The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Did anyone catch the Fox 23 report last week about an ethics complaint filed against 2 city councillors?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Limabean

Did anyone catch the Fox 23 report last week about an ethics complaint filed against 2 city councillors?

---

It's a project we discused earlier here.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11029&whichpage=2

The story:
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Ethics-Complaints-Filed-Against-City-Councilors/9RLwW2CqWkqYu6L1xS8yyw.cspx
Sorry about the long URL.

I went to the Fox 23 website. The video discusses a bank at 13th and Utica.

Is the ethics violation on the recently approved Bumgarner project or another project?

Are there 2 ethics violations? Are these complaints public information?

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

"FOX 23 News has chosen not to identify the councilors named in the complaint until more evidence is presented and the council decides whether to take action."


Oh gee....I wonder just WHO it could have been...I mean, I could NEVER guess which of the Bumgarner lapdogs councilors it could have been.[}:)]

why is there not an ethics rule that prevents people who get campaign money from a donor from voting on issues directly related to the donor?

---

If we did that, we would have senate votes with 93 people abstaining..

From the fox23 story:

quote:

---

"Now an ethics complaint has been filed against two city councilors who voted in favor of the project.  The author believes the two “are receiving some sort of compensation from the credit union."

---

This is a bunch of speculative BS.  

quote:

---

The author of the ethics complaint speculates the “real estate company or the credit union company are the ones who wrote these letters” supporting the project.

---

WHATEVER.

They refuse to identify the complainant and the two councilors and call THAT news??? PFFFT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

"FOX 23 News has chosen not to identify the councilors named in the complaint until more evidence is presented and the council decides whether to take action."


Oh gee....I wonder just WHO it could have been...I mean, I could NEVER guess which of the Bumgarner lapdogs councilors it could have been.[}:)]

why is there not an ethics rule that prevents people who get campaign money from a donor from voting on issues directly related to the donor?

---

If we did that, we would have senate votes with 93 people abstaining..

---

great....maybe it would get the public to wake up and not elect bought and paid for politicians.

---

So, by your rule no Senator that received a donation from a retired person could vote on any issue related to Social Security, no Senator that received a donation from a doctor could vote on issues related to Medicare…

You see where this is going. Where do you draw the line?

http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story/Councilman-says-he-wants-to-clear-up-allegations/liakjKA9T02Oep0nA2AUjw.cspx

Wednesday, one city councilor wants to clear up an allegation of corruption.

Council Chairman, John Eagleton, says a report of an ethics violation against two council members is not true.

He says a citizen reported the two councilors were receiving some type of compensation for a vote involving the St. John Credit Union slated for the area of 13th and Lewis. Eagleton says the council conducted an investigation and there was no evidence of wrong-doing.

He says, the citizen who made the accusations denied it when he was confronted by councilors.

"He initially responded, 'I have no evidence to support the allegation of criminal behavior,' or words to that effect he then said 'Oh, and I didn't actually say that," said Eagleton.

Eagleton also says that same citizen released the info to a press outlet, so today's news conference was needed.

"For as long as I can remember, baseless allegations, once they are determined to be baseless, that's the end of the story, and it doesn't go public," said Eagleton.

Eagleton would not name the citizen who reported the allegations or the two council members in question.

From Tulsa World:

"In a Feb. 4 complaint, Tulsan Paul “Chip” Atkins alleges that Councilors Eric Gomez and Bill Martinson received compensation from St. John’s Credit Union for their votes in support of a zoning decision that allows the facility to locate at 13th Place and Lewis Avenue."

Anyone know who Chip Atkins is?

Take your pick, "Chip" is usually a Jr., III, or IV

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/casesearch.asp?query=true&srch=0&web=true&db=all&icasetype=&iDATEL=&iDATEH=&iCLOSEDL=&iCLOSEDH=&number=&iLast=atkins&iFirst=paul&iMiddle=&iID=&iDOBL=&iDOBH=&SearchType=0&iDCPT=&iDCType=0&iYear=&iNumber=&icitation=

There's a III and a IV listed on OSCN, I'd bet on IV.

So since the council has investigated itself, then all's well and this will vanish like a fart in the wind.  Good for them.

Is this ethics complaint and the findings public information?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Limabean

Is this ethics complaint and the findings public information?

---

Council Dismisses Ethics Complaint (http://"http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Council-Dismisses-Ethics-Complaint/6yaho1ARRUSp8fjCMvkiCA.cspx")

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend
Anyone know who Chip Atkins is?

---

I know him. He is the President of the Swan Lake Homeowners Association.

The Fox 23 story takes a very different angle to this issue than the Tulsa World.

Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? Don't we have bigger news in Tulsa?

The article says 13th and Lewis (which is pretty close to my backyard). Does anyone know where, as in side of the street, this would be located? I'm curious if this would remove a couple of blighted houses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Limabean

The Fox 23 story takes a very different angle to this issue than the Tulsa World.

---

That's a good thing, because broadcasters have a legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest , whereas publishers like the Whirled dont.

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blindnil

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

---

Fox news did know what they were talking about!  They had the report in their hands and read the whole thing.  The report that was sent to the city by the Ethics hot line people was very flawed.  I have read both reports the one that was given to Fox News and what the city received from the Hot line people.  Fox's news report has much more information in it then the report from the hot line.  
After reading the hot line report I can see why Mr. Atkins had to say that he did not say what was in the report.  If he said he agreed to the report he would be lying.  The hot line report is nothing of what was given to the news as the councilor reported in the news confrence. The diatribe that the concilor was basing his information on was very flawed.  The flaw in the ethics report was made this way by the HOT LINE people not by Atkins.  Mr.Atkins from what I have been told did not have a chance to review the report before it was sent to the council.  This itself is wrong. that the person could not make sure that the report is correct.
I am not a true fan of Mr Atkins!
I do pay attention to him when I do see him at meetings or on TGOV or other news venues.
 In each meeting he speaks the truth! He stands up for the neighborhoods when they are afraid too.  HE ASK QUESTIONS THAT HIT HOME!
Also people have him labeled as anti development! If one would only look at his record they would find different.  As when he was president of Swan Lake he backed many projects along 15 and utica.  Also he to my surprise backed the 14 and utica project with the stipulation that it had a PUD also stated he would back a BOA var. for additional sqt footage.
SO please do your home work; there is a difference between thinking and KNOWING.
knowing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowing

quote:

---

Originally posted by blindnil

Actually, the newspaper's story about this was dead on .... if Fox 23 had done any real journalist, it would have asked that nut job if he had any evidence of the garbage he was spweing and when  he didn't they should have refused to run a story. Anyone can call the ethics hotline and make crap up. And the involvement of Maria Barnes is very interesting. Goes toward the motive of the whole thing.

---

Fox news did know what they were talking about!  They had the report in their hands and read the whole thing.  The report that was sent to the city by the Ethics hot line people was very flawed.  I have read both reports the one that was given to Fox News and what the city received from the Hot line people.  Fox's news report has much more information in it then the report from the hot line.  
After reading the hot line report I can see why Mr. Atkins had to say that he did not say what was in the report.  If he said he agreed to the report he would be lying.  The hot line report is nothing of what was given to the news as the councilor reported in the news confrence. The diatribe that the concilor was basing his information on was very flawed.  The flaw in the ethics report was made this way by the HOT LINE people not by Atkins.  Mr.Atkins from what I have been told did not have a chance to review the report before it was sent to the council.  This itself is wrong. that the person could not make sure that the report is correct.
I am not a true fan of Mr Atkins!
I do pay attention to him when I do see him at meetings or on TGOV or other news venues.
 In each meeting he speaks the truth! He stands up for the neighborhoods when they are afraid too.  HE ASK QUESTIONS THAT HIT HOME!
Also people have him labeled as anti development! If one would only look at his record they would find different.  As when he was president of Swan Lake he backed many projects along 15 and utica.  Also he to my surprise backed the 14 and utica project with the stipulation that it had a PUD also stated he would back a BOA var. for additional sqt footage.
SO please do your home work; there is a difference between thinking and KNOWING.
knowing

---

Chip, is that you?

[8D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

The article says 13th and Lewis (which is pretty close to my backyard). Does anyone know where, as in side of the street, this would be located? I'm curious if this would remove a couple of blighted houses...

---

I remember it as being on the North side of 13th. The first two houses west of Lewis. One was commercially used by a statistics company of some sort. The other is a nice little rental house but certainly nothing special. The two lots north of those properties may also be involved.

The issue at hand was the likely increase in traffic along 13th, the difficulty of entering/leaving the property and the resulting tie up along Lewis. All good points but the developer seemed to be working on the complaints. In reality, it is on a busy corner of a main thoroughfare (Lewis) and an entrance/exit street for the BA exprwy (13th). Hard to turn down a low impact credit union on the spot.

"Low impact" is a relative term.

According to the actual neighbors who publicly spoke against this use, the drive-in bank would have a very real impact on their neighborhood.

My question is, why did the city reject the petition of 80 some-odd resident homeowners in lieu of a small stack of letters held up by a city councilor? Especially a city councilor whose district this wasn't even in?
 

At the hearing, everyone saw the neighbors who protested. Did anyone see or know who the pro-drive-in bank letters were even from? Who wrote the letters? Who were they written to?

Where is the transparency in this process?

A drive-in bank can be located on any number of locations. The developer doesn't have to have that bank at that corner just because they want it that way.

It is easier to move a bank that isn't even built thaen it is to move a neighborhood.

I understand your paranoia with how stuff happens without anyone knowing and officials ignoring public sentiment. I was astounded that we would allow the second firehouse built in Tulsa, a building that still had stalls for the horse drawn firetrucks and was still habitable, to be demolished for parking for OSU Tulsa without even a whimper from all our history loving politicians and tea sippers. But this is not a very strong case. 13th & Lewis also has a "head" shop (that dates me for sure), a temporary employment office, a lot of bums living under the overpasses and along the railroad that is nearby too. A couple of empty small office buildings (one pretty darn cute) and an antique warehouse rounds out the area. I can't honestly see how traffic will be much affected or the neighborhood diminished by adding a fairly low profile credit union on this corner. It seems to even be an amenity they will enjoy. Perhaps more bank robbers will be attracted? I didn't see any studies or research showing any disastrous effects or increased traffic.

And why do numbers of names on a petition make any difference to the above statements? Every single person in that hood could have signed the petition to oppose the building and it wouldn't change the fact that this is not really a negative to the hood. It also wouldn't change the fact that the owner of those two properties has a right to make use of his property in this way absence any illegality or negative effects.

This is a corner lot on a busy arterial street. It would be expected to end up with commercial use. I would rather see the hood rare up and fight against the entrance and exits there, the speeding cars and the panhandlers and bums nearby or other meaningful issues.

There are several points that are being overlooked here regarding the process with which this situation was handled.

1. The neighborhood presented their petitions and reasons why the credit union would not be beneficial to their neighborhood at the TMAPC meeting. The number of signatures matter. The citizens in a neighborhood matter. This is commercial encroachment into a neighborhood.

2. Gomez and the development's lawyer met at the site on more than one occasion. Gomez did not meet with the Terrace View neighbors; did not take their calls; in effect he did not represent his constituients in this matter.

3. When the matter came before the City Council, Gomez had Martinsen enter into record letters that were written by the same secretary claiming to represent different land owners in Terrace View (including an out of state landowner). Gomez claimed that there was much support for the development and hadn't spoken with any one opposed. This is true, because he doesn't take phone calls or return phone calls from people opposed.

4 Gomez had a friend of his from Renaissance stand up, claim he represented Renaissance n/a, and then spoke in favor of the credit union in Terrace View. Residents of Renaissance were a little amazed by this representation as this Gomez friend was not the president, nor had any meeting been held to discuss this.

Gomez actually pitted one N/A against another N/A - both in his own district.

5. The petition. Those of you who have ever submitted a petition to the TMAPC are probably aware that they will do all they can to discredit that petition claiming that only persons living next door or within a 300' radius could possibly be affected.

6. The ethics violation concerned the letters entered into record by Martinsen. Why did Martinsen and not Gomez submit them? Why is it that these letters that claim to represent different people get typed by the same person (they put their initials on them) and neglect to put phone numbers or other contact information on them.

7. What benefit angle is Gomez working when he coddles a developer, works actively against his district, and misrepresents support for a project?

8. Using a city council seat to negotiate business for yourself is clearly an ethics violation.

9. As a side note, Gomez went out of town to avoid the 21st & Harvard City council vote.

The sad thing. Gomez is being played as a puppet. He is not bright enough to know that he is. He will be dropped like a hot potato as soon as he is voted out.

Interestly enough - his survey of issues in District 4 showed that the residents were in favor of conservation districts. Rather than to represent the consistuents - he chose to be vocal about streets and to work against conservation districts. Makes you think doesn't it?

Yeah, he's a bad representative for our district. Thats why I didn't vote for him, yet he won pretty convincingly. Learn from it. By the time you spend your N/A capital on ousting him for ethics violations you could have influenced his defeat in the next election and found a suitable replacement. Choose your battles.

That doesn't change the fact that 13th & Lewis, and the neighborhood in general, is not going to suffer from having a credit union built there. It will in fact complement the neighborhood. A credit union in walking distance is not like a commercial lumber yard which used to be near by. IMO your real opponent in saving that hood is the hospitals' influence. They would like to cheapen your property, buy it for employee housing, parking and clinics so that they can compete with suburban operations. They'll replace Gomez with another just like him.

Do you have a name of the friend? It is possible that they are on the board...

And for the sake of disclosure, I actually approve of the credit union.

A 300 yard radius is kind of big.  That's somewhere in the area of 1/6th of a mile. 

I don't understand the complaint.  Clearly people 4 miles away don't need to be taken into consideration.  We don't need a city-wide plebiscite every time someone wants to build something.

That's 300 feet, not yards. I agree, you clearly don't understand. I am not surprised that you can't seem to get your facts straight, as usual. Nice spin, though. BTW, it was people in support of the project who live outside the 300 foot radius who were given consideration, instead of the folks that do. Ding, fries are done.

All Hail Dickwadicus!

A 300 foot radius is pretty big.

Yes, people from all over can speak for something.  It's up to those directly affected to speak against it.  If they don't have a case, no one does.  Some dude from the North side, clearly has no logical opposition to a development at 13th and Lewis.  Perhaps someone a couple miles away might oppose on utilitarian or stylistic grounds, but that's for another body; not TMAPC.

It helps keep the usual Tulsa droolers, like yourself, from making political hay out of every single development.  At least until it gets to City Council.

300 ft isn't anywhere near as big as your credibility gap. Your breath must smell like turds, because you are constantly talking out of your rear. I am surprised you don't suffocate, since you seem to keep your head firmly planted there most of the time.

There were folks directly effected within the 300 foot radius who did speak against it. They were ignored because some sycophantic Councilor cronies who lived far outside that radius and were not directly effected supposedly support it. Your reading comprehension skills are remedial at best. Keep riding that short bus and digging that hole deeper.

Dickwadicus?

Really? Thanks for just proving my point.

Hey, genius. The correct word is "affected". Funny how your name calling seems to be so impeccable while the rest of your post suffers.

With homes in that area averaging 40 to 50ft frontage, 300 ft means a 6-7 home radius. Moving eastward on thirteenth, that is mostly commercial and railroad. The southward radius includes almost entirely commercial and an expressway. Northward includes a few homes edged by commercial offices. The only real homes within that radius lie directly to the West and Northwest. So, very few homeowners seem to be directly AFFECTED by this decision or were included in the radius.

I drove past there again today. Its a losers argument. Look, if you would pressure the city to close the entrance to the BA exprwy on 13th west of Lewis, you would EFFECT more positive change in the neighborhood than trying to stop a credit union on Lewis. Its unnecessary since there is another entrance just west of Utica. Then make them justify having a short, high speed exit into the neighborhood just to allow access to the two hospitals on Utica and improving the value of Bumgarners property.

FYI, Waterboy, I think what the neighbors mostly didn't like is the fact that the development took out one of the houses, which they had recently petitioned to downzone to residential.  So after all of the effort of going before the TMAPC and getting a residential zoning, the bank swept the same property up into a PUD, and plans to tear down the house and put a parking lot on it.

I'm not saying it was a good or bad development, but I understand the frustration of the neighbors.  They took steps to assure that commercial development would not encroach into their neighborhood, but by using a PUD, the bank circumvented this.

Neither you, nor Dickwadicus, have a monopoly on "being nasty."  I don't care about spelling.  You don't know half of what this discussion is about.  You're in right-field picking dandelions.


If no one is directly affected by a development, what would your case be?  That they should do something different?  Seriously, that's your argument?  That would be a loser's argument.

If this were about some over-arching zoning issue, which pmcalk already says it is, I might concur.  But you can't do that on a development.  You have to sift through that BS preemptively.  You have to say, "this is what we want in our codes."  "This is how we want it to work in the future." 

You can't wait until the thing is on the verge of legally "ready to go," and then say "oops let's change the rules and get the whole damned city involved."  I guess technically you could say that, it just doesn't work.  Won't stop the bank from being built.

Limiting the scope of people against a project, makes sense.  TMAPC is not all-powerful, and it doesn't have an infinite amount of time to philosophize with every single person in town.  There's only so much they can do.  If this project involves some technical issue that has to be resolved with better zoning, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this bank is built.  You can't change the rules in midstream, just because you think a bank should be built differently.

Come on now, two of you punks jumped me for no particular reason.  Don't stop now while I'm ahead.

Actually, Neptune, I was replying to Dickwadicus, not you. I simply am not comfortable with this new version of TN software and couldn't find the reply with quote button. I actually agree with you and was criticizing his use of name calling instead of addressing issues. Affect and effect are often misused. I ain't perfect but repeated misuse of a word like AA did deserves a call out.

PM, yes it appears they got sideswiped, cold cocked, sucker punched..whatever works. You don't succeed in commercial real estate without knowing how to do that and not feel bad about it. Changing rules won't change that either. I made sure when I did respond to note that I am not familiar with the zoning procedural issues and feel badly for the way they were steamrollered.

However, I was merely responding to the reality of the location. Its a commercial location. The homes being torn down are not architecturally significant and are rentals. This councilor is a real estate veteran and this kind of response shouldn't come as a surprise. Thats all.

My apologies.   




If it helps, I am the one that can't tell feet from yards. 

Water under the bridge. You seem to be a pretty renaissance type guy with knowledge tempered by wisdom but capable in a pissing match. You, and others like you around this forum, are important to the future of Tulsa. The young'uns are watching.

I just can't understand why so few points are responded to in these posts. If you spend the time to try and understand an issue and provide insights that are intended to help the conversation, you half expect to hear someone agree/disagree or point out inconsistencies. It obvious many folks here have the intellectual capacity to skewer each other mercilessly and are more intent on proving that prowess than conceding or even noting a point well made. Sometimes I enjoy the snark but when it replaces conversation its boring.

I'm not an insider, not a player.  Just a small town guy (here) that used to really love his little berg and is becoming disenchanted with its denizens as of late. The worst stuff for Tulsa is yet to come I'm afraid.

You're making me blush.  Need to emphasize the "pissing match" part more, and possibly throw in the words "impetuous prick".   ;)


I agree. 

I think some people come in with "group think" on a subject.  In local issues, that's easily the case.  People don't understand why something is happening, they think that it is somehow unfair, then they group up with other people who feel the same.  They head here to complain, people agree with them because big-bad-government scares them too.  It might even snowball into some giant thing where people are showing up at City Council meetings to claim victimization over something they didn't understand in the first place. 

"Group think" can be difficult or impossible to change.  Occasionally it can be stamped out.  It doesn't help at all if I can't keep the word "morons" from hitting the screen.  I play my part. 

And it probably doesn't help that 9/10ths of the time on local issues I end up being in auto-defense mode for the City of Tulsa.  One gets a rep that way.  Flipside:  Typically, whatever the city does, "it's not about me."  I can be hard to convince.


I hear ya.  I'm more frustrated than depressed.  Maybe that is next.

Well said. Its easier to form a group and fight a supposed enemy than it is to learn why a process exists and modify it or manipulate it. Our computers and digital socializing have facilitated and quickened action without thought.

As a sort of postscript, I think we are losing faith. At least locally. The one thing I hold dear from my experience with religion is the role that deeply held faith has in well being. It frees you to be human and to determine your mission, then work towards it. Thats not as philosophically deep as it sounds. It is just a basic tenet of existence that you have to have before anything beyond yourself can be accomplished. Even Einstein could not have explored relativity without knowing someone, somewhere was covering the basics of making sure he had sustenance and safety.

Once you lose that faith, it is replaced by chaos, suspicion, avarice and confusion. Group think may be a symptom of that loss of faith.

Belief/Faith versus Skepticism is an interesting subject to me.  It reminds me of something I actually blogged about not long ago.  Probably trying to work out some personal philosophical process on paper.

They both have "pitfalls".  Faith is a very basic principle, but it's omnipresent.  All people have Faith, of one type or another.  With the city it could be Faith that the city works the way it's supposed to; or Faith that the city is somehow "good"; or Faith that the city is somehow "evil".  For everyone, it's probably a combination of the three.  And that Faith naturally leads to certain "actions" or "inactions".

Skepticism acts toward altering a "belief."  Changing the course of "Faith".  One might have Faith that the city is "all good" or "all evil".  Then something happens, and that person becomes Skeptical of that belief; or that person ignores the new information and "keeps the Faith."  Skepticism doesn't cause "action", it just alters the course of "Faith" thereby altering the course of "action" or "inaction." 

Skepticism is a tool, Faith is the prime driver of "action".  Skepticism without Faith is worthless.  If everyone were Skeptics all the time, literally nothing would be done.  Faith without Skepticism can lead to "wrong"-action.  There are plenty of example of that.

Your thoughts represent the mechanics of faith and skepticism. I particularly like the idea that faith without skepticism is as useless as the opposite. Thats hard for people to swallow in a strongly fundamental region. Perhaps "losing faith" is the wrong terminology.

 My faith in the city of Tulsa has been twofold. On the one hand I have had faith in its operations. I draw no judgements as to its evil or good nature as it is more difficult to ascribe a personality when leadership is temporary. Some leaders have been lazy, self serving, myopic elitists. Others have been mere functionaries, oblivious to the nature of leadership. A scale of effectiveness in leadership might range from the elder LaFortune and Taylor on one end to Crawford on the other end. In spite of them the city has continued to hit on enough cylinders to move along nicely. Mostly, I have had faith that the city's employees and leaders were doing their jobs with the same committment, integrity, and knowledge that I perceive myself to possess. As of late I am more skeptical of that faith. I have less faith that the county is doing the same, due to some personal experience over the years, therefore less skepticism of their operations. They are in balance to me.

On the other hand, I have had faith that in spite of its reputation for fundamentalism and ultra-conservative politics, that the people here were basically fair minded, forgiving, sociable and accomodating of different views of life. Accepting of different types of people. I seriously doubt that now. I speak to people of all walks every day. I am blessed with an aura that allows people to speak to me as though I am their confessional. Whatever their perspective, everyone seems to think I am just like them. Weird, but I deal with it. Turns out, this is a very monolithic, "my way or the highway" kind of city now. Cruel, inflexible and capable of terrible things.  

My skepticism has led to a very cynical outlook for the city. The bottom line is that our region is segregated by income/wealth and education. Ghettos of each insulate themselves from the villagers who, by and large, are infected with Bible era intolerance. Each side is skeptical and critical of the other. The Tulsa World comments sections represent this pretty accurately. I think we're pretty screwed.


 

Every time someone mentions the TW comments section I get a case of the chuckles.  It's terrible, there are few rays of light in there, but it's generally rough.  I still find it slightly comical I guess.  The TW article could be about something absolutely mundane, but someone is going berserk over it.

I think Tulsa, in ways, is a "great lie" we like to tell ourselves.  Tulsa is built way beyond itself as far as museums, homes, even downtown.  Tulsa has "great" things.  Downtown (even though half of it is surface parking) was designed to be the downtown of a very large important city.  It's 1.4 square miles; that's huge for a metro of less than a million.  And parts of our downtown represent much larger cities.  We have half surface parking, but we also have the 4 largest buildings in the state (3 downtown), and a downtown that at least in height terms would put some much larger cities to shame.

Tulsa has a fantastic base to work with.  I mean that very literally.  We have plenty of "urban gems."  However, nothing about our evolution as a city was natural.  It was all built on oil wealth, sometimes more wealth than other times.  It was built by philanthropists and major oil companies.  Our city became "grand" because of oil.  We didn't just "grow" into a city this size, we were forced into a city this size. 

Generally speaking; People didn't come to Tulsa for the purpose of being in an "urban environment."  People came here for opportunity, and they brought their churches and everything else with them.  If it weren't for oil, they'd probably live in rural areas.

I think what that means is; we're far less urban than we're inclined to believe.  We're some kind of Frontier/Urban hybrid.  On the one hand, we have lots of great things.  Things that great cities would envy.  On the other hand, we're also loaded with some people who have never appreciated what we have, and were never inclined to make the city a better place (beyond whatever concepts they brought to this city).

Then you couple all that with watered-down density, rapid expansion, the suburbanization, and ingrained segregation of the city;  It will take a very long time for that 1.4 square miles of downtown to be fully used.  The problem isn't the urban folk; they want it.  The problem is, a very large number (if not the vast majority) couldn't care less.  They're more interested in being close to jobs, schools, and housing (and staying away from crime) than urban issues.  This town is fairly comfortable with being relatively xenophobic; many do not care for being "more urban."

It's frustrating, and if I think about it too much, it's depressing.  If I were to say I've never thought about leaving this town on principle, I'd be lying.  When leaving seems selfish and staying seems charitable; what do you do?   We can all sit around and hold hands and say it's all untrue. We can say that they just need a little more "learnin".  The only thing that beats that is lots and lots of time, and a ton of work.  I think there will always be an undercurrent around Tulsa that says "this town is behind the times."

The "shell" of the city is great.  We do have to learn how to be a city.

Forgive me waterboy...for I have suburbed.

I don't think you are just like me. You are way nicer.

Forgiven. Suburbia can be cured with enough tax increases. I guess I sounded sort of narcissistic there didn't I?  Well, I'm going with it. Its just that my whole life strangers have confided in me things as though we were long time friends and agreed on everything. I listen, smile, nod my head and try to find common ground. Often, those with mental problems seek me out of a group and gleefully converse. Way out of synch with consensus thinking. That's why networking has never been successful for me. Those I want to know find something kind of strange about me. The others relate to that strangeness! I feel like I'm in a TV sitcom most days. An animated one.

Nep, you nailed the description of our shell city, its origins and its personality quirks. Insightful. Why couldn't you have tipped me off 30 years ago?  Not that I would have listened.