Episode Overview

Podcast: Upzoned
Episode: Tulsa Offers Remote Workers $10K To Move. Is It Paying Off?
Air Date: September 24, 2025
Host: Abby Newsham (Planner, Kansas City)
Guest: John Pattinson (Community Builder, Strong Towns)

This episode examines the Tulsa Remote program, which has been incentivizing remote workers to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma, by offering $10,000 grants. Abby and John break down recent findings covered in a CityLab article, discuss the broader implications for economic and community development, question the long-term impacts, and consider lessons for other cities.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Tulsa Remote Program: Overview and Outcomes

• Program Basics: Since 2018, Tulsa Remote offers remote workers $10,000 to relocate for at least one year.
• Study Findings: For every $1 spent, the city receives approximately $4.31 in economic benefits (00:24).
  • Boosts local spending
  • Increases tax revenue and job creation
  • Expands the tax base
• Retention: 96% stay the first year, roughly 70% remain longer-term.
• Participant Demographics: Many would not have moved to Tulsa otherwise (58–70%).
• Potential Downsides: While housing stock has mostly kept up, rising property values and rents are a concern, especially for fixed-income residents.

“For every dollar Tulsa spends on this program, the city sees about $4.31 in economic benefit.”
— Abby (00:24)

“About 96% of participants remained through that first year and roughly 70% stay. Longer term...”
— Abby (02:35)

Economic Development Strategies: People vs. Projects

• Traditional Incentives vs. People-Centric Approach:
  • Traditional: Attracting big employers with tax breaks and real estate deals can backfire if companies leave (06:09).
  • Tulsa Remote: Attracts individuals, integrating incomes into the local economy; “more resilient and sustainable.”
• Efficiency Comparison: Traditional incentive programs have a 2:1 ROI; Tulsa Remote has a 4:1 ROI (08:11).

“If we build great places, people will want to move there...maybe a more strong towns approach would be to make Tulsa a great place to live for the people who are already there.”
— John (03:53)

Philanthropy’s Role in Urban Development

• Private, Not Public Funding: Tulsa’s program is run with philanthropic dollars rather than public funds, making it a testbed for alternative approaches (03:53, 10:01).
• Large-Scale Amenities: Tulsa used philanthropic money to build projects like a $465 million downtown park and an arts district but struggled to attract people to enjoy those investments.

“We’ve built cities we can’t afford, and so we...can’t improve our park system. So we’re seeing philanthropic organizations step in, which is a little worrying.”
— Abby (10:19)

Replicating the Model: Other Cities Take Note

• National Trend: There are now about 100 similar incentive programs in the U.S., including “Flourish in Fort Wayne” and “Find Your Place in Muncie” (11:27).
• Remote Work’s Impact: Smaller cities and towns may benefit, as remote work breaks the traditional link between employment and location.

“This at least seems like it’s more of a small bet approach to attracting workers and expanding tax base.”
— Abby (13:21)

The Social Infrastructure Factor

• Support for Newcomers: Tulsa Remote goes beyond cash, offering co-working spaces, networking events, counseling, and mentors for integration (13:51).
• High Retention Tied to Community Building: These supports may explain Tulsa’s unusually good retention rate.

“Maybe this social infrastructure is part of the secret of that success...introducing them to the types of amenities and neighbors that will make them want to stay.”
— John (13:51)

Remaining Challenges & Open Questions

The $10,000 Question

• Is it Enough? Abby expresses skepticism that $10K is sufficient to lure established individuals/families, pondering what types of workers are attracted and what the incentive really covers (15:03).
• Demographics: Likely skews toward younger, tech-focused, mobile individuals.

The Tech Talent “Chicken and Egg”

• Tulsa's Tech Ambitions: Many participants are in tech (26% of the 2024 class), helping Tulsa solve its “chicken and egg” problem: needing tech workers to draw tech companies and vice versa (20:09–20:48).

“The city couldn’t attract high tech jobs without high tech workers and vice versa.”
— Abby (20:09)

Displacement and Housing Concerns

• Population Impact: 3,400 people have participated so far; unclear how much this affects the local housing market (20:09–21:13).
• Risk of Rising Housing Costs: Worries that highly paid newcomers may push up costs for locals, though scale appears modest so far.

Retention, Mobility, and Future Iterations

• Retention Uncertainty: What happens to the 30% who leave? Do they chase incentives from other cities? Is Tulsa’s “stickiness” due entirely to its supports or could improvement be made? (21:50–24:40)

“I would love to understand how they’re looking at the retention factor and whether there’s a phase two of a program like this.”
— Abby (21:50)

Reputation and Broader Lessons

• Tulsa as a Model: John notes Tulsa has been “leading the way” with other innovative strategies, like pre-approved housing plans (21:22). Both hosts express generally positive impressions of recent Tulsa development.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If we build great places, people will want to move there...maybe a more strong towns approach would be to make Tulsa a great place to live for the people who are already there.” — John (03:53)

• “We’ve built cities we can’t afford, and so we...can’t improve our park system. So we’re seeing philanthropic organizations step in, which is a little worrying.” — Abby (10:19)

• “This at least seems like it’s more of a small bet approach to attracting workers and expanding tax base.” — Abby (13:21)

• “So now that the workers move there, they can presumably advertise to the companies that they have the workforce.” — Abby (20:48)

• “I think the one thing I would leave this conversation on is the question of how you retain people who participate in these programs.” — John (21:50)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:24 — Introduction to Tulsa Remote and study findings
• 03:53 — John’s skepticism and comparison to Strong Towns values
• 06:09 — Traditional incentives vs. people-focused strategies discussion
• 08:11 — ROI comparison: traditional employer incentives vs. Tulsa Remote
• 10:01 — Philanthropic funding for parks and placemaking
• 11:27 — Nationwide proliferation of similar remote-work incentives
• 13:51 — Social infrastructure’s role in retention
• 15:03 — Abby’s skepticism about the $10,000 incentive’s sufficiency
• 20:09 — Demographics of incoming workers, tech industry “chicken and egg”
• 21:22 — Tulsa’s other Strong Towns-aligned initiatives
• 21:50 — Open questions on retention, program iterations

Tone and Takeaways

• Appreciative yet Critical: Both Abby and John see value in the approach, though they express healthy skepticism about the sustainability, equity, and who ultimately benefits.
• Pragmatic: Acknowledgement of the trade-offs between attracting employers vs. workers, and the importance of retention and real community building.
• Forward-Looking: Tulsa’s efforts are seen as a laboratory for other cities contemplating alternatives to traditional economic development.

Summary:
Tulsa Remote is proving to be a cost-efficient, innovative way of boosting local economies and addressing population growth, especially as remote work changes the development landscape. The program’s combination of financial incentives and strong social infrastructure has contributed to high retention and positive spillovers, particularly in growing a tech workforce. However, Abby and John press for deeper data on demographic impacts, the true sufficiency of incentives, potential housing challenges, and the necessity of building places people want to stay in—lessons for Tulsa and similar programs nationwide.