# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  Norman Forward Campaign

## Norman Forward

For those of you that aren't aware a group of community leaders, stakeholder organizations and concerned citizens have brought forward a proposal for a comprehensive quality of life package for Norman.   To find out more visit Home | Norman Forward 

Norman Forward is currently working to add names of supporters for the project and an online petition of support is available on the website.  

The next step includes a presentation to City Council in August with the ultimate goal of Council approving a city wide vote in April of 2015.  

Some recent stories on the project are

Library tops city?s list of desired amenity  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

Proposal requests improving, expanding youth sports facilities  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

----------


## Norman Forward

Proposed Athletic Facility Improvements - Include - increased baseball fields, aquatics facility, senior center, increased soccer and football fields and basketball courts


Conceptual proposal for Griffin park with increased soccer fields, increased parking and inclusion of indoor soccer facility





Conceptual proposal for aquatics facility

----------


## Mr T

I think folk in Norman are busy with the 87th Walmart and our terribly substandard animal shelter.  Covered elite soccer fields are not the hot topic.

----------


## bombermwc

NYSO would disagree....and I believe most of the population would too.

----------


## tfandango

This seems to be partially overlapping (parks, outdoor activities, bike paths, etc) with this Norman City Center plan mentioned in another post a little bit ago, are these competing efforts, complementary?  It seems a little strange to come out with 2 similar plans, both would require a lot of money.

I do love the idea of the competitive pool though, for selfish reasons. My daughter is on the swim team and Norman has no pool to host a competition in, OCCC is the closest pool.  OU's pool is no longer regulation and must be rented (and when it breaks down it really breaks down!).  

I would like some clarification on the 2 plans though, thanks!

----------


## kevinpate

If the current baseball area is reborn as expanded soccer, where are the baseball fields and the aquatic center in the other rendering to be located?

----------


## Jersey Boss

Is this where the Sutton _Wilderness_ area is presently located?

----------


## Jersey Boss

So the article that was published about youth facilities  on the 16th of July said : "Currently, there is no land identified for the number of sports fields and other facilities in the Norman Forward plan, but Laffoon is confident that will be worked out." I  am really confused now on where this will be.

----------


## kevinpate

The expansion of soccer fields would consume the existing baseball park at Robinson and 12th, as well as the existing big soccer field just north of there on 12th. The water you see in the rendering is not the lake in Sutton wilderness, which is a wee bit further to the north of that rendering.  All of this proposed switch to a soccer mecca is just to the north of the Old Griffin Memorial Hospital complex.
Griffin sits to the south of Robinson and West of 12th. The proposed soccer conversion is to the north of Robinson and just west of 12th.  On an unrelated note, this has made me nostalgic for Hope Hall on the grounds of Griffin (where a former employer leased space for several years.)

It is not clear from the article or the rendering where the baseball fields and aquatic center would go. There is no space in the Robinson/12th area for it though, so I am thinking either over near UTC off NW24th perhaps or somewhere west side, which was a goal a few years back, but the new grand park idea met some resistance as I recall.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Thanks Kevin. I was confused and you called it correct with the lake adding to my confusion. I certainly want definite locales, who gets to use the facilities,  and cost before supporting the plan.

----------


## kevinpate

Yeah, unless some work has already happened, what they show as a small lake was, just a few years back, merely a big ol' ditch and low spot between the dog park and the existing base ball fields.  When my lads were in their kid pitch era, we parked in that p-lot behind the big soccer field on 12th and crossed a narrow foot bridge over that ditch to reach the northern most kid pitch fields.  

A much shorter walk for their rather portly number one fan.  :Smile:

----------


## Norman Forward

Thanks for the questions!  As currently proposed the Griffin complex would be for soccer, the other facilities (aquatics, baseball, football and structured facilities would be located elsewhere (NOT at Sutton wilderness) - there are negotiations underway in considering several locations which could either incorporate those facilities at one site as shown in the conceptual drawing or split in more than one location.  As for use, these are public athletic park areas that would have, just as they do today, both public use and tournament field options.  But with expanding their size and number allow a great opportunity for both uses.  

As for cost of the projects as proposed that is available at Home | Norman Forward  the site shows the proposed funding and cost as well as a look at the other projects proposed.  The intention is to post more on those projects on this site as well as volunteer time allows.   The next steps will be to present this proposal to City Council, tentatively scheduled for next month.

----------


## gamecock

> Thanks for the questions!  As currently proposed the Griffin complex would be for soccer, the other facilities (aquatics, baseball, football and structured facilities would be located elsewhere (NOT at Sutton wilderness) - there are negotiations underway in considering several locations which could either incorporate those facilities at one site as shown in the conceptual drawing or split in more than one location.  As for use, these are public athletic park areas that would have, just as they do today, both public use and tournament field options.  But with expanding their size and number allow a great opportunity for both uses.  
> 
> As for cost of the projects as proposed that is available at Home | Norman Forward  the site shows the proposed funding and cost as well as a look at the other projects proposed.  The intention is to post more on those projects on this site as well as volunteer time allows.   The next steps will be to present this proposal to City Council, tentatively scheduled for next month.


I applaud your efforts and would like to learn more, but I can never successfully access the Home | Norman Forward webpage. Is that address correct?

----------


## Norman Forward

Gamecock - yes it is.  Home | Norman Forward - we've had over 200 people go to the site and sign the petition from there so i'm not sure why it isn't connecting on your end.  Above my IT pay grade to know more.  What browser?  There is also a Norman Forward facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/MoveNormanForward

----------


## gamecock

> Gamecock - yes it is.  Home | Norman Forward - we've had over 200 people go to the site and sign the petition from there so i'm not sure why it isn't connecting on your end.  Above my IT pay grade to know more.  What browser?  There is also a Norman Forward facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/MoveNormanForward


Thanks for sharing the facebook page. I have tried accessing the other page on three different browsers, and I can't seem to get it to come up for some reason.

----------


## kevinpate

For what it's worth, the main site page opens fine for me via Chrome browser.

----------


## kevinpate

If the new library project goes forward on the north side of Andrews, what are the existing plans, if any, for the current library facility south of Andrews? Will it be consumed by existing space needs of city staff or will it be leveled and something entirely new take its place?

----------


## David

> For what it's worth, the main site page opens fine for me via Chrome browser.


Same here, works in both Chrome and IE.

----------


## Norman Forward

Aquatic center could serve many community needs  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

July, 27 article on the proposed aquatics facility for Norman

----------


## Bob Loblaw

sports_and_wellness_07.23.14.jpg


> If the current baseball area is reborn as expanded soccer, where are the baseball fields and the aquatic center in the other rendering to be located?


Kevin,

From the look of the street layout in the attached rendering from the Norman Forward website, the proposed Aquatics, Wellness and Athletics Facilities would appear to be located at the NW corner of the Flood/Robinson intersection - at least in this rendering - I originally thought UNP but the gentle N/S road curvature fits the current Flood characteristics better than the serpentine N/S feature of 24th Ave NW near Rock Creek

Bob

----------


## David

That certainly could be the corner of Flood and Robinson:

Flood & Robinson.jpg

----------


## kevinpate

If that rendering is a conceptual for the NW land off Flood/Robinson, it looks like it would stretch over into National Weather Service turf, and even the Optimist Gym (at least I suppose they still use it. as the kiddos are all grown, I haven't been by there in a long dang time.)  I also thought most all the land north of West Robinson, south of Rock Creek from Flood on over the the airport was still OU land (could be in error on that though.)  That would sure make a nice place for fields though.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Sales tax hike sought in Norman for 'quality of life' improvements | News OK

----------


## Mr T

I think the deal is OU would trade the land for ownership of Reaves park.

----------


## kevinpate

Ok, I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but first blush is they are real dang close to losing my interest after reading the article that the North Base land comes available by swapping out the Reeves Park area for it.

Not a fan of that.

----------


## venture

> Ok, I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but first blush is they are real dang close to losing my interest after reading the article that the North Base land comes available by swapping out the Reeves Park area for it.
> 
> Not a fan of that.


Yeah I honestly can't see any benefit to giving up Reeves Park to OU. They have plenty of land still around South Campus and no real need to lose that park. Also, OU has done near zero development of North Campus along Flood west of the main airport operations. Forget swapping, just get the land from OU and put in an additional park. That way you are adding more to the community and not taking away from Central and Southern Norman.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> Ok, I'm going to try to keep an open mind, but first blush is they are real dang close to losing my interest after reading the article that the North Base land comes available by swapping out the Reeves Park area for it.
> 
> Not a fan of that.


Being how Reaves is the host for 4th of July activities, Kidspace playground, and centrally located, this would be a horrible deal for the people of Norman.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

This is super nice!




> Here’s the wish list:
> 
> A sports and wellness center that includes an all-sports stadium, a multipurpose arena, 20 tournament-ready baseball and softball fields, multiple practice fields, basketball/volleyball courts, an aquatics center and a senior citizens center.
> 
> Indoor soccer arena and 20 new soccer fields.
> 
> New central and east-side libraries.
> 
> Citywide parks improvements.
> ...

----------


## Jersey Boss

Reaves Park could be up for trade - Norman Transcript: News

Article discuses the Reaves issue. Of particular note it says the University of Oklahoma would not be interested in maintaining KIDSPACE. As Venture stated, best option is for OU to sell the land.

----------


## Mr T

They can't have the park.  They just can't.

----------


## tfandango

I spoke to a Norman Forward person at a swim club event and asked her more about the Reaves park article.  She was not too thrilled with the negativity in the article, said the author was unhappy about the idea and reported it as though it was almost a done deal.  She reiterated that the "land swap" idea was only one of many options to obtain the land up North for development.  She also stated that all of the facilities would be replaced (albeit in perhaps a less desirable spot) and everyone would be taken care of.  She mentioned that the med fair, the vets memorial, kidspace, etc would all be ironed out with the parties involved ahead of time before the deal would be agreed upon.

I think the article did mention it was an option only at this point.  My personal feelings, even though I live up north and it would be more convenient for me, is that Reaves is in a really nice spot as it is.  I can see why OU would want that land, but I would urge the NF project to chose one of the other options, I don't think those have been mentioned.  It might help their cause to start mentioning them!

----------


## gamecock

> I spoke to a Norman Forward person at a swim club event and asked her more about the Reaves park article.  She was not too thrilled with the negativity in the article, said the author was unhappy about the idea and reported it as though it was almost a done deal.  She reiterated that the "land swap" idea was only one of many options to obtain the land up North for development.  She also stated that all of the facilities would be replaced (albeit in perhaps a less desirable spot) and everyone would be taken care of.  She mentioned that the med fair, the vets memorial, kidspace, etc would all be ironed out with the parties involved ahead of time before the deal would be agreed upon.
> 
> I think the article did mention it was an option only at this point.  My personal feelings, even though I live up north and it would be more convenient for me, is that Reaves is in a really nice spot as it is.  I can see why OU would want that land, but I would urge the NF project to chose one of the other options, I don't think those have been mentioned.  It might help their cause to start mentioning them!


I certainly hope this doesn't derail the project. Reaves is fine, but I would certainly be willing to give it up if necessary.

----------


## kevinpate

Somehow, hearing a NF person saying not to worry, it is only an option to consider, while also laying out how items like Kidspace and the memorial are to be handled, rings a tad hollow. Reminds me a bit like what OKC folks hear from ODOT on their road project.  I rarely get riled up into anti-projects, but this may become an exception for me.

----------


## venture

> Somehow, hearing a NF person saying not to worry, it is only an option to consider, while also laying out how items like Kidspace and the memorial are to be handled, rings a tad hollow. Reminds me a bit like what OKC folks hear from ODOT on their road project.  I rarely get riled up into anti-projects, but this may become an exception for me.


My thoughts exactly. Seems to be more thought is going into how to relocate everything instead of how to acquire the property without trading.

----------


## Jersey Boss

I have not heard anything from this group in awhile, are they still operating?

----------


## ereid

Norman Forward Supporters,
City Council has finalized its public meeting schedule to present and take public comment on the Norman Forward Proposal next week. This comprehensive quality of life package carefully balances improvements to our parks, our youth and adult athletic and recreational facilities, our library and our event space in Norman. It is a game changer and a once in generation opportunity for meaningful public improvements that are long overdue for Norman.
We cannot emphasize enough how important it is for City Hall to be full of supporters – we need each of you to commit to attending at least one night of public meetings.
The meetings will be held Tuesday, May 19th, Wednesday, May 20th and Thursday, May 21st – all at 6 pm at City Hall.
City staff will run through a presentation of the proposed projects and then take public comment. This will be the only opportunity publicly tell City Council your thoughts and support prior to them moving forward with any proposal. Your input and presence can make the difference in a project or projects being included or excluded.
Please make EVERY EFFORT TO ATTEND at least one of these meetings. Please bring a spouse or a coworker. Please share your story on why this matters to you, your family and Norman. If we don’t show up now and send a message that we care and are involved we risk a scaled down package from a council that doesn't think we care.
Share this email and engage in this process.
PS if you or anyone you know has yet to fill out the city surveys on Norman Forward – go here to complete them Public Input and Comment | City of Norman, Oklahoma

----------


## kevinpate

I may be showing up at 1 or more. NF folks may not much like it though if I do.

----------


## tfandango

> I may be showing up at 1 or more. NF folks may not much like it though if I do.


Hi Kevin,

I'm coming at this completely biased as my daughter swims with the local swimclub and will be on the High School team next year, and those programs are perched very precariously on OU's desire to keep the Murray Case pool open, it's quite old and prone to break down and I'm sure it's costing OU a lot.  The Moore swim teams are in bad shape now as they relied on OCCC's pool which is slated to close in August instead of performing some renovations.  The pool included in this package will go a long way in providing some stability to those programs.  I can think of only 2 other pools in the state which can currently handle big swim meets, Edmond and Jenks.  The Edmond pool is a joint deal with the YMCA, as is the proposed Norman pool.  The Jenks pool is owned by the High School (and it's pretty amazing).  Those are the only 2 indoor 50m pools in the state at the moment and they host maybe 8-10 meets that draw thousands from all over the state.  Anyway, just thought I'd chime in with some support for the pool.  Personally, I'd like to see more trails around Thunderbird and along the Canadian river.  I think those are in the package too.

----------


## Jersey Boss

I would hope that if this comes to pass that those voting will be able to have a line item veto. Some of these projects could be worthwhile, but if it is an all or nothing proposition...

----------


## tfandango

> I would hope that if this comes to pass that those voting will be able to have a line item veto. Some of these projects could be worthwhile, but if it is an all or nothing proposition...


That is a good point, they were supposed to present it in 3 separate meetings tonight (canceled due to weather), Wednesday, and Thursday.  I assumed but have no idea if they will appear as separate chunks on a ballot.  They seem partitioned by parks, aquatics, and sports (basketball/soccer/etc).

----------


## ereid

Here is an article from the Norman Transcript on last night's meeting. Don't forget the final public input session is TONIGHT at 6pm at City Hall. We hope to have as many supporters there as last night!

Public comes out to support council's Norman Forward initiative - Norman Transcript: Government

----------


## ou48A

Norman City leaders and their little committees have failed its citizens when they prioritize the construction of parks and trails over the most basic infrastructure needs that any city should provide.

Storm water runoff and acquiring large new fresh water sources are some of the most fundamental heath and economic issues that any city will faceSolving these issues should come before any more new parks or trails. 

When Normans recurring flooding problems have been mentioned on the TV news and in the papers for decades it shows that Norman is doing anything but moving forward. This is harmful to the citys reputation, which causes its own damage. 

A real forward movement from here would prioritize the flooding in the Imhoff creek water shed. It should be priority #1 for the city. Its not just the creak its self. but the area streets and properties that flood. 

I seriously question the common sense of anyone who would build more parks and trails before solving a decades long problem of something as basic as reoccurring storm water runoff flooding.

I will vote NO from now on for any city bond or sales tax increases that doesnt address the citys storm water / fresh water infrastructure needs.

----------


## HangryHippo

> Norman City leaders and their little committees have failed its citizens when they prioritize the construction of parks and trails over the most basic infrastructure needs that any city should provide.
> 
> Storm water runoff and acquiring large new fresh water sources are some of the most fundamental heath and economic issues that any city will face…Solving these issues should come before any more new parks or trails. 
> 
> When Norman’s recurring flooding problems have been mentioned on the TV news and in the papers for decades it shows that Norman is doing anything but moving forward. This is harmful to the city’s reputation, which causes its own damage. 
> 
> A real forward movement from here would prioritize the flooding in the Imhoff creek water shed. It should be priority #1 for the city…. It’s not just the creak it’s self…. but the area streets and properties that flood. 
> 
> I seriously question the common sense of anyone who would build more parks and trails before solving a decades long problem of something as basic as reoccurring storm water runoff flooding.
> ...


Haven't they passed a bond issue to fix these issues?

----------


## ou48A

> Haven't they passed a bond issue to fix these issues?


If they have passed any city wide comprehensive bond package for storm water runoff I have forgotten it…. and would appreciate a reminder if I’m mistaken.

 I know the Lindsey street project should help that part of Norman but many other problems still exist.
 To the best of my knowledge all they have done on the other problems of any significance is to have studied them to death.

----------


## HangryHippo

> If they have passed any city wide comprehensive bond package for storm water runoff I have forgotten it…. and would appreciate a reminder if I’m mistaken.
> 
>  I know the Lindsey street project should help that part of Norman but many other problems still exist.
>  To the best of my knowledge all they have done on the other problems of any significance is to have studied them to death.


I thought there were multiple components to the bond issue in which the Lindsey St. portion was a part of.  I don't know if it was city wide, I can't recall what the other portions of the project were, but I thought it was addressing several areas with flooding issues.

----------


## ou48A

> I thought there were multiple components to the bond issue in which the Lindsey St. portion was a part of.  I don't know if it was city wide, I can't recall what the other portions of the project were, but I thought it was addressing several areas with flooding issues.


All I know is that there is no excuse in this day and time for having 2 or more feet of water blocking Main Street in the business district like I recently witnessed. There were also many impassable roads for vehicles that did not have a high ground clearance in the heart of Norman. 

Regardless of bond packages or studies the people who have let this continue to exist for decades have not done their jobs and if there are people who want our very limited tax moneys diverted to other items then they are not looking out after some of our most basic needs of a city. There are something that need to come first. Because of health, safety and our economy…. parks and recreation are of secondary importance in our most basic needs.

----------


## Jersey Boss

I recall reading in the Norman Transcript on Sunday that the bond issue that passed in 2012 is still waiting on the matching federal funds. Possibly a call to Tom Cole could shed some light on why the funds have not been appropriated.  My guess is the cuts that were made relating to the sequester.

**Update**
Norman residents deal with flood aftereffects | News OK

Norman has recurring flooding problems at such predictable locations as Lindsey Street and McGee Avenue, 48th Avenue NW and Main, and on Indian Hills Road. A bond project approved by voters in 2012 includes stormwater improvements to address those problems.

Unfortunately, most of the projects have not been accomplished yet, OLeary said. Only a project on Cedar Lane between 12th and 24th Avenues SE has been completed.

From this recent weather, we have learned that the improvements we put in place are working in that area, OLeary said.

Lindsey and McGee, an area so prone to flooding it is dubbed Lake McGee any time it rains, is next in line for completion, he said. Those improvements should be completed in about two years, being performed in conjunction with a W Lindsey Street widening project.

Other targeted areas include replacement of the W Main Street bridge over Brookhaven Creek and the Franklin Road Bridge over Little River, as well as stormwater improvements on E Alameda Street, 12th Avenue E, 36th Avenue NW, and 24th Avenue SE and NE.

Much of the work is on hold until matching federal funds are made available, OLeary said. However, the city hopes to have all improvements in place by 2019 or 2020, at the latest.

----------


## adaniel

You all do realize Norman has received almost 20 inches of rain in the past month?

Its going to flood no matter how good any drainage system is.

----------


## kevinpate

True. Nobody builds for a one time or near one time event.  Nor should they.
My beef on NF is any notion of dismantling Reeves Park in a land swap for North Base land, and that I think North Base is not a great location choice.

Even with the rail underpass completed a few years back, Robinson continues to be a very high traffic count from 8-8 most anytime have driven on it in the North Base area.  Adding a major complex off Robinson/Flood seems ill conceived given traffic issues which already exist on Robinson and on Flood for that matter.  

Yes Norman could use nice facilities. I think folks ought to be able to come and go from such facilities far easier than I anticipate possible if this sports complex end sup on the Northwest corner of that intersection.

----------


## tfandango

FYI, I went to the meeting on City Council Meeting on Wednesday, it was packed with people in support of the project.  They did a quick 30 minute overview followed by something like an hour and a half of public commentary.  I won't make any comments about it, but you can watch it if you want here: Media | City of Norman, Oklahoma

----------


## Jersey Boss

The giveaway of Reeves is a non starter for this.

----------


## tfandango

> The giveaway of Reeves is a non starter for this.


Yes, I think it is for everyone.  That was a huge PR disaster for these guys.  I do not think it's under consideration anymore but was once an idea batted around publicly (or at least to that journalist).  They mentioned at the meeting on Wednesday that they would have to purchase the land for these projects (earmarking ~5 million for that).  Reeves was probably discussed because the city already owns that land.  Reeves was mentioned though in terms of expanding the softball facilities there but that the veterans memorial and kidspace would remain where they are.

----------


## UrbanNorman

Yes, Reeves is no longer being considered as part of a land swap. Someone mentioned the North Base location as a location that would not be the best, and I agree. Unfortunately, I think the City is looking at cheap land for some of these projects. Overall though, I like the package. My only question at this point is the expo center.

----------


## ljbab728

This is good news for supporters of this initiative.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/543...0moves%20ahead




> A recent independent survey commissioned by the city indicates that more than 70 percent of those surveyed favor using a sales tax to pay for the improvements and that overall they favor the package of improvements.

----------


## ereid

The Norman Forward vote is next Tuesday, Oct. 13. I hope all Normanites will vote YES!

----------


## FighttheGoodFight

Overall I think I will vote yes for the proposal. I am not sure I really want a 82,000 sq ft library for 44 million dollars but I like all the park
 improvements and soccer field additions (I am a biased soccer fan and want my kids to play growing up like I did).

----------


## okatty

> Overall I think I will vote yes for the proposal. I am not sure I really want a 82,000 sq ft library for 44 million dollars but I like all the park
>  improvements and soccer field additions (I am a biased soccer fan and want my kids to play growing up like I did).


I don't live in Norman (did many years ago) but I can tell you that there was a lot of that same sentiment in OKC over the NW Library and it has been nothing but a HUGE success.  Busy all the time and a really nice place for the far NW area of OKC which is booming with new business and homes, etc.     Anyway, I am not in tune with that situation in Norman but I'd personally keep an open mind on the library.

And I agree 100% on the soccer complex.   My kids played many years at the current Norman Soccer Club and it continues to be a growing youth sport for all the metro OKC area - Norman has always been a leader.  

Hope it passes!!

----------


## dankrutka

Libraries are incredible community spaces and I'm sure a big investment will pay dividends. It's one of those things that everyone loves once it is built.

----------


## kevinpate

Not sold on this campaign yet. 
I expect to be in the minority come vote day, but I am not on board thus far.

----------


## okatty

^Kevin - what are your misgivings?  I assume projects but would like to hear your views.  Thanks.

----------


## David

While I certainly intend to vote yes on this (as one of the last things I do before moving out of Norman, haha), I'm looking at the sample ballot and can't help but wonder if it violates the logrolling provision in the state constitution that the MAPs votes have had to work around. 

City of Norman Sample Ballot - cropped.jpg

Maybe it's fine since the sales tax is specified as simply being used to fund ordinance O-1516-5, but the fact that it goes on the list the projects included makes me think they've failed to maintain the polite fiction that this isn't actually a vote on a single-subject question.

----------


## kevinpate

Not crazy on the notion to devote 21 million or so to tear down what exists (Much/Most of griffin sports areas), so that part of what exists goes over something else that exists (Reeves adult sports fields) and apparently ignoring non-sports areas of Reeves, primarily so most soccer fields can be at Griffin.

Not crazy on the notion of turning the old North base area into sports mecca and adding still more traffic flow to Flood/Robinson corridors.  The indoor sports facility and aquatics center seem a lock for that area.  The absence of saying where the new 25+- sports field complex will go, even though this area was previously pitched, is a tad worrisome as well.

Not crazy to see a senior citizen center in the pitch, with no dollars assigned, and labeled as renovate an existing or build new, with funds coming from 08 GO bonds or this new funding stream, sort of an oh, we need something for the elder vote, but hey, let's not really commit to anything specific.

Not crazy about extending James Garner Ave. to Robinson.

Just not crazy about a lot of things that others seem to be rather fascinated with.

----------


## ou48A

I like and dislike parts of this sales tax vote…

It does not do nearly enough to address several issues that are not going away…

This vote should have more on fresh raw water, flooding / drainage particularly in older parts of Norman, expanded sewage capacity, street congestion, traffic control and the repair of dilapidated streets and sidewalks.

The James Garner extension is a very good idea IMO and it will help alleviate traffic congestion but it should be built all the way to Lindsey Street, have 4 lanes with timed traffic lights that stay green longer during high traffic flow...

I very much like the idea of a new Sport s complex in Norman….. It will be easier to access and it will bring in thousands of new visitors who will spend money in Norman… This will eventually pay for its self.

I doubt that anything but a tiny fraction of Norman’s population or its visitors ever use the new trails. This money would be better spent IMO rebuilding old WPA era sidewalks in older parts of Norman.

 I will probably vote yes but I could be persuade to vote no!

----------


## tfandango

> This vote should have more on fresh raw water, flooding / drainage particularly in older parts of Norman, expanded sewage capacity, street congestion, traffic control and the repair of dilapidated streets and sidewalks.


Yea, I agree that these are issues in Norman.  I'm not sure I like the ides of bundling it into a QoL/Sports package like this one, unless it's to do necessary upgrades to support those new facilities.  But this is often brought up as something we should spend money on before sports etc.  I can't understand why the city has failed to upgrade and preserve these things all along.  You shouldn't have to ask for money every time sidewalks start to crack, it's the city's job to maintain these things.

Some interesting things from the city council meeting on this:

1) One councilman said something about Norman being in "utility rate jail".  I guess we somehow got locked in on not being able to charge more for water etc, so we were spending a bunch on that but now that we have raised rates we are "out of jail"?
2) The seniors are also not happy about the ambiguity on location, they want a brand new building.
3) They wanted these project bundled because many are related, can't do senior center without the library, the prior proposal (2008 maybe) pass a senior center but not the library so they could not build the senior center (but still got money for it which they are proposing be spent now if this passes)
4) The medieval fair people were there and about 40% of the meeting was about the "jousting field" at Reeves Park.  They were assured that there would be some grass somewhere they can joust on and that the MedFair would be better due to the upgrades.
5) There will be a citizen's advisory committee to make sure money is properly spent, many of these projects do not have any actual plans, the proposal passing will begin all of those processes.
6) The proposed Canadian River Park (which I am very excited about) seems like it's on shaky ground, the land owner(s) are being a pain in the ass about selling it apparently.  There were many exasperated looks among council members and city planners when this was discussed.
7) Not sure if it's true or just an expression of age, one of them mentioned the old Optimist hanger would be removed and is "full of asbestos".  If that is the case, removal is very necessary and will be very costly.

I will vote yes on this one, but general maintenance of city property and facilities should not be ignored because of it.

----------


## tfandango

> This vote should have more on fresh raw water, flooding / drainage particularly in older parts of Norman, expanded sewage capacity, street congestion, traffic control and the repair of dilapidated streets and sidewalks.


Yea, I agree that these are issues in Norman.  I'm not sure I like the ides of bundling it into a QoL/Sports package like this one, unless it's to do necessary upgrades to support those new facilities.  But this is often brought up as something we should spend money on before sports etc.  I can't understand why the city has failed to upgrade and preserve these things all along.  You shouldn't have to ask for money every time sidewalks start to crack, it's the city's job to maintain these things.

Some interesting things from the city council meeting on this:

1) One councilman said something about Norman being in "utility rate jail".  I guess we somehow got locked in on not being able to charge more for water etc, so we were spending a bunch on that but now that we have raised rates we are "out of jail"?
2) The seniors are also not happy about the ambiguity on location, they want a brand new building.
3) They wanted these project bundled because many are related, can't do senior center without the library, the prior proposal (2008 maybe) pass a senior center but not the library so they could not build the senior center (but still got money for it which they are proposing be spent now if this passes)
4) The medieval fair people were there and about 40% of the meeting was about the "jousting field" at Reeves Park.  They were assured that there would be some grass somewhere they can joust on and that the MedFair would be better due to the upgrades.
5) There will be a citizen's advisory committee to make sure money is properly spent, many of these projects do not have any actual plans, the proposal passing will begin all of those processes.
6) The proposed Canadian River Park (which I am very excited about) seems like it's on shaky ground, the land owner(s) are being a pain in the ass about selling it apparently.  There were many exasperated looks among council members and city planners when this was discussed.
7) Not sure if it's true or just an expression of age, one of them mentioned the old Optimist hanger would be removed and is "full of asbestos".  If that is the case, removal is very necessary and will be very costly.

I will vote yes on this one, but general maintenance of city property and facilities should not be ignored because of it.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Kevin,  I agree with the majority of your concerns as well. I feel that this should be funded by an increase in property taxes, not sales taxes. Sales taxes are one of the most regressive forms of taxation in addition to being dependent on a solid economy as well as reversing the trend of folks shopping online.

----------


## kevinpate

Jersey, the sales tax aspect bothers me the least of it.  Like MAPs in OKC (can we call this NAPs instead of NF ??) paying for this group of proposals via sales tax receipts permits a fair bit of the expense to be collected from non-residents.  And well, let's face it, Norman has a large passle of visitors on a weekly or near weekly basis.

If it passes, I think I'll be a pain and make up some NAPs shirts.  Why should Nompton have all the fun?

----------


## ou48A

To me this says a great deal about the priorities of city leadership which are very much out of place.

This sales tax increases should go towards the issues of flooding / drainage, expanded sewage & fresh water capacity, street congestion, traffic control and the repair of dilapidated streets and sidewalks This issues l impact virtually everyone. They are quality of life and safety issues and should come well before parks and trails that a majority of people will not even use.

A yes vote likely means that voters would be less inclined to vote for future tax increases of any type to address these problems that are not going away and adversely impact much of the citys population.

For these reasons I have decided to vote NO on this VERY misplaced list of priorities for the city of Norman.

If its true that_ many of these projects do not have any actual plans,_ it should raise the suspicions of any person with clear thinking ablitys.

----------


## tfandango

ou48A, To clear up the "plans" concern you have (or maybe exacerbate it?).  What I meant was that they know they want to build, say a basketball/volleyball facility similar to the one in Wichita Kansas, so they know general costs of such a project, but they have not hired architects/surveyors/etc yet until they know they will have the funds to pay for it (aka, NF passes).  That doesn't seem wholly irresponsible in my mind.

----------


## Bob Loblaw

I'm a NO on this vote as well - parts of this Norman Forward project were presented a few years back for a vote in piecemeal fashion with some pieces approved by the voters and some pieces not approved by the voters - for whatever reason, the projects that were approved have not been built as of 2015 - and now everything has been bundled together for this calculated political campaign

We voted years ago to accept the land and build out Ruby Grant Park but what is the status of that project?  Can I go walk at this glorious park yet?  Why not?  

We voted a few years ago for water/bridge/road improvements and I think as we sit here in 2015 maybe one of the 6 or 7 projects that was presented as an absolute vital necessity at the time has been started or completed (I know I am waiting for the destruction/reconstruction of the sewer/bridge over the little creek on West Main Street and have been for some time now)

I am all for a new indoor pool here in Norman to rival the nice facility recently built in Edmond - and sure, tear down the hangar and build out some new courts for basketball/volleyball at the Y (with their financial assistance, of course) - and while the notion of improving over 50 neighborhood park sounds nice, it also sounds improbable and too good to be true - heck, the parks near my house seem like they barely get used these days so I wonder is it really worth it? 

I am not for dedicating Griffin to just soccer so it can be another Plano-type facility (let NYSA buy their own land and develop such a facility on its own, not at our expense, if it truly is needed) - and I am not for Reaves being all baseball/softball (same line of thought) - and the powers that be want us to give them $ now but trust them to later  figure out the right place for the proposed football fields, uh huh, yeah right?

Also, I can't see how extending James Garner Avenue past Robinson will improve anything - we just got the Robinson overpass done a few years ago and now we're going to muck up that intersection all over again with MORE construction? - also, I don't see how the proposed extension improves coming INTO Norman from Flood as you'd have to cross the Northbound lanes of Flood to get to it, what a nightmare - I *can* see how it makes it easier to get OUT of Norman but do we really want to add an on-ramp or intersection just north of the Flood/Robinson intersection that already exists?  And what about the businesses on that Flood corridor that will be affected by diverting traffic elsewhere?

Sorry if this sounds all crotchety and NIMBY-like, but instead of focusing on building concrete amphitheaters right next to a screaming interstate in the middle of a bunch of strip shops, we should focus on completing the projects that have already been voted upon and approved by voters and making Norman more of the unique  community that it is - instead, it seems we're hellbent on making Norman into the next Plano/Denton/Edmond homogeneous mega-suburb and losing that cool vibe that attracted most of us here in the first place

/rant

Bob

----------


## tfandango

Good /rant Bob!  You bring up some important points.

----------


## David

Looks like a landslide win. The numbers I'm seeing at the moment give 44/49  precincts reporting with 72% Yes.

----------


## David

County Election Results,  Special Election, October 13, 2015
[table]
[tr]
	[td][/td][td]ABSENTEE MAIL[/td][td]EARLY VOTING[/td][td]ELECTION DAY[/td][td]TOTAL[/td][td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td]FOR THE PROPOSITION - YES[/td][td]269[/td][td]343[/td][td]8,477[/td][td]9,089[/td][td]72.05%[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td]AGAINST THE PROPOSITION - NO[/td][td]121[/td][td]139[/td][td]3,265[/td][td]3,525[/td][td]27.95%[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
	[td]Total[/td][td]390[/td][td]482[/td][td]11,742[/td][td]12,614[/td][td][/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

----------


## kevinpate

Higher than I expected. I mentioned to my lovely I was presuming a 68% yes vote as there was no organized opposition to this package.  Concerns a plenty, but no one truly beating a drum against it.

----------


## Bob Loblaw

I don't think anyone is surprised by the election results - Congrats to the organized group of local politicos that hammered this thing through 

I'd be interested to know the amount of $$$ spent on mailings and signage by the organized group - I might look into that, especially since I've received the same types of mailings from certain candidates/proposals in the past

I also think that it's time to look back at the past few elections regarding large civic projects here in Nompton to see what exactly was requested or promised, what was approved by the voting electorate and where things stand now on each project - not to be a total curmudgeon, and please understand that I am not some whacko preservationist or one that wants to see Norman revert back to the quaint days of yesteryear - I am just growing concerned because it seems our current elected politicos and their behind-the-scenes pals get so focused on the next Norman project to get voted on (and the next project after that) before those projects that have already been voted on and approved in past elections are completed, substantially completed, or heck, even started in some instances

Bob

----------


## progressiveboy

Glad to see the community of Norman support this! This will only elevate the quality of life for the residents. Kudos to forward thinking Normanites!!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

City Leaders Prioritize Projects In Norman Forward Plan - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

----------

