Survey SaysMy favorite excerpts:
Six items were ranked as high priorities by at least 70 percent of the respondents: Repairing and maintaining streets, improving public education, new economic opportunities and jobs, clean air and water, improving public safety and health care.
Another five items topped 60 percent: Renewable energy sources, keeping young adults in Tulsa, support for small business and entrepreneurs, affordable housing for students, seniors, and working people, and harmony among the various racial and ethnic groups in the city.
Repairing and maintaining streets was considered a high priority by 84 percent citywide, deviating only slightly by region. (There was a curious racial difference on the issue: 90 percent of whites called streets a high priority, but the same was true for only 70 percent of non-whites.)
The numbers for each high priority were fairly uniform across regional and racial groups, with a few notable exceptions.
A slightly larger proportion of Downtowners and Midtowners ranked clean air and water (84 percent vs. 76 percent), keeping young adults in Tulsa (75 percent vs. 66 percent), and making renewable energy available (73 percent vs. 68 percent) as high priorities than Tulsa as a whole.
Fewer Downtowners, Midtowners, and south Tulsans were concerned about affordable housing than in other parts of the city (58 percent Midtown and 55 percent south vs. 63 percent). South Tulsans, who are mainly not in the Tulsa Public School district, put slightly less priority on public education than the rest of the city, but not by much (75 percent vs. 80 percent).
The most dramatic regional differences came further down the list of priorities. Overall, only 31 percent of Tulsans consider Arkansas River development a high priority, with the strongest support in south Tulsa (41 percent) and Midtown (38 percent) and the weakest support in east (20 percent) and north Tulsa (22 percent). West Tulsa was close to the citywide average at 30 percent.
There was a 19-point gap for limiting immigration. Forty-nine percent of Eastsiders considered it a high priority, versus only 30 percent of Midtowners.
There was a consensus (83 percent) that north Tulsa has not received enough attention and resources, while 65 percent said the same about west Tulsa.
Despite the broad agreement over priorities, the survey revealed a widespread perception of a disconnect between leaders and citizens. These problems were felt most keenly in north, east, and west Tulsa.
"City leaders in Tulsa understand my community's needs." Fifty-two percent of Midtowners and 48 percent of south Tulsans agreed with that statement, but only 27 percent of Northsiders and Westsiders did. Citywide, the statement polled 39 percent agreement, a stunning statement of no confidence in city leadership.
"I do not feel included in the planning process. People like me are always left out." Majorities agreed in north (59 percent), east (52 percent), and west Tulsa (51 percent). Fewer than a third of Midtowners (32 percent) and Southies (31 percent) agreed. Sixty percent of non-whites agreed, versus 38 percent of whites. Forty-four percent was the overall total.
"I'm concerned the plan will be too influenced by those who have a lot of money." Seventy percent of Tulsans agreed with that statement, which received strongest support from Northsiders (80 percent), Westsiders (74 percent), and Eastsiders (71 percent). The statement received a lower level, but still a majority, of support in south Tulsa and Midtown--about 60 percent.
The gap between Midtown and south Tulsa on the one hand and north, west and east Tulsa is not surprising. Maps of election results showing support for various tax increases, of where appointees to city boards and commissions live, and of those selected to the PLANiTULSA Advisers and Partners reveal a common pattern.
Rather called the skepticism about carrying out the plan "pervasive." It came up both in the in-depth interviews and in the broader survey polling. She said, "A lot of people feel like it doesn't matter how you plan. Folks that have a lot of money, or a lot of influence get to do what they want."
Rather characterized what she was hearing from Tulsans about the planning: "We engage in the public process, we go to these meetings, we do the hard work, but at the end of the day our expectations are not met." She urged action to ensure that this plan has a real chance to avoid that fate.
Maybe the most hopeful sign was that there was near-unanimous agreement with this statement: "Assuming people like me participate in the plan and the plan is carried out fairly by the city, I think Tulsa will change for the better as a result of it." Ninety-one percent of Tulsans concurred, with no significant variation across the city.
But there are two very big assumptions in that statement.
The second assumption is at the mercy of city officials. The approval of the Bomasada development in Brookside by the TMAPC and the Council and the TMAPC's approval last week of John Bumgarner's rezoning of the southwest corner of 14th and Utica from residential to high-intensity office both send the signal to the public that plans don't matter in Tulsa. If someone has enough money and influence, he can build anything he wants, anywhere he wants.
The river tax vote demonstrated that, even a recent plan, developed with a great deal of community input, will be drastically modified if someone wealthy demands it as a condition of a gift. (That perception is reinforced by how much time and effort was invested in discussing the $788 million Channels concept, an even more radical departure from the river plan developed by INCOG.)