Episode 27 | Right-of-Way Report Podcast
If you missed Episode 27 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on August 31, 2026, we talk all about last week’s big 5-4 win at the City of Norman Council Meeting, rallying until 2:15 am to keep three additional development inducing interchanges out of East Norman. We also talked about the proposed de-annexation of Ward 5 and the OTA Board Meeting on Tuesday, September 1st.
If you aren’t signed up for this substack newsletter to get delivered straight to your email inbox, do it! It’s free.
AMY’S SUBSTACK:
Norman Said NO…. AGAIN
The big story was that Norman City Council said NO…. AGAIN, to the OTA’s request for a resolution of cooperation to put three additional interchanges at Tecumseh, Alameda and Etowa, along the proposed Southern Extension route.
The Councilors who voted NO to the resolution and unwanted additional development in our watershed were…
Mayor - Stephen Tyyler Holman; mayor@normanok.gov or 405-876-9216
Ward 2 - Jacy Deck; ward2@normanok.gov or 405-876-9196
Ward 5 - Trey Kirby; ward5@normanok.gov or 405-876-9239
Ward 6 - Kyle Steele; ward6@normanok.gov or 405-876-9262
Ward 7 - Kimberly Blodgett; ward7@normanok.gov or 405-876-9263
The Councilors who voted to CO-OPERATE with the OTA were…
Ward 1 - David Gandesbery; ward1@normanok.gov or 405-876-9170
Ward 3 - Robert Bruce; ward3@normanok.gov or 405-876-3143
Ward 4 - Helen Grant; ward4@normanok.gov or 405-876-9237
Ward 8 - Scott Dixon - ward8@normanok.gov or 405-876-9166
Please stay engaged with local politics and make your wishes known. This isn’t over. We will have to be back at City Council again to fight back more destruction.
In the meantime, show up to City Council meetings and sign up to speak at miscellaneous comments. Keep this topic on their minds. It is imperative that we continue to let the Councilors know how we feel about the OTA and their intrusion on our way of life.
Stay vigilant and keep educating.
Thank you again to all the citizens who showed up for support and who spoke to the Council. We appreciate you! Watch starting at hour 5:24 for all of the citizen comments and again at hour 7:16 for miscellaneous comments.
FYI, hour 7 of the meeting was at 1:30 am.
De-Annexation Proposal for City of Norman
After we were through re-hashing the EIGHT hour City Council Meeting, we let everyone know that Ward 8 Council Member Scott Dixon has put a proposal to de-annex much of Ward 5 from the City of Norman on his City of Norman Business and Community Affairs Committee meeting Thursday, September 3rd at 4:00 pm in the Executive Conference Room. This meeting is open to the public, but no public comments will be allowed.
You can watch it live as well… https://www.youtube.com/@CityOfNormanOK/streams.
As we discussed on the podcast, this is a bad idea….to put it mildly.
You can listen to Ward 5 Council Member Trey Kirby discuss it in a Facebook Live post and you can see a lively discussion of it in the No More Turnpikes Facebook group.
What problem are we trying to solve and who benefits from solving it this way?
I have lots of questions, but the most important is … What problem are we trying to SOLVE and WHO benefits from solving it this way?
Because whatever justification is ultimately offered for de-annexation, we need to be very clear about what it would actually do.
It would move a massive portion of East Norman out of the City of Norman and into unincorporated Cleveland County. And with that change would go Norman’s zoning, land-use controls, development standards and other municipal protections that currently apply to this land.
What becomes easier to build on this land once it is no longer subject to the City of Norman’s development controls?
Data centers. Solar and wind facilities. Electrical substations and transmission infrastructure. Large industrial and commercial developments. Turnpike interchanges and service roads.
And we’re not talking about some empty piece of land miles from anything that matters.
We’re talking about our drinking-water watershed.
So before anyone votes to remove this land from Norman's jurisdiction, I want to know exactly what problem de-annexation is supposed to solve and who stands to benefit from the regulatory environment it would create.
Case History from just last week August 29, 2026: Brownsville, Texas just approved deannexation of 444 acres associated with SpaceX. Reporting says the change removes Brownsville zoning obstacles and gives SpaceX substantially greater development freedom in Starbase; in exchange, SpaceX committed $220 million toward Brownsville water infrastructure, expressly contingent on Brownsville approving the deannexation that night. The mayor acknowledged the process was rushed; SpaceX had brought the proposal to the city only about a week and a half earlier.
Why is the 1961 rationale for annexation - watershed protection - no longer considered necessary?
I have several major problems with this proposal, but the first is, we have been protecting this watershed and our drinking water since 1961. In fact, much of Ward 5 was incorporated INTO the City of Norman for the sole purpose OF PROTECTING OUR DRINKING WATER.
So why all of a sudden in 2026 would we give the developers a blank check to do whatever they want in our watershed?
Read this excerpt from the Botsford v. City of Norman, 354 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1965) case.
“In early 1961, it was determined that a reservoir, to be known as the Little River Reservoir, would be constructed approximately twelve to fourteen miles east of the City of Norman. The purpose of the reservoir was to provide domestic water for the cities of Norman, Midwest City and Del City, Oklahoma. Concern soon arose by the interested parties over the best way to protect the water and the watershed of this new reservoir. An attempt was first made by the City of Norman to enlist the help of the county officials of Cleveland County in which the watershed and the City of Norman are located, but no suitable agreement could be reached. Thereafter the Norman City Commission decided the only practical way to assure the protection of the watershed and the reservoir was to annex the entire reservoir and watershed area which comprises approximately 112,000 acres and thereafter subject that area to the controls and ordinances of the City of Norman.” - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 354 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1965)
That history matters. But so does how Norman managed to annex 112,000 acres of watershed in the first place, because the legal mechanism the City used in 1961 creates some very interesting questions about what happens if we start de-annexing pieces of it today.
Aside: A quick annexation rabbit hole. So the City of Norman started annexing land - City Ordinance #1311 was the first one. Under the Oklahoma annexation statute in effect at the time, Norman first obtained the consent of the landowners within a narrow, 67-foot-wide strip of property that ran out from the lower east edge of the old city limits approximately 14 miles east, then five miles north. This made the southern and eastern boundaries of what we know as the City of Norman today.
Once that strip was annexed, it became part of the City of Norman. That created the contiguity Norman needed to annex the much larger territory enclosed by the existing city boundary to the west and the newly annexed strip to the south and east - without obtaining the consent of every property owner within that larger area. These lands were annexed through City ordinances #1312-1320
And Oklahoma law did not require annexed territory to look remotely like what most of us would consider a normal city boundary. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had already held that the law did not require annexed territory to be compact or even to have any particular shape. Sharp v. Oklahoma City, 181 Okla. 425, 74 P.2d 383 (1937).
When landowners later challenged Norman’s annexation, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals also pointed to American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.), a legal encyclopedia that summarizes principles drawn from court decisions. It cited the generally accepted rule on municipal annexation:
“While the general rule is that land cannot be annexed to a city or town unless it is contiguous thereto, it is not necessary that each and every tract of land sought to be annexed shall be contiguous to the municipality. If all of the tracts are contiguous to each other, and one of them is contiguous to or adjoins the municipality, that is sufficient.”
In other words, every piece of the annexed territory did not have to touch the old City of Norman. The pieces simply had to connect to one another, with at least one connecting back to the existing city.
That little 67-foot-wide strip was therefore enormously important. It provided the legal connection that allowed Norman’s municipal boundary to extend miles eastward and encompass the watershed.
Botsford v. City of Norman, 354 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1965).
And here is where this 60-year-old annexation history suddenly becomes very relevant to today’s deannexation effort.
That skinny strip of land wasn’t incidental. It was the legal connective tissue that allowed Norman to reach eastward and annex the much larger territory that followed.
So what happens if, sixty years later, someone cuts through that connective tissue?
If Ward 5 is detached in a way that severs the territorial connections created through Norman's original annexation ordinances, what else gets disconnected from the City of Norman? And legally, what happens to it then?
The questions I would want answered Thursday
Before anyone seriously considers de-annexing a massive portion of Norman, I think we need some very basic questions answered:
Who requested this de-annexation discussion, what problem are we trying to solve, and who benefits from solving it this way?
Exactly what property is proposed for de-annexation? Show the public a parcel-level map, not simply a line drawn at “east of 60th.” What neighborhoods, businesses, City-owned property and other parcels would actually leave Norman?
What happens to Norman’s water supply and the Lake Thunderbird watershed? How much of the watershed would leave Norman’s jurisdiction? How many of Norman’s 43 active municipal wells would be outside the City afterward? What City protections currently apply to those wells and the watershed, and which of those protections would disappear?
Why is the rationale that led Norman to annex this land in 1961 - protecting our drinking water and watershed - no longer considered necessary? What has changed in the intervening 65 years that makes relinquishing that land-use authority a good idea now?
What development rules would actually govern this land after de-annexation? What Cleveland County zoning, permitting and development standards would replace Norman’s ordinances, and what uses could legally occur there after de-annexation that cannot occur there today?
What happens to the people who live there and the municipal services they currently receive? Who provides fire and EMS, police protection, road maintenance and other services? What happens to response times and ISO/fire-insurance classifications?
What is the financial impact on the rest of Norman? What is the assessed valuation of the territory being removed? What commercial properties and future tax-producing corridors would leave the City? What happens to Norman’s sinking fund, bonded indebtedness and the tax burden borne by the residents who remain?
What happens to existing and planned City infrastructure? How would roads, utilities, water infrastructure and capital projects that cross the new city boundary be handled, funded and maintained?
And finally, what does de-annexation do to Norman’s municipal boundaries themselves? If the proposed de-annexation removes portions of the land that historically provided the contiguity necessary to connect East Norman to the rest of the City, does it leave other portions of Norman geographically disconnected—and, if so, what are the legal consequences?
September 1st OTA Board Meeting at 10 AM
AGENDA: Agenda for 9-1-26 OTA Authority Meeting
Meeting Recording:
It’s the same old dog and pony show. Check out the payment registries though. That’s a clue as to how much they are paying for property acquisition. More on that soon.
