top of page



  • John Neal

"Move The Negroes Out" The Destruction of the Historically Black Neighborhood in Sand Springs, OK

By John Neal

The demolition of the building that originally housed the Booker T. Washington School in Sand Springs, OK. Image from the TAPP Development Corporation.



– James Baldwin commenting on Urban Renewal in 1963.

In 2003-2004 Sand Springs and Tulsa, Oklahoma metropolitan officials crafted a plan. The plan was to demolish Sand Spring’s largest Black community and replace it with a retail and commercial district. Using the powers of urban renewal and both the threat and use of eminent domain condemnation, they dislocated the residents of the neighborhood. Then they demolished their homes, two Black churches, and the Booker T. Washington School that had educated Black students in segregation until the mid-1960s. The Black neighborhood vanished after being in Sand Springs since the City’s founding nearly 100 years earlier.



It all appeared to begin innocuously enough with Tulsa, Oklahoma community leaders wanting to build a sports arena. They devised a sales tax referendum, the proceeds from which they could use to issue revenue bonds for its construction. [1] Because the sales tax referendum would be countywide, Tulsa needed support from other municipalities in the county and their voting residents. To secure that support they solicited projects to be added to the referendum from these governments. In early 2003 Sand Springs submitted several projects, the largest of which was the “Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Project.” [2] The countywide projects were collectively referred to as Vision 2025.

The “Keystone Corridor” referenced that section of the Sand Springs Expressway that ran through Sand Springs from Tulsa to the Keystone Lake recreation area. The genesis for the proposal is unknown but it was developed, written, and presented by the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), which doubled as the regional Municipal Planning Organization, of which the Sand Springs municipal government was a member. The role of Vision 2025 countywide leaders who selected the project, and that of the INCOG planners, were central to what was about to transpire in Sand Springs.

Following the successful sales tax referendum, the project plan was presented by INCOG in early 2004 as the Sand Springs Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan, or the “Corridor Plan”. (APPENDIX A) It was ninety-four (94) pages, including eight (8) appendices.

This paper addresses the Corridor Plan document extensively for several reasons:

A. It is the document accessible to the public, setting forth what was proposed, and was the document submitted to the Sand Springs Urban Renewal Authority, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council for consideration and approval.

B. The Corridor Plan constituted an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan governed by Oklahoma Statutes, which among other things authorized the involuntary acquisition of real property and structures.

C. It provided the legal, policy, and administrative context for everything that followed in Sand Springs concerning these events.

The Corridor Plan states: “Prior to the vote Sand Springs residents selected the Keystone Corridor project, which was included in Proposition 4 on the successful ballot.” [3] It is difficult to understand what is meant by “Sand Springs residents selected” as there was no referendum on the project in Sand Springs. And as to the project being “included” on the ballot, here is the actual ballot Proposition 4 text as voted on September 9, 2003:

PROPOSITION NO. 4 (Capital Improvements/Community Enrichment)




The Keystone Corridor Redevelopment project was not stated in the Proposition, but the funding for the project of $14.5 million was included under the vague reference to a number of projects described as “capital improvements for community enrichment.”

A casual reader also might not immediately grasp its planned consequences from the first two paragraphs in the Corridor Plan introduction:

“On September 9, 2003, the voters of Sand Springs and Tulsa County combined in approving the Vision 2025 plan and program to encourage economic development and growth in area cities and towns and in Tulsa County. The Sand Springs Vision 2025 Keystone Corridor Redevelopment project is the $14.5 million dollar initiative to redevelop the Keystone Corridor. [5]

“The purpose of the Sand Springs Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan: 2025 (Corridor Plan) is to arrest the decline of an area in the central part of the City’s economic downtown area, assemble the land, implement a strategy for clearance, and promote redevelopment to make this area a central and positive focus of community growth and attraction- a point of destination for persons living within the Sand Springs market area, as well as a point of attraction and destination for persons from the larger metropolitan area and northwest Oklahoma.” [6]

In this context and use, a layperson may be inclined to interpret “redevelopment” as meaning “the act or process of changing an area of a town by replacing old buildings, roads, etc...with new ones”, as is found in the online Cambridge Dictionary. [7] In reality, “redevelopment” is used interchangeably with “urban renewal” in Oklahoma Statutes. [8]

Area Map included the Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan document.



The principal target was the “three South Side Additions” [9] which was the largest Black neighborhood community in Sand Springs.

The Corridor Plan, and thus the extension of the area subject to urban renewal and all its powers, included this Black residential area. As a factual matter, this neighborhood (most of Area A in the Corridor Plan) was just that, a residential neighborhood, and not a “central part of the city’s economic downtown”, as had been referenced previously. Charles Page, the town's founder, made certain of that when he platted the African American Southside Addition in 1911, separated from the white community by the Katy railroad tracks, quite literally. The original Southside Addition plat of 33 acres slightly overlaps the 25.7 acres in Area A of the Corridor Plan. It is true that over time Sand Springs officials had allowed manufacturing, industrial, and later commercial businesses to surround and encroach into the neighborhood and diminished its size. But the residences, churches, and school were not part of the economic heart of the downtown area. This sort of distortion of facts and misleading statements riddle the Corridor Plan (urban renewal mechanism) and prevented neighborhood residents from full knowledge of what was happening until it was too late.

Indeed, the stage was being set for this as Sand Springs submitted this project in early 2003 for inclusion in the referendum by declaring this area “blighted.” Prior to the use of the powers of urban renewal, an area must be declared blighted. On March 24, 2003, the Sand Springs City Council adopted Resolution No.03-09. [10] It was done without fanfare or much publicity, but it did an extraordinary thing. It immensely increased the blighted area in Sand Springs subject to urban renewal and the powers derived from it. It increased the designated blighted area from approximately 26 acres, adding 454 more acres (including the 94 acres in the Corridor Plan). This immense swath of land constituted more than 3% of the entire City and more than double the size of the downtown business district. This was done months prior to the Tulsa County sales tax referendum and was a legal prerequisite for including the proposed redevelopment area in the revised urban renewal plan.

The Corridor Plan includes this Resolution but makes no reference to the amount of increased land this would add to the Urban Renewal Area. The Resolution adds 454 acres all said to be ”… blighted areas and specifically a blighted area south of the downtown area… which constitutes a serious and growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the City of Sand Springs…” [11] Seriously, one must doubt that the Sand Springs Early Childhood Center, the three Black churches, McDonald's, other businesses, and the area residents ever knew they constituted such a serious threat to the City.

One can draw a straight line through the declaration of blight, submission of the project for the inclusion in the referendum, development of a Corridor Plan, and the subsequent exercise of the threat and use of condemnation under urban renewal (eminent domain), to the destruction of Sand Springs’ largest Black neighborhood community. As the Corridor Plan finally makes clear in Part II Objectives, “The primary objectives of the Corridor Plan are…Remove substandard residential, commercial, and industrial buildings…Develop a new retail and commercial center for Sand Springs and the market area.” [12]

The preservation and rehabilitation of the Black neighborhood was never an alternative even though this could have been accomplished in a number of ways. The blight Resolution states “salvable blight areas can be conserved and rehabilitated,” [13] mirroring State authorizing language of “rehabilitation or conservation in an urban renewal area” and “carrying out plans for a program of voluntary and compulsory repair and rehabilitation of buildings and other improvements.” [14] So a legal and administrative framework within urban renewal existed to repair and rehabilitate the neighborhood as an alternative.



The residents of Area A, the first phase of the redevelopment plan, deserve special attention not given in the Corridor Plan. They constituted by far the largest Black neighborhood in Sand Springs and one-half of the Black population. Based on the Corridor Plan the number of occupied residences was 68 (sixty-eight). [15] The Corridor Plan does not mention that the “repair and rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements” was an alternative to “demolition and removal.” [16] The Plan does not subdivide the Estimated Finance Plan budget by area, but the acquisition, clearance, and relocation budget was $9,425,000 in total. [17] Area A represents 27% of the total acreage. Tens of thousands of dollars could have been spent repairing or rehabilitating these 68 occupied residences. Instead, City officials decided to spend the money on acquiring and demolishing these properties.

It is also noteworthy that 50 of the 68 occupied residences were rentals. [18] One white landlord owned dozens of properties. [19] Thus a vast majority of the alleged blight from the residences were due to landlord neglect, and subject to “compulsory repair and rehabilitation” under the powers of the Urban Renewal Authority and/or property code enforcement by municipal officials. [20] At a minimum this could have been used as an adjunct tool, further stretching Plan funds for repair and rehabilitation. Clearly, the Corridor Plan and municipal officials had goals other than preserving and rehabilitating this Black neighborhood, namely a retail and commercial district.

The Corridor Plan itself, adopted after the ballot measure, makes no mention of “eminent domain”, the legal mechanism by a public legislative body to take private property involuntarily for a public purpose. This power was automatically granted in Oklahoma State Statutes with the adoption of the Corridor Plan incorporating the 94 acres into the new Urban Renewal Area, having declared the entire area blighted the previous year. [21] Nor does the Corridor Plan disclose that Sand Springs Development Authority (SSDA) acting as the Urban Renewal Authority had bestowed upon it by these series of actions the power of “condemnation” of property. [22] The phrase “eminent domain” is not stated or explained in the Corridor Plan and “condemnation” appears only once without context or explanation on page 87 of the 94-page document. Ironically, the section where the word “condemnation” appears is in the innocuously titled “City of Sand Springs Relocation Assistance Plan, Policies and Guidelines” (Appendix G). Eminent domain and condemnation would later be used overtly against 14 parcels of property and threatened in other cases. [23]

This action to exercise the power of eminent domain and commence proceedings would occur on May 22, 2006. The SSDA acting as the Urban Renewal Authority could have acted without the City Council approval but Oklahoma law required the governing body to act when used against unimproved real estate or, in this case, 11 vacant lots. [24]

Another example of the Corridor Plan mischaracterizations is the demographic characterization of “Area A.” The Corridor Plan reflects an abundance of ignorance or deceit in not providing accurate demographic information. Instead, it merely notes, “The demographic data for the Corridor Plan area according to the 2000 U.S. Census is shown in Appendix C.” [25] In Appendix C it asserts that “84 persons or 47.5% of the Residential Study Area is African American alone.” [26] Even a minimal amount of due diligence would have the Corridor Plan identifying the area as a Black neighborhood, corresponding to Area A. Using the study’s own occupied house count (68) and persons per household (2.36) in Area A, that is the Black neighborhood, there are approximately 160 persons, all African American! Thus, this neighborhood was home to half of all African Americans residing in Sand Springs at that time. [27]



One should again note the Corridor Plan is being presented “after” the approval of the project in the sales tax referendum. The initial public meetings referred to in the Corridor Plan were not made by the governing body. They were meetings of the Sand Springs Development Authority, the newly designated Urban Renewal Authority. The Plan also says these public meetings were “not required”, appearing to ignore the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act in effect at that time. [28] These public meetings were also several months or more before the City Council would ultimately adopt the Plan. Nevertheless, the meetings sparked discontent in the Black neighborhood. KOTV, the CBS affiliate in Tulsa, reported in the summer of 2004: “City Planners estimate about 177 people would have to move. And many of these folks aren’t happy about that prospect.” [29] The scope of this amended Urban Renewal Plan and its impact on people’s lives and property deserved a more truthful and transparent public participation process.

For example, the Sand Springs Planning Commission met on September 21, 2004, to consider the Corridor Plan’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Irving Frank, INCOG Manager of Community Planning, led the Plan presentation at the meeting. “Frank said it appears those businesses impacted as well as residences and churches are satisfied with the plan and are anxious to move forward.” [30]

When the City Council met just weeks later the reality was far different than Frank’s characterization. It came on October 11, 2004, after just one public notice on September 26, 2004, and no newspaper articles preceding it in the Sand Springs Leader. “Lloyd Johnson spoke on behalf of a good number of the residents in Area A that would be displaced by the redevelopment. ‘We are those crying in the wilderness’ Johnson said, ‘We do not know when we are going… we’re just told we’re going. “Johnson added that “many of the residents are older” and “worrisome.” “Johnson shared pictures of those available in Sand Springs.” (homes). “Some of those are not as good as the ones we’re living in.” [31]

But the official minutes of the meeting would reflect none of this. It would simply and officially record Mr. Johnson’s comments as having been that they wanted to be only “paid fairly for their homes” and “kept informed of the progress of the plan.” [32]

The Sand Springs Leader opened the article stating: “Following a public hearing on what is still being called a preliminary draft the Sand Springs City Council Monday night approved the Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan.” [33] It was not a preliminary draft as events would later demonstrate.

Promotional video for the River West Development Project produced by Tapp Development Corporation in 2011.



This Area A, the Southside Addition, was created as a segregated place of residency by the town founder in 1911. In the early 2000s, the city was still mostly segregated in housing. The Corridor Plan, or any plan for that matter, which considered this neighborhood should have weighed the impact of their dislocation and destruction of their homes and other property, placing the residents’ needs and desires at the forefront. But like so many places across America, Urban Renewal had the effect, if not intent, to “move the Negroes out” as James Baldwin observed in 1963.

So, when eminent domain was aimed at this humble Black neighborhood in the fall and winter of 2005, an eruption occurred. It garnered national attention in the National Review Online and in The New York Times. [34] Churches from around the area banded together to try to protect the three Black churches in the neighborhood from property seizure. City officials had sought to characterize the redevelopment area as just an “old industrial area” and as a “golden opportunity.” [35]

The Corridor Plan falsely characterizes the neighborhood thusly, “Since its initial development and reaching its prime, the area has been characterized by vacant lots, dilapidated vacant residential and commercial buildings…” [36] And when the threat of eminent domain became known, Sand Springs City Manager Loy Calhoun, only days after the reports, said that, “There is no eminent domain action going on there. No action, no intents- nothing like that’s been done in the area.” [37]

And just a few months later the Tulsa World would title an article “Sand Springs Council OKs Condemning 14 Properties.” That meeting was on May 22, 2006. [38] The condemnation proceedings included 11 vacant lots, one occupied and two unoccupied single-family structures. All but one Council member approved the action. That Council member said some of the properties met the definition of blight, others were viable lots. [39] Blight conditions may have been exacerbated by the fact that nearly 75% of the occupied residences were rental properties and landlords likely knew years in advance these properties would be taken. An INCOG representative told the City Planning Commission that “the Corridor Plan actually dates back to 1980…with city planners.” [40] Also beginning in the 1950s and completed in 1973, an expressway was built between Black and white communities reinforcing the segregation, and as elsewhere in the U.S., contributed to the deterioration in the Black neighborhood. [41]

Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, OK. Image courtesy of the Tulsa World.



One church held out, the Centennial Baptist Church. It was not among the properties condemned on May 22nd. It steadfastly refused buyout offers, the church pastor Reverend Roosevelt Gildon saying at one point, “The Lord didn’t send me here to build a mini-mall.” [42] And the church’s legal counsel, the Becket law firm, promised that the use of “… eminent domain will be challenged by immediate legal action” in a letter sent to the City. [43]

Two important factors were in the church’s legal favor. One, the property was clearly not part of the alleged blight having been remodeled just years before, though it had been swept up in the City Council’s former blight resolution. The second reason was an interrelated one. Up until this point, the city officials had relied on economic development or redevelopment as its reason to exercise these powers. And in Kelo vs New London et al, the United States Supreme Court in June 2005 affirmed that the use of economic development was a “public purpose.” [44] So, the City of Sand Springs had proceeded with confidence that “economic development” could be used as the basis for the taking.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court had noted that the City of New London had relied on an invocation of a “State statute… to effectuate this plan.” [45] Thus, the Court left it to each State’s constitution and laws to determine whether eminent domain for economic development was a valid public purpose. Unfortunately for the City on that May 22nd, 2006 meeting day, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had, thirteen days earlier, invalidated using eminent domain for private economic development. [46] It did affirm its use for blight. So, the city reversed its well-publicized position that this was a “redevelopment plan” to being all about blight. And the church, while in the designated and grossly overstated blighted area, was not itself blighted. The city dropped its case against the church with City Attorney David Weatherford saying “there’s no reason to.” (use eminent domain) [47] The church stands on the same site today.

The Booker T. Washington School in Sand Springs, OK. Image courtesy of the Tulsa World.



There was another property in the Southside Addition that also warrants special attention. It was the Early Childhood Center owned by the Sand Springs School District. It was formerly the Booker T. Washington School in which Black students of all grades had been taught for half a century until the integration of public schools in 1966. [48] It was briefly a Head Start facility before being converted to an Early Childhood Center (public school kindergarten) and was still being used for that purpose. The School District had no reason to sell it. And the City could not possibly assert it was blighted. But the City was determined to tear it down. In 2006 the City and the school district came to terms. The City would pay a staggering $3.5 million dollars for the “blighted” property and would not take it until a new kindergarten was built elsewhere in 2009. [49] This single purchase represented 37% of the Plan budget for acquisition, clearance, and relocation. [50] This marked another major blow to the Black community and its heritage.



At its core, the Corridor Plan was designed to attract the “40,000 motorists a day on the Expressway…to create a point of destination… for commercial and retail services for customers across the region.” [51] This would include for Area A “major retail stores, restaurants, specialty retail shops and services.”

The taxpayers would pay for the property and its demolishment, and the city would be the beneficiary of additional sales and property taxes. One could easily reason that is why the project was conceived. For example, and continuing with the BTW school experience, a CVS pharmacy replaced it. In 2020 it had a tax fair market value of $2.7 million dollars and was paying $36,663 in property tax annually as well as inestimable sales taxes. [53] Thus a tax-generating business replaced a school.

What overall effect has this redevelopment had on the city’s sales and property tax revenue? Sales tax is the main source of revenue for funding municipal government operations and property tax is used to pay down debt. [54] While the full impact cannot be known because some properties are still vacant, thirteen (13) major commercial and retail service businesses are in the former, now displaced, Black neighborhood. Some effects can be measured. For example, the City’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) shows sales tax increasing from $9.2 million in 2011 to $14 million annually in 2020. Adjusting out the portions that were contributed by a higher sales tax rate in 2017-2020, this is a 31% increase over a nine (9) year period. [55] Between 2013 and 2020 property tax increased by 34%. [56] Most of the growth occurred from 2017 to 2020 following the great recession and when many of the new businesses were added in the redevelopment area.

Had Sand Springs relied solely on its internal population growth for increases in sales and property taxes, and thus its resident-based purchasing power, the growth would have been a mere 6% over the same period. [57] Of course, not all of this 30%+ tax growth is solely attributable to the redevelopment commercial effect, but no one can doubt it represents a sizeable chunk of the growth as the Corridor Plan anticipated.

In the words of City Manager Elizabeth Gray in 2019, “After Vision 2025 the city made a very conscientious effort to invest in itself.” (Keystone Corridor Redevelopment project). “We took a blighted area and turned it into River West Shopping District. That’s probably been the biggest catalyst of any.” [58]

But at what human and cultural cost, and by what means? Sixty-eight families lost their homes, two churches, and their historic school. The Black neighborhood that had been there for a hundred years at the town’s founding disappeared victims of commercial profits and tax greed.

In 2013, Mayme Crawford a former Booker T. Washington alumni and resident of the Southside Addition said this of the area, “There were only three or four streets, and that was just the nucleus of the African American community at that time. All of a sudden, there is an extreme reconfiguration of the community as if there was never an African American community there.” [59] She would later note fewer than five of those families would remain in the Sand Springs area. [60]

Or, as Reverend Willard Jones, who lived in the community described it, “I go through there and cry. There’s not anything there to remind us that this used to be a black community there that was alive and vibrant. We were like one big family there." [61]

Move The Negroes Out.



Former Sand Springs, Oklahoma resident John Neal is well versed in urban renewal, its uses, and abuse from his time as a former City Manager in Oklahoma and Departmental Consultant for the City of El Paso, Texas. In 2008, Neal served as El Paso Planning Director when the city won multiple awards for its urban planning accomplishments. He is now retired and resides in Austin, Texas.



Sand Springs Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan:

Oklahoma State Statues: Statutes cited are for those in effect at that time:

Commercial and retail businesses in the former Black neighborhood include:

McDonald's, IHOP, Aldi (grocery), El Maguey (restaurant), Cotton’s Steak House, Warren Urgent Care Clinic, Holiday Inn Express, Starbucks, CVS Pharmacy, O’Reilly’s Auto Parts, TTCU Federal Credit Union, Sand Springs Dentistry, Schlotzsky’s Deli.




[2] Julie Delcour, “A River Runs Through It”, Tulsa World, August 24, 2003

[3 Sand Springs Keystone Corridor Redevelopment Plan: 2025, Corridor Plan P.I-4

[4] Tulsa County Election Board-elections, Tulsa, Oklahoma

[5] Corridor Plan. P.I-1

[6] Ibid

[8] O.S. Title 11-38-101 9

[9] Corridor Plan P-II-2

[10] Sand Springs City Council Resolution No.03-09, March 24, 2003

[11] Ibid

[12] Corridor Plan P.II-13

[13] Resolution No. 03-09 Section II

[14] O.S. Title 11-38-101 9

[15] Corridor Plan P.II-3

[16] O.S. Title 11-38-101 9

[17] Corridor Plan Appendix H P. H-I

[18] Corridor Plan P. II-3

[19] Mayme Crawford resident, verification email to author, 12/19/21 and Janice Ross, verification email to author 1/18/22

[20] O.S. 11-36-101 9e

[21] Resolution No. 03-09

[22] O.S. Title 11-38-111 A

[23] Manny Gamallo, “Sand Springs City Council OKs Condemning 14 Properties”, Tulsa World March 23, 2006,

[24] O.S. Title 11-38-111 C

[25] Corridor Plan. P. II-1

[26] Corridor Plan. C-1

[27] U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census (African-Americans 1.85% of the total population of 17,451)

[28] O.S. Title 25 Sections 301-314

[29] KOTV News on 6 “Sand Springs development concerns”, June 17, 2004

[30] Don Diehl, Managing Editor Corridor plan OK’d Sand Springs Leader September 22, 2004

[31] Don Diehl, Managing Editor Corridor Plan moves forward Sand Springs Leader October 13, 2004

[32] Sand Springs City Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 2004, Ryan Adams, City Clerk

[33] Diehl, September 22, 2004

[34] National Review OnlineUnholy Land Grab" by Heather Wilhelm, January 17th, 2006 and The New York Times “Humble Church is Center of Debate on Eminent Domain" by Ralph Blumenthal, January 1, 2006

[35] Susan Hylton, “Industrious Plan Pondered”, Tulsa World, February 23, 2003, and P.J. Lasek “Vision is Golden for Sand Springs Officials”, Tulsa World, September 5, 2003.

[36] Corridor Plan PII-2

[37] Louise Red Corn, “Eminent Domain Claims Disputed", Tulsa World, January 21, 2006

[38] Manny Gamallo, “Sand Springs City Council OKs Condemning 14 Properties”, Tulsa World, March 23, 2006

[39] Dustin Hughes, “City Council Gives Ok to Condemnation”, Tulsa World, March 25, 2006

[40] Diehl, September 22, 2004

[41] Deborah Archer, “White Men’s Roads Through Black Homes: Advancing Racial Equity Through Highway Reconstruction”, Vanderbilt Law Review, Volume 73 Number 5, October 2020, p 1260

[42] The New York Times, Humble Church

[43] Becket Legal Document, Centennial Baptist Church, Decision Date April 27, 2006


[45] Ibid.


[47] Manny Gamallo, “Condemnation Against Sand Springs Church Unlikely”, Tulsa World, September 15, 2006

[48] Nathaniel J. Washington, The Historical Development of the Booker T. Washington School, 1978 p1-2

[49] Manny Gamallo, “Child Center Deal Complete” Tulsa World, August 30, 2007

[50] Corridor Plan Appendix H

[51] Corridor Plan P.I-2

[52] Corridor Plan P III-15

[53] Tulsa County Assessor, Parcel 62282-91-11-31030, 2020

[54] City of Sand Springs, “Citizen’s report for Fiscal year ended June 30, 2012”

[55] City of Sand Springs Oklahoma, CAFR, Governmental Activities Tax Revenue by Source, Table 5, June 30, 2020

[56] CAFR. Table 5

[57] U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts: Sand Springs Oklahoma 2020 Census

[58] Rhett Morgan, “Shaping a city: Sand Springs puts economic development on front burner”, Tulsa World, June 2, 2019

[59] Susan Hylton, “River West Development Expected to Progress This Year””, Tulsa World February 24, 2013.

[60] Mayme Crawford, email to author, December 2, 2021, 7:21 PM CDT

[61] Hylton, February 24, 2013

500 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All



bottom of page