the case, then that must change.

If it doesn't, we'll continue to see a la carte improvement proposals.  Vision 2025 was fine, but it wasn't a plan.  It was just a series of projects...a little porky in places, IMO, but I've come to accept that.  What does bother me is that when Vision 2025 is done, we'll have  bunch of new parts scattered around like an IKEA bookshelf.  Can't we do better than that?

Maybe I've got some form of OCD?

[Double A]

I'd call it sense and sensibility. That's why MAPS has enjoyed the success it's had in OKC(the state and federal pork helps, too).

[cannon_fodder]

Good news indeed.

No matter how the vote turned out on a the River, without a growing economy the cit would never really improved.  With a "NO" vote and economic growth, anything is possible.