I think what they are getting at here is that they have a formula for 'per person per night expenditures' for out of town guests. You always see that from the Chamber and CVB.

They know the expenditures of the average Joe per night stay.

Sid & Bellaboo: I understand what you are saying but does the Memorial generate any property tax? Only a fraction of the Hotel/motel tax is dedicated by ordinance to general "promotion of convention and tourism" (4/11ths) and the ballance to the Fairgrounds (6/11ths) and "sponsoring local events" (1/11th). Doesn't that only leave sales taxes? I will accept that those visitors that may be coming here because of the AICC will spent sales tax money in other areas, but how many of those visitors are here just because of the AiCC and not already here becuase of other things and are spending that money anyway? The only money I think you can attribute is new money that is brought in because of the Museum and not other sources. That makes it much harder to gt to the economic impact claim numbers that the consultant threw out there that the City is hanging their hat on.

Thats why whenever i read about the supposed economic impact of any project, the numbers are generally inflated and the projected revenues never materialize. I wouldn't be surprised if one were to add up all of the supposed economic impact of the various industries/attractions etc that the total number exceeds actual revenue by several fold.

I think Larry is most likely right. Very few people will come to Oklahoma City specifically to visit the Cultural Center. So, tax projections are probably optimistic. There may be a few people driving through who might see signs and elect to stop and end up eating or spending the night, but I think that also will be far less than projections suggest. This is another project that you have to believe has intangible benefits. It is one more downtown attraction that might make the city more attractive to people considering OKC for a convention. It might be one of several factors that induces someone to make OKC a destination for a short visit or weekend stay. It gives people living in OKC one more thing to do on the weekend. It is a celebration of our Native American heritage. Personally, I would like to see it completed, but I think we should stop talking about how impressive the economic returns will be and give it a quality of life/additional attraction designation.

I think this is good news.

Now, let's hope the state legislature will match the $40 million and get this project back on track.

Explain to me how they're going to do that when they are slashing every other program because "we're broke" and simultaneously eliminating the state income tax.

Explain to me how they're going to do that when they are slashing every other program because "we're broke" and simultaneously eliminating the state income tax.

they are not slashing programs because "we're broke" they are slashing because gov't is to big ....... 40 mil in state bonds is a tiny bit of money in the state scheme of things

The sole barrier to raising the funds via a bond sale is just deciding to issue the bonds. If the holdout segment of the R's agree to do so, it's a done deal. They commit to selling the bonds, and folks buy the bonds. Ok, there's a wee bit more to it than that,. but it's not like someone calls in the head of DOC and says, hey pick 300 to let go on April 22 so we can pull the moolah out of the food budget and get this museum party started.

Whens the deadline for this whole project? and when is this proposed "hotel" starting?

Whens the deadline for this whole project? and when is this proposed "hotel" starting?

There is no deadline... Construction of the museum is halted until they can come up with the $80 million to finish it.

The hotel and commercial development would come in a later phase at an undetermined time.

Pete: is the cost of the hotel and other development NOT included in the overall $170 million (with $80 million to go)? If so this is sounding more like the Convention Center and the unfunded hotel situation. Where it isn't common knowledge and it costs even more than what we know about. Also similar to the subdividing of the crosstown relocation into separate projects/phases so things don't look so bad when they run into cost doubling etc.

Pete: is the cost of the hotel and other development NOT included in the overall $170 million (with $80 million to go)? If so this is sounding more like the Convention Center and the unfunded hotel situation. Where it isn't common knowledge and it costs even more than what we know about. Also similar to the subdividing of the crosstown relocation into separate projects/phases so things don't look so bad when they run into cost doubling etc.

the hotel and other development will not be built by the state and not be owned by the state ... they carved out a portion of the land for future private development

great to hear...thats a horse of a different color then...maybe that is where the consultants came up with some of the other revenue streams (but if not built for several years, wont materialize quickly).

This isn't a final answer but it's certainly some encouraging news about this project.

http://newsok.com/gov.-mary-fallin-calls-for-audit-of-funds-for-american-indian-museum/article/3663905

I am glad they are going to audit to look at future funds, but I would rather see where ALL the past monies have gone as well.

worthy, we read the article differently.

Seems to me a full audit of the agency's completed expenditures is what the Gov. is going to request, plus there will be a requirement for a detailed accounting of what is still needed to complete the project.

And even with that, the leaders of the R opposition to a bonding issue call it a compromise but make indication of actually being willing to support the necessary bond issue. Further, the Speaker is quoted as saying a bond issue for AICCM is not presently on anyone's plate for this session.

To me this reads more like same old, same old rather than a step forward. But of course, stranger things than a bond issue have been known to happen once we get into the final days of session.

I am glad they are going to audit to look at future funds, but I would rather see where ALL the past monies have gone as well.

See: boondoggle

I thought that doing an audit implied (to some degree) that you were going to look at tracing how past monies have been put to use. Are 'audit' and 'state audit' two entirely different concepts or something?

I thought that doing an audit implied (to some degree) that you were going to look at tracing how past monies have been put to use. Are 'audit' and 'state audit' two entirely different concepts or something?

Spartan, you aren't missing anything. That's exactly what is happening here. The concept are the same. While there is a request for information about future expenditures, that is not part of the audit.

They need to do a real audit on the whole kit and kaboodle.

I am in favor of seeing it finished but at some point one has to say enough is enough (the State has gone above and beyond the original funding plan). If a bond issue is the only way to get it finished, I would say go ahead but just like the Capitol repairs there is a much better (faster, cheaper) method of revenue and that would be to follows OKC's lead and use a temporary one cent or partial sales tax increase and these projects could be paid for in no time without the long term debt and the multi-millions in debt service alone. If a full 1 cent, with OKC expecting about $100million/yr, with it being statewide, the money could be raised in couple of years for both projects (longer if a partial cent).

Larry that sounds nice but a state sales tax increase would require a vote of the people all over the state. What do you think the odds would be for that to pass?

I understand what you are saying and certainly anything that is presented as a tax increase would be more difficult in passing. However, if presented in the right way (that it would save millions etc) it could pass. Hard to know for sure unless it is tried, right? The same could be said for the original MAPS and even though they were indeed tax increases, other MAPS passed as well. So it isn't impossible. Would it require a statewide vote or would it just require a super majority vote in the legislature?

I am reminded of a similar situation somewhere in Oklahoma where there was a multi-million dollar settlement and it was either going to mean a mandatory raise in property taxes (per state law/constitution) or a sales tax and the sales tax method passed by a wide margin (IIRC). It is a similar situation that is being debated with the OK Co. Jail mess.

Larry, there is zero chance that it would pass in a statewide vote no matter how it is presented. In the Tulsa metro area it would probably get 10 percent of the vote. In the Oklahoma legislature it requires a 3/4 vote to approve without a statewide vote. That won't happen either with it's current makeup.

I respectfully disagree. if Tulsans (and others) were presented with the facts that they are going to be paying for it anyway and the end result saves them money....

I respectfully disagree. if Tulsans (and others) were presented with the facts that they are going to be paying for it anyway and the end result saves them money....

I respectfully disagree with you too. They aren't happy over in T Town about the museum that they want that the state won't give any money to. Maybe if the two projects were combined they might support it but not just the AICC. Tulsa has little interest in a museum in OKC even it benefits the state. That's probably the case in Guymon and Idabel also. It would not pass a statewide vote.

I respectfully disagree with you too. They aren't happy over in T Town about the museum that they want that the state won't give any money to. Maybe if the two projects were combined they might support it but not just the AICC. Tulsa has little interest in a museum in OKC even it benefits the state. That's probably the case in Guymon and Idabel also. It would not pass a statewide vote.

If the people in Tulsa are that stupid it would surprise me. They would have to know that if they block this, then they will NEVER get one that they want. OKC area is by far the biggest population center in the state. That kind of petty myopia would be sad. They can't win that battle.

If the people in Tulsa are that stupid it would surprise me. They would have to know that if they block this, then they will NEVER get one that they want. OKC area is by far the biggest population center in the state. That kind of petty myopia would be sad. They can't win that battle.

Rover, there's nothing to block because it won't be going to a vote statewide. There have been plenty of comments in Tulsa, though, about not supporting the AICC because they want money for their museum. Unfortunately there is still a lot of envy in Tulsa about what they see as favoritism to OKC when it comes to state funded support. Some of it could be justified but most is just envy.

Maybe if you could tie this project's future funding to funding for the Oklahoma Pop museum in the Brady District...

That would actually be an accomplishment for this state legislature, which hasn't funded much in the way of good projects. Not that they will.

There not being money/support in the Legislature for the pop museum last year had a lot to do with the opposition from T-town area politicos to providing funding for the AICCM. I've seen and heard nothing that marks any real change to that opposition.


on edit: added the phrase 'in the Legislature.'
There is support for the Pop museum elsewhere, on several fronts, but it did not include many in the legislature last year.

OK Pop has someone behind it that even the AICCM doesn't: Bob Blackburn.

Sales tax advocates: Please remember Oklahoma (with local sales taxes) has one of the highest sales tax in the country. Even though I have always supported all the MAPS projects, sales tax is one of the most regressive, unfair tax that exists. We have an obligation to the poor and middle class to limit its use. I would support a state bond issue to pay for the American Indian Cultural Center project, but not an additional sales tax. Besides, a state sales tax for this particular project would likely not pass a statewide vote.

I never have understood the "most regressive" angle. Could you please elaborate? The way i see it, nearly all taxes are regressive. Some are indeed necessary so I am not saying all taxes are bad. There are different type of bond issues (revenue, property etc) but essentially they are borrowing money that has to be repaid with interest with projected increases in property values, revenues etc. Those costs are almost always passed on to someone else 9if they are smart). Renters who think they don't pay property taxes and vote to raise them on others are most likely voting a tax increase on themselves as those increased taxes are passed on to the renter. A sales tax seems to be the most strait forward, across the board tax that effects everyone. Doesn't matter if you are buying a candy bar or some luxury item. the higher the value the more money paid.

I agree that there is probably a tipping point where folks say , no more sales taxes (probably 10%) and we are getting close to it here in OKC (8.375%) and there is still the threat of a County Jail sales tax lingering.

The simple matter of the fact is, if you can primarily pay cash for something rather than have to borrow it and save multi-millions in the process, which is the best method? OKC has proven the MAPS style method can work. Why not try it on a state wide level?

Sales tax advocates: Please remember Oklahoma (with local sales taxes) has one of the highest sales tax in the country. Even though I have always supported all the MAPS projects, sales tax is one of the most regressive, unfair tax that exists. We have an obligation to the poor and middle class to limit its use. I would support a state bond issue to pay for the American Indian Cultural Center project, but not an additional sales tax. Besides, a state sales tax for this particular project would likely not pass a statewide vote.

Sales tax unfair ? Makes no sense... if you have little money, you pay less tax because you spend less. If you have a lot of money and are spending it, you pay much more tax ... explain to me what you are saying as 'unfair to the poor and middle class' ???

And where do you think they would get the money to pay for the bonds and the service on the bonds ???? thin air ???

I agree Bellaboo and thank you for saying it better than I did...I heard the same "regressive" argument during the MAPS 3 campaign. While I certainly had issues with MAPS 3 (not the projects but the way things were handled), I didn't see this as an issue.

Sales tax unfair ? Makes no sense... if you have little money, you pay less tax because you spend less. If you have a lot of money and are spending it, you pay much more tax ... explain to me what you are saying as 'unfair to the poor and middle class' ???

And where do you think they would get the money to pay for the bonds and the service on the bonds ???? thin air ???

The less money you have the greater percentage of your income you spend on basic goods and services. Not everything carries sales tax. Housing, cars and services don’t collect taxes. If you make more than you spend you don’t pay sales tax on that money at all. Sales tax, especially when it is charged on food hits the poor far harder than it does the wealthy.

An example, someone making 120k a year living in a 400k house with a lawn service, pool service, maid service with a new BMW might spend $1500 a month on goods that charge Sales tax on income of 10k a month. He's spending a lot more than that, but the house, car, maid service and pool service carry no sales taxes. The utilities for the big house? No sales tax, premium gas for the BMW, no sales tax. But on things like clothes and food? Yeah, that's taxed at 8.65% for a sales tax bill of $129.75 on 120k a year or about 1.3% of monthly income.

A person making 24k a year still has to buy food and the same basic household items the wealthier person does, say they spend half what the guy make 120k does or about $750 a month. This person does pay half the sales tax the other guy does, only $65.88, but his effective tax rate is almost three times that of the other guy, 3.24% of actual income. And this is the guy driving a beaten up pickup living in an apartment.

This is why it’s regressive.

You all are discussing this as if universal public financial support was a given. I don't believe that it is. I haven't heard a solid foundational argument as to why this center justifies public funds, whether they be municipal, county, state or federal. I'll willingly pay for government office buildings, courthouses, schools, streets and highways, but not this.

What's wrong with creating a capital funding and revenue mechanism like the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority? They sell bonds to fund capital improvements, and use tolls to repay the bondholders and cover operating expenses.

The Indian Cultural Center should do the same: After a legal restructuring, leaders will estimate the total capital costs to completion, price bonds in the market, and sell them at whatever coupon rate the market will pay. Bondholders and operating expenses would be repaid by fees collected for admissions and event rentals.

All i'll say is, if you are in the lower bracket, buy hot dogs and not steak....I'm all for taking the tax off of food, like they did prescriptions years ago.....there may not be sales tax on the BMW, but try paying the excise tax, try paying the tax on 10 X over for replacement parts for that car....he pays his share and then some.....it's all relative.

Isn't there a MAPS tax exemption that can be applied for if by individuals that make less than a certain amount?

Isn't there a MAPS tax exemption that can be applied for if by individuals that make less than a certain amount?

yes

At reputable economist will confirm that sales tax, vat, etc, are regressive. You might not care, but it is what it is.

Any reputable economist will confirm that sales tax, vat, etc, are regressive. You might not care, but it is what it is.

You guys should check out Steve's blog. State Legislators are now suggesting that since MAPS3 isn't set in stone, we should just fund the AICC out of that.

You'll find a number of otherwise rational, informed people in Tulsa believe that the original MAPS and resulting OKC downtown improvements were somehow funded by state taxes, most of which they believe are paid by Tulsa. This is a very common belief there, in fact. The perception there that nearly every improvement in Oklahoma City is funded on the backs of Tulsans has risen to a level beyond urban legend in the 918, and people in rural communities don't think that much differently. A statewide vote to fund a museum in OKC would fail miserably, for all the wrong reasons.

You'll find a number of otherwise rational, informed people in Tulsa believe that the original MAPS and resulting OKC downtown improvements were somehow funded by state taxes, most of which they believe are paid by Tulsa. This is a very common belief there, in fact. The perception there that nearly every improvement in Oklahoma City is funded on the backs of Tulsans has risen to a level beyond urban legend in the 918, and people in rural communities don't think that much differently. A statewide vote to fund a museum in OKC would fail miserably, for all the wrong reasons.

State taxes didn’t help with Oklahoma City’s downtown renewal? Are you kidding me? What do you think the massive $600 million project to move I-40 is making way for? It could have been repaired/rebuilt in place for a fraction of the price. The cost of moving the highway to make way for “Core to Shore” vs. repair/rebuild is in the hundreds of millions alone. Yes, most of that money is technically “federal”, but that federal money comes directly from fuel taxes paid in Oklahoma. That’s how highway funding works. The AICM has taken in $67 million in state funds already and now wants another $70 million. How many millions of state money for centennial projects went into downtown Oklahoma City projects like the land run memorial, if I recall it was at least $4 million. Downtown Tulsa got a clock. How about the $70 million State History Museum?

Hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed into downtown and central Oklahoma City from the state to support the rebirth of Oklahoma City and the current request is for another $70 million. That’s not counting to the $200 million part of the bond request to rebuild the capital complex. I’m not saying any of this is a bad thing, but don’t act like it’s not true. After all of this money pouring into OKC you are upset that Tulsa is attempting to tie a $40 million project to your $70 million project that is already tied to another $200 million for the capital. If this bond goes through with the Tulsa project it still will be a $270 million to $40 million disparity in money being spent in each city.

Tulsa’s legislators have learned that if they vote for projects in Oklahoma City so that projects in Tulsa will be done later they will get burned. The bond issue that included the State History museum was to have a phase II that had more projects for Tulsa. The projects for Oklahoma City just had to be done first for the Centennial, of course the second bond issue never happened. The Heartland Flyer was to be extended to Tulsa just a couple of years after it went to Oklahoma City if Tulsa helped to support getting Amtrack into the state. The state is still subsidizing Amtrack by millions each year so there is a stop in downtown Oklahoma City but we are still waiting on that connection to Tulsa more than a decade later. Of course there are now studies being done on a second rail link to Oklahoma City going to Kansas. Tulsa is the largest city in the country with no non-toll Interstate highway access and is among the largest without Amtrack. Tulsa has no free standing public four year university and the only public hospital is owned by the city, not the state.

The position is, no Tulsa can’t get projects passed without Oklahoma City helping, but that goes two ways with the rural areas being against almost everything. We are in it together or nothing passes. Tulsa is not going to be left out anymore.

State taxes didn’t help with Oklahoma City’s downtown renewal? Are you kidding me? What do you think the massive $600 million project to move I-40 is making way for? It could have been repaired/rebuilt in place for a fraction of the price. The cost of moving the highway to make way for “Core to Shore” vs. repair/rebuild is in the hundreds of millions alone. Yes, most of that money is technically “federal”, but that federal money comes directly from fuel taxes paid in Oklahoma. That’s how highway funding works. The AICM has taken in $67 million in state funds already and now wants another $70 million. How many millions of state money for centennial projects went into downtown Oklahoma City projects like the land run memorial, if I recall it was at least $4 million. Downtown Tulsa got a clock. How about the $70 million State History Museum?

Hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed into downtown and central Oklahoma City from the state to support the rebirth of Oklahoma City and the current request is for another $70 million. That’s not counting to the $200 million part of the bond request to rebuild the capital complex. I’m not saying any of this is a bad thing, but don’t act like it’s not true. After all of this money pouring into OKC you are upset that Tulsa is attempting to tie a $40 million project to your $70 million project that is already tied to another $200 million for the capital. If this bond goes through with the Tulsa project it still will be a $270 million to $40 million disparity in money being spent in each city.

Tulsa’s legislators have learned that if they vote for projects in Oklahoma City so that projects in Tulsa will be done later they will get burned. The bond issue that included the State History museum was to have a phase II that had more projects for Tulsa. The projects for Oklahoma City just had to be done first for the Centennial, of course the second bond issue never happened. The Heartland Flyer was to be extended to Tulsa just a couple of years after it went to Oklahoma City if Tulsa helped to support getting Amtrack into the state. The state is still subsidizing Amtrack by millions each year so there is a stop in downtown Oklahoma City but we are still waiting on that connection to Tulsa more than a decade later. Of course there are now studies being done on a second rail link to Oklahoma City going to Kansas. Tulsa is the largest city in the country with no non-toll Interstate highway access and is among the largest without Amtrack. Tulsa has no free standing public four year university and the only public hospital is owned by the city, not the state.

The position is, no Tulsa can’t get projects passed without Oklahoma City helping, but that goes two ways with the rural areas being against almost everything. We are in it together or nothing passes. Tulsa is not going to be left out anymore.

Translation: "You're absolutely, right, Urbnaized."

I would be interested to know how much it was estimated to repair and replace I-40. It seems it was costing a fortune just to keep open as it was.

I rest my case.

You guys should check out Steve's blog. State Legislators are now suggesting that since MAPS3 isn't set in stone, we should just fund the AICC out of that.

I haven't seen anyone in favor of spending taxpayer dollars on that project.

You'll find a number of otherwise rational, informed people in Tulsa believe that the original MAPS and resulting OKC downtown improvements were somehow funded by state taxes, most of which they believe are paid by Tulsa. This is a very common belief there, in fact. The perception there that nearly every improvement in Oklahoma City is funded on the backs of Tulsans has risen to a level beyond urban legend in the 918, and people in rural communities don't think that much differently. A statewide vote to fund a museum in OKC would fail miserably, for all the wrong reasons.

I know a bunch of people from Tulsa and none of them think this. They all understand how MAPs has been funded. Do you have any sources?

Translation: "You're absolutely, right, Urbnaized."

I would be interested to know how much it was estimated to repair and replace I-40. It seems it was costing a fortune just to keep open as it was.

Where was I inaccurate?

Where was I inaccurate?
Here's one place:

...What do you think the massive $600 million project to move I-40 is making way for? It could have been repaired/rebuilt in place for a fraction of the price. The cost of moving the highway to make way for “Core to Shore” vs. repair/rebuild is in the hundreds of millions alone...
You have it exactly backwards. C2S was a City response to a highway project that was shoved down the throats of OKC by a state agency, ODOT. City officials at the time while generally supportive of replacement of the I-40 crosstown due to maintenance/safety issues were mostly against the alignment that now exists. They had very little say in any of it, and again the highway replacement happened at the behest of state and federal agencies to comply with modern federal highway standards and to stem the state cost in maintaining the crumbling crosstown.

This is very similar to the much-needed I-44 widening project in Tulsa, which you will likely never hear a single OKC resident grumble about.

Core to Shore was a City measure designed to mitigate the negative impact to downtown caused by the state-mandated and federally-funded I-40 project, and other than the much-debated boulevard, all of it will be paid for by OKC taxpayers or developers, if it happens as planned.

Here's another place you were inaccurate:

...After all of this money pouring into OKC you are upset that Tulsa is attempting to tie a $40 million project to your $70 million project that is already tied to another $200 million for the capital...
Where did I ever say I was upset about this? I said no such thing.

Personally, I am a strong supporter/advocate of Tulsa. I have a number of friends involved in the planning for Tulsa Pop, think it should absolutely happen, and that it should get the same financial considerations given the OKC History Center. I love Tulsa, go there regularly for business and entertainment (headed to a concert at the Brady on Friday) and get excited every time I visit or hear/see more progress there.

Nm

Do you have any sources?

I was about to ask the same thing until Swake 2 posted.


Where was I inaccurate?

I don't know if you were being inaccurate, since you didn't say anything that could be verified. That's why I was asking how much the estimate for the repair and replacement costs of I-40 was.

As for the other stuff, I don't see that Tulsa is being left out. I'm pretty sure hundreds of millions of dollars are being dropped on I-44 improvements as well and isn't the Historical society looking at Tulsa for the music museum?

As for the Centennial and Capitol improvements, I don't know what should be/should have been done there to make it more Even Steven. Should Tulsa get a state capitol center, too? For Amtrak, that's probably more of a logistical question than the product of some preferential treatment. You got to look at demand (which isn't huge to begin with), current resources, and proximity to demand centers, like DFW.

Now, is it all Even Steven? Probably not, but I don't think it's some sort of master plan of favoritism, as much as it is just a product of evaluating the need and ROI for each individual project. It just isn't prudent to base the allocation of funds on a simple geographic basis. In the end, both Tulsa and Oklahoma City have benefited and will continue to benefit from state funds, but I would be comfortable arguing that most of Oklahoma City's improvements in the last ten years have been paid for by Oklahoma City sales tax initiatives, at least the ones that have really made a difference.

I know a bunch of people from Tulsa and none of them think this. They all understand how MAPs has been funded. Do you have any sources?
Only conversations I have had with a number of Tulsans throughout the years. I said "a number." Post 828 above illustrates how "a number" of Tulsa people feel about OKC and the perception that it is bellied up to a state feeding trough, getting fat off of the backs of other Okies.

...but I would be comfortable arguing that most of Oklahoma City's improvements in the last ten years have been paid for by Oklahoma City sales tax initiatives, at least the ones that have really made a difference.
Precisely. Other than a giant price tag that can be lumped into redevelopment figures and a safer feeling while driving its length, I think the economic development aspects of the I-40 realignment have been more or less neutral. Some would tell you it has actually dealt OKC some setbacks, since the emphasis on C2S has caused other emerging areas in downtown to be placed on the back burner at times, whether actual or imagined.

But without getting out a spreadsheet and spending days calculating the actual, I think it is safe to say that well over 90% of the public funding of OKC's downtown revitalization has been courtesy OKC sales tax initiatives.

You guys should check out Steve's blog. State Legislators are now suggesting that since MAPS3 isn't set in stone, we should just fund the AICC out of that.

ummm... state legislators have no say in how MAPS3 gets spent... they are State Legislators and MAPS is a City of Oklahoma City tax/fund/project

Some would tell you it has actually dealt OKC some setbacks, since the emphasis on C2S has caused other emerging areas in downtown to be placed on the back burner at times, whether actual or imagined.

I kind of agree with this. I wouldn't call it a setback, as the other areas continue to emerge, but I do sometimes wonder if the city's eyes got too big for their stomachs at the development buffet. I just hope we're not neglecting some areas that could be really special in just a few years time in favor of something that may not take off for 30 years, if it ever does.

How about a NEW THREAD for a discussion of C2S, P180, MAPS and everything else that has been brought up so that THIS THREAD can continue with its discussion of the American Indian Cultural Center?

Blasphemy, I know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the Interwebs.

How about a NEW THREAD for a discussion of C2S, P180, MAPS and everything else that has been brought up so that THIS THREAD can continue with its discussion of the American Indian Cultural Center?

Blasphemy, I know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the Interwebs.

When the topic of funding comes up, it all becomes intertwined due to limited resources.

blasphemy, i know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the interwebs.

dp

Blasphemy, I know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the Interwebs.

Blasphemy? No.... Redundant? Yes....

I learned that before I even registered on here, although the subject this has become is fairly interesting to watch unfold.

Blasphemy, I know - asking for people to stay on-topic on the Interwebs.

Another DP.