Thank you, Urban Pioneer, for some excellent answers to those questions. I see the streetcar as the crown jewel of MAPS, and you've made an excellent case. I appreciate your efforts in the city's behalf.

Thank you betts.

... I see the streetcar as the crown jewel of MAPS ...

4-5 miles of streetcar does seem interesting, more so if I was DT regularly, but crown jewel status?

The park stretch, with the non-maps but still awesome bridge and a restored Union Station to boot, plus tack on the other new end user friendly items, seems more deserving of jewel status. To me the transport issue, especially in the initial phase, is something functional and likely very useful, but if there was only one project which could get approval in the first six years, I wouldn't think the transport would be the most valuable of the kicked about projects.

Care to quantify this some, cause ya lost me, but maybe it's just me. While I've been in the greater metro area for a tad over two decades, I still have the mental prowess of a rather simple country lad.

Sorry, Kevin. I'll try to explain. If I were to say what is important to me in MAPS, I'd probably rank the streetcar 1A and the park 1B, with everything else falling behind. I do think the park is terribly important, and very much needed.

I guess the reason I think the streetcar is most important is multifocal. For one, mass transit is the one thing that people doing the MAPS survey ranked the highest, and I like the idea of rewarding the small number of people who made the effort to fill out the survey. Also, I have now read material showing that development tends to follow streetcar and mass transit lines, and, the streetcar will cover (linearly, but in a very long line) a lot of ground, and a lot of varied ground. I like the idea of seeing development occur not only in the Core to Shore area, but also near the Health Sciences Center, Midtown and everywhere in between. I think it will spark improvement of citywide mass transit, which I think we desperately need, and that's a very good thing too.

Lastly, and this makes me blush a little, I think modern streetcars look cool traversing a downtown, make it look more hip and urban. And, if ours is truly wind powered, as Jeff has planned, people will write articles about it and us and I like that idea. Lots of cities have beautiful downtown parks, and I think we should too, but I don't know if any have a wind-powered streetcar.

MAPS is about building things. If transit had a permanent tax revenue such as the police and fire have, we would have a decent transit system. But because nearly all of the funding goes to police, fire, and potholes, there is not enough annual operational funding for other services such as transit to maintain, develop, or grow.

The lack of permanent funding has been the biggest obstacle to providing and operating a sustained, consistent transit system.

I want to see the accountability that was present in previous MAPS.
This MAPS doesnt have it.
As it stands now I will vote no on this MAPS.

MAYOR CORNETT

Mayor Cornett is a stalwart supporter of an improved transit system and the development of a true Regional Transit System. He has not made commitments in the past for specific transit technologies as you suggest. He says that we should move towards implementing those technologies.

He is the steering committee chairman for the RTD (Regional Transit Dialogue), and is working with other mayors and leaders in our region to partner and responsibly develop a self-sustaining system.


I happen to been riding on the same bus route (Route 8) that Mayor Mickey had announce he was going to use and depend on for a month.
Mickey had a photo journalist, and a staff member with him, and one video journalist.
The bus broke down, on MacCarthur near (the Warr Acres Library) as we waited for a relief bus, then this bus broke down less then a block from the Buy For Less on NW Expressway.
Then after 10 minutes, Mickey said "OK, this is enough", got off the bus and rode on to where ever his final destination was, in the car that was following us from his pick up point.
Thank God I didnt need to go to work or on a time sensitive appointment.
But for the rest of the month I didnt see Mayor Mickey anywhere near Route 8.
I have no doubt you believe his "dedication" to Transit.
I do not trust or believe him.

I want to see the accountability that was present in previous MAPS.
This MAPS doesnt have it.
As it stands now I will vote no on this MAPS.

Some people think those of us who are planning to vote yes are foolish. They think the city government isn't trustworthy enough to do what they say they're going to do, that it's too big a gamble to give them tax money without any more oversight. Perhaps you are right. But, what you seem to fail to realize is that you're taking a risk as well. You are gambling that, without passing MAPS, Oklahoma City will continue to move forward, will not fall behind other cities, that private development will do everything we need to do. We're gambling a few pennies a day and you're gambling our city's future. Before you vote "no", accept the full responsibility of that action.

Its not a gamble if they put in accountability.

Its not a gamble if they put in accountability.

I agree. And I'd be happier if they did put in accountability. But, for me, voting "yes" is far less of a gamble than voting "no". It will cost me less per day than I spend on a cup of coffee, far less than some people spend on lottery tickets, with a potential return in the realm of a billionfold. I'll take that gamble.

Betts,
We hear how politicians/civil servants dont delivered, but we dont make them accountable/ or issue an election recall, its like we lose interest.
Putting in accountably makes them do what they said they will.
They can always come back to us with that in it.

You are gambling that they will come back with a new proposal with "accountability" in it. Recognize that fact. How are they going to separate your no vote from the police and fire unions and the Wanda Jos of the world? How are they to know that you really wanted to vote yes but felt you couldn't? How many years are we going to lose before, if ever, we see another MAPS? Personally I think it's too big a gamble and too unlikely to pay off.

Some people think those of us who are planning to vote yes are foolish. They think the city government isn't trustworthy enough to do what they say they're going to do, that it's too big a gamble to give them tax money without any more oversight. Perhaps you are right. But, what you seem to fail to realize is that you're taking a risk as well. You are gambling that, without passing MAPS, Oklahoma City will continue to move forward, will not fall behind other cities, that private development will do everything we need to do. We're gambling a few pennies a day and you're gambling our city's future. Before you vote "no", accept the full responsibility of that action.

WOW, was that a bit over dramatic or what?

As history has shown, Oklahoma City WILL continue to move forward. Successful development leads to more development. Plain and simple.

If MAPS 3 passes, it is akin to putting the foot on the accelerator all the way to the floorboards (continuing the forward momentum). No argument there. However the defeat of MAPS 3, does NOT mean putting on the breaks or the other extreme, putting it in reverse. If someone thinks that is true, what if MAPS 3 had never been put to a vote? Would the forward momentum suddenly stop? Again, development leads to other development and that isn't stopping is it? The foot IS still on the accelerator.

Just as it has done for the past 16 years since MAPS was passed and quite a few more years into the future, just with the successful completion of the Devon Tower and the resulting 180 project that is going to totally transform the downtown area.

You are willing to gamble a collective 3/4 of a BILLION...just visualize the stack of chips sitting in front of you at the gaming table...

You are gambling that they will come back with a new proposal with "accountability" in it. Recognize that fact. How are they going to separate your no vote from the police and fire unions and the Wanda Jos of the world? How are they to know that you really wanted to vote yes but felt you couldn't? How many years are we going to lose before, if ever, we see another MAPS? Personally I think it's too big a gamble and too unlikely to pay off.

Again, we have covered this before...if it is defeated they WILL analyze what went wrong and correct the deficiencies...what ever the results of the analysis shows...i.e., vague ballot language, the mix of projects (such as the poorly polled Convention Center) etc. After they do that, they WILL be back with it in another form (maybe not with the MAPS label). Those parts that are critical to City leadership will return. There is absolutely no doubt or question about that. It isn't a matter of IF but WHEN.

However the defeat of MAPS 3, does NOT mean putting on the breaks or the other extreme, putting it in reverse. If someone thinks that is true, what if MAPS 3 had never been put to a vote? Would the forward momentum suddenly stop? Again, development leads to other development and that isn't stopping is it?
It is your opinion that defeating MAPS 3 doesn't reverse or extremely slow the progress of the city.

A defeat is entirely a different thing than the absence of a vote at all.

It is just not at all clear what happens to the attitude of those who might be able to consider future development. And that's especially true given the economic situation.

That's the gamble I am unwilling to take.

Again, we have covered this before...if it is defeated they WILL analyze what went wrong and correct the deficiencies...what ever the results of the analysis shows...i.e., vague ballot language, the mix of projects (such as the poorly polled Convention Center) etc. After they do that, they WILL be back with it in another form (maybe not with the MAPS label). Those parts that are critical to City leadership will return. There is absolutely no doubt or question about that. It isn't a matter of IF but WHEN.

That is what you believe, not what you know. Sorry, I'm not buying it. And, what I have problems with is the "when". I'm not going to live forever. I've spent enough time hoping for things to get better. I want them to get better now, not in 10 to 20 years. I want my children to want to move back here. I want a city I'm proud to show off to visitors. I'm willing to gamble my pennies, and I stand by what I said: You are gambling that, without passing MAPS, Oklahoma City will continue to move forward, will not fall behind other cities, that private development will do everything we need to do. We're gambling a few pennies a day and you're gambling our city's future. Before you vote "no", accept the full responsibility of that action.

It is your opinion that defeating MAPS 3 doesn't reverse or extremely slow the progress of the city.

Why would it? Why would a city government that has shown they want to spend money on big things repeatedly suddenly change if they fail once? Why would one failure undo 10 years of spending?

That's not how business or government works. Nothing long term is predicated on always being successful, just that they have more successes than failures. If the city couldn't withstand MAPS3 failing without retreating back into its cubby hole, then every other MAPS program was worthless anyways.

Some people think those of us who are planning to vote yes are foolish. They think the city government isn't trustworthy enough to do what they say they're going to do, that it's too big a gamble to give them tax money without any more oversight. Perhaps you are right. But, what you seem to fail to realize is that you're taking a risk as well. You are gambling that, without passing MAPS, Oklahoma City will continue to move forward, will not fall behind other cities, that private development will do everything we need to do. We're gambling a few pennies a day and you're gambling our city's future. Before you vote "no", accept the full responsibility of that action.

Within one paragraph, you state that people think you are foolish (which no one has stated) for voting "yes"--then, in the same paragraph, you claim that folks who vote "no" are "gambling" the future of the city.

FACT: There is no evidence to support either claim.



My concern is this: If we never let our vote show that we're not gonna take any crap from our leaders (regardless of how minor or major it is), then why the hell do we even bother with the vote??? If, when we recognize a problem (not necessarily pointing to just the MAPS ballot), we are just going to discredit it as too minor to worry about, then why waste time? I've said it once and I'll say it again, there is nothing to keep us from a re-vote with a new ballot. Not just with MAPS, but for anything in general. That is, of course, unless the mayor wants to battle the citizens and try and keep it from getting done the right way. (Do you really think mayor Mick wants that on his record and all over the news?)

If you choose to vote yes, then do it. If you choose to vote no, then do it.

But don't resort to saying things like "you're gambling our city's future" by voting a certain way on a temporary "special project" tax program. That's silly. What would be foolish is to place funding for support services, vital to the continuity of the city's day-to-day operations, on a temporary tax program that rides on a yes/no vote and is also tied to other non-vital projects. That would be arguably foolish.

Chance, again, part of it is about time. Maybe you're 20. Not all of us are. I don't want to wait 5 years to get a streetcar bond issue passed and then have to wait 3 to 5 more years for it to be built. The park will probably never pass. I don't care as much about the convention center until I walk through it like tonight and compare it to convention centers I've been to in other cities. Then I see that it's pretty small town. If it's going to take 10 years to complete it even if MAPS passes in December, how long will it take if it doesn't pass? 15 years? 20? I ride my bike along the river and I want to see it better. I want restaurants along it. I want to be able to walk from the river to downtown in a park. I want to see Union Station surrounded by green instead of blight. It seems fairly simple to me.

As I've said, we started out behind other cities. We need to catch up. How does that happen if we don't keep improving things? I want Oklahoma City to be a place people are proud to tell others they are from, and I believe that can happen, but not if we are complaisent about where we are.

If you don't want to wait, that's fine, but don't act like it failing will cause the city government to throw up their hands and surrender, or that it will suddenly erase everything that has been done. Saying that that's what its going to do is a scare tactic, just like Iron is fond of using, only without the trolling. It just limits real discussion.

That's why I asked the question "why would it failing be as catastrophic as the supporters are claiming?" The answer to that can't be "I want to see it all when I'm still alive."

Within one paragraph, you state that people think you are foolish (which no one has stated) for voting "yes"--then, in the same paragraph, you claim that folks who vote "no" are "gambling" the future of the city.

FACT: There is no evidence to support either claim.



My concern is this: If we never let our vote show that we're not gonna take any crap from our leaders (regardless of how minor or major it is), then why the hell do we even bother with the vote??? If, when we recognize a problem, we are just going to discredit it as too minor to worry about, then why waste time? I've said it once and I'll say it again, there is nothing to keep us from a re-vote with a new ballot. Not just with MAPS, but for anything in general. That is, of course, unless the mayor wants to battle the citizens and try and keep it from getting done the right way. (Do you really think mayor Mick wants that on his record and all over the news?)

If you choose to vote yes, then do it. If you choose to vote no, then do it.

I've been reading the posts and there has been some good debate happening. What really sucks is when good debate, even if heated debate, breaks down into personal attacks. That's stupid.

I think there's enough data to infer that there are posters here who think people voting yes are foolish to believe that the proposals on MAPS will be enacted if it is passed. And, I don't think it's incorrect to say that if you're voting no, you're gambling that the city will continue to develop at the pace it has and have the kind of development that is on the MAPS 3 ballot. Hoping that private development will do everything for us is a gamble, especially since I don't see any private developers putting in a streetcar or a city park or anything else on the MAPS ballot. We have absolutely no proof that if MAPS doesn't pass, any of the things on the ballot will show up on a different ballot in any reasonable period of time, and so I consider it a gamble to assume they will.....certainly as much, and probably more, of a gamble than that city leaders won't do what they've said they will do if MAPS passes. If that's a personal attack, I'm sorry you see if that way. It's my opinion, and that's all.

We have absolutely no proof that if MAPS doesn't pass, any of the things on the ballot will show up on a different ballot in any reasonable period of time

We have absolutely no proof that if MAPS does pass, any of the things on the ballot will be built in any reasonable period of time, or at all.

If you don't want to wait, that's fine, but don't act like it failing will cause the city government to throw up their hands and surrender, or that it will suddenly erase everything that has been done. Saying that that's what its going to do is a scare tactic, just like Iron is fond of using, only without the trolling. It just limits real discussion.

That's why I asked the question "why would it failing be as catastrophic as the supporters are claiming?" The answer to that can't be "I want to see it all when I'm still alive."

I've never said it will erase everything that has been done, nor did I say that city government would surrender. What I said was that I think it is very unlikely we would see an identical MAPS ballot, with the language fixed. I have said I think, over time, we will probably see a few things, piecemeal, that the city government particularly wants. I suspect (and like everyone else here, I'm only voicing my opinion, as none of us have any data to support our opinions) that we would probably see the convention center on some sort of ballot eventually I think we might see bond issues to buy up land in the Core to Shore area that might someday be a park. I don't see the city making a streetcar or other mass transit a priority, as it was citizen demand that put it on the MAPS ballot, not officials' wants. Everything else might show up here and there on a bond issue. I am quite sure there will be no public developers building us a city park, a streetcar or putting in bike trails and kayak courses.

As I've said, I've lived in other, better cities, with mass transit and real downtowns. I love Oklahoma City, and I want it to be more like them. I want us to create a city we can be proud of. All we added with MAPS was amenities most other cities already had, so what we're so proud of only helped us get closer to other places. I believe we need to keep working towards bettering this city, and not simply sit and hope someone else (private developers) will do it for us.

We have absolutely no proof that if MAPS does pass, any of the things on the ballot will be built in any reasonable period of time, or at all.

Agreed, but, as I said, I consider it a far safer gamble than not passing MAPS and hoping for some other ballot or for private development to do it all for us.

I want OKC to be like other big cities too, except for the sloppy implementation and reckless spending that are a result of not having strong checks and balances and getting in too big of a hurry.

Sure, I want all of these projects done tomorrow...but not like this!

I've never said it will erase everything that has been done, nor did I say that city government would surrender. What I said was that I think it is very unlikely we would see an identical MAPS ballot, with the language fixed. I have said I think, over time, we will probably see a few things, piecemeal, that the city government particularly wants. I suspect (and like everyone else here, I'm only voicing my opinion, as none of us have any data to support our opinions) that we would probably see the convention center on some sort of ballot eventually I think we might see bond issues to buy up land in the Core to Shore area that might someday be a park. I don't see the city making a streetcar or other mass transit a priority, as it was citizen demand that put it on the MAPS ballot, not officials' wants. Everything else might show up here and there on a bond issue. I am quite sure there will be no public developers building us a city park, a streetcar or putting in bike trails and kayak courses.

As I've said, I've lived in other, better cities, with mass transit and real downtowns. I love Oklahoma City, and I want it to be more like them. I want us to create a city we can be proud of. All we added with MAPS was amenities most other cities already had, so what we're so proud of only helped us get closer to other places. I believe we need to keep working towards bettering this city, and not simply sit and hope someone else (private developers) will do it for us.

Who said we should expect private developers to do it? That's a paper tiger. I ask the question because people do act like it would be catastrophic if it failed. You may have not said it in so many words, but the words you have spoken seem to indicate that you adhere to that stance. I see absolutely no reason why it would and the city's actions indicate an absolute commitment to development.

And if it fails, we shouldn't see an identical ballot. That'd be absolutely stupid. If it fails, they'll poll, they'll find out why, and they'll come up with something else. If not, then there's no reason MAPS should have been passed to begin with. No government or business that has been successful long term has ever been completely derailed by one failure. If leaders can't recover from a failure, than it's just evidence that they're bad leaders.

Betts,

Since you mentioned that you've lived in other big cities, I just have to ask this question:

What draws you to Oklahoma City versus other cities? Low tax rate, lower crime, more space...?

I ask in all sincerity. I would like to know, because, we have some really good qualities here that we risk losing if we get too far ahead of ourselves trying to "catch up" with the big cities.

We want to catch up, but also learn from their mistakes and catch up the smart way.

And if it fails, we shouldn't see an identical ballot. That'd be absolutely stupid. If it fails, they'll poll, they'll find out why, and they'll come up with something else. If not, then there's no reason MAPS should have been passed to begin with. No government or business that has been successful long term has ever been completely derailed by one failure. If leaders can't recover from a failure, than it's just evidence that they're bad leaders.

Right on!

Who said we should expect private developers to do it? That's a paper tiger. I ask the question because people do act like it would be catastrophic if it failed. You may have not said it in so many words, but the words you have spoken seem to indicate that you adhere to that stance. I see absolutely no reason why it would and the city's actions indicate an absolute commitment to development.

And if it fails, we shouldn't see an identical ballot. That'd be absolutely stupid. If it fails, they'll poll, they'll find out why, and they'll come up with something else. If not, then there's no reason MAPS should have been passed to begin with. No government or business that has been successful long term has ever been completely derailed by one failure. If leaders can't recover from a failure, than it's just evidence that they're bad leaders.

Maybe not catastrophic, but how about unhelpful, disappointing, depressing? Again, for me, much of it is about time. I don't want to wait. I get pleasure (or I wouldn't be a member of this forum) out of seeing Oklahoma City improving, seeing new development. My biggest complaints about the city since I moved here have been the lack of mass transit, since I didn't even have a car where I lived previously, and didn't miss it, lack of walkabilty and the absence of an urban park. So, knowing we're not going to have a streetcar system would be disappointing and depressing to me. Hoping that would mean we might see it on a ballot in two to five years would be disappointing and depressing to me. That's it, nothing more.

That is what you believe, not what you know. Sorry, I'm not buying it. ...[/I]

OK, ignore the historical facts. Believe whatever you want to believe, even if the evidence indicates otherwise. I KNOW from the evidence, it is true. Please cite a single example where what you are saying is the case?

As I pointed out before, when MAPS barely PASSED (54%), they analyzed the vote to determine why it almost failed. They corrected those deficiencies with MAPS for Kids, and it passed by a much larger margin. Why would they fail to do the same thing here? WHY? Please explain. The only reason why they wouldn't is if none of these projects are really that critical to City leadership after all. Plain and Simple. This is just personal opinion, but they will have to wait a sufficient time to let the memory of previous defeat fade. How long will that take? Voters are notorious for having very short memories. Probably not anywhere near "10 or 20 years", most likely within a year or two. Case in point the public safety tax that has been mentioned. It was defeated and how long did it take before they analyzed the vote, fixed it and got voter approval? Don't think it was 10 or 20 years...

Please correct me if I am wrong

Maybe not catastrophic, but how about unhelpful, disappointing, depressing? Again, for me, much of it is about time. I don't want to wait. I get pleasure (or I wouldn't be a member of this forum) out of seeing Oklahoma City improving, seeing new development. My biggest complaints about the city since I moved here have been the lack of mass transit, since I didn't even have a car where I lived previously, and didn't miss it, lack of walkabilty and the absence of an urban park. So, knowing we're not going to have a streetcar system would be disappointing and depressing to me. Hoping that would mean we might see it on a ballot in two to five years would be disappointing and depressing to me. That's it, nothing more.

Well, to be frank, the city shouldn't build its budget around you, and it doesn't make your argument any more sound.

Unhelpful to who? To the city leaders? So what? We shouldn't roll over for them, that just gives them a license to abuse. Authority should be questioned.

When I said 15 to 20 years, I was referring to the fact that it will already take 10 years to complete the convention center. Any delay adds to that. I sincerely doubt we'd see a vote in less than two years, and again, I doubt it would include the complete list of items in the current MAPS proposal. MAPS as a concept would have been defeated in this election, and it would have lost its cachet. I believe we would see a few of the things proposed in piecemeal fashion, over the course of probably 5 years or so. What would we see?: perhaps the three things you said you believe will be completed if we pass this MAPS proposal - the convention center, the park and maybe the streetcar system. But, my point is that none of those are a sure thing if MAPS doesn't pass, and I believe there is a far better chance of getting them, even with the language of the current MAPS ballot, than if it is defeated. Again, your "evidence" is not enough to do anything more than minimally support a hypothesis. It's weak enough that I feel quite comfortable calling it an opinion. And that's what I'm offering. If MAPS fails, we will see who is right. I'm simply not willing to take a chance that you're wrong, and I'd like to get started sooner than two years from now regardless.

When I said 15 to 20 years, I was referring to the fact that it will already take 10 years to complete the convention center. Any delay adds to that. ... and I'd like to get started sooner than two years from now regardless.

Interesting. Time is of the essence then, no delay is acceptable? Didn't hear you taking issue when MAPS 3 was delayed by a year. So, 1 year is OK, but not 2 or 3? Correct me if I am wrong.

I don't see why the Convention Center is going to take 10 years to complete anyway, other than the Mayor for some reason wants it "staged" last. The Chamber put it at 6 years. From plans to opening, how long did the Ballpark take? The Ford? How long is Devon's Tower going to take? Don't think any of those things took 10 years. Given the fact that we are currently losing convention business and it's "economic engine" status for jobs etc, it really should be done first IMO). But it may be due to the revenue structure of the sales tax. Projects aren't built all at once but are staggered over time (still don't see how this is any different from a "piece-meal" approach). As the most expensive item in MAPS 3, it will take almost 3 years to have all of the money in hand. But if other projects are in front of it and you wait until the money is in hand for them, it keeps pushing the others back. That, and it hasn't polled that well and if they build the things that are polling well, 1st...

I would have been fine with MAPS 3 starting a year ago, but since improving the Ford Center would have been part of it had the vote not been separated, and since the projects don't all start simultaneously, in essence we did start MAPS projects a year ago. If you could GUARANTEE me that MAPS would pass in two years (which you and I know you cannot do, regardless of your hypothesis), then, although I think we should start as soon as possible and I would be disappointed to wait, the path of the streetcar would be known, and developers would probably start thinking about development along the line, which would be good. The location of the convention center would be known soon, and we might get purchase of and planning for peri-convention center land. We would know where the park was going to be located, and developers might start purchasing and clearing land near there as well. This is very different from piecemeal voting, as knowing the projects are going to happen and where they're going to happen is the impetus for private development, regardlessof the order in which they're built. Having plans for so many projects is a huge psychological boost to the community as well. It gives people things to get excited about, and creates a sense of vitality in the community. If MAPS doesn't pass, then we know nothing,and the development those projects might stimulate will not even be in the planning stages. We'll have what is already planned, but there will be no stimulus to develop new areas. What I can see happening is the city getting all excited about the boulevard, since that wouldn't have been voted down, and they'll end up doing the one thing I really could care less about. More pro-automobile development that enables people to get through downtown quickly.....bleh.

As a stand alone, there is no evidence the convention center would have enough votes to pass. It's best hope is as part of a package. So, if MAPS 3 doesn't pass, who knows when we would ever get a convention center.

I would have been fine with MAPS 3 starting a year ago, but since improving the Ford Center would have been part of it had the vote not been separated, and since the projects don't all start simultaneously, in essence we did start MAPS projects a year ago. If you could GUARANTEE me that MAPS would pass in two years (which you and I know you cannot do, regardless of your hypothesis), then, although I think we should start as soon as possible and I would be disappointed to wait, the path of the streetcar would be known, and developers would probably start thinking about development along the line, which would be good. The location of the convention center would be known soon, and we might get purchase of and planning for peri-convention center land. We would know where the park was going to be located, and developers might start purchasing and clearing land near there as well. This is very different from piecemeal voting, as knowing the projects are going to happen and where they're going to happen is the impetus for private development, regardlessof the order in which they're built. Having plans for so many projects is a huge psychological boost to the community as well. It gives people things to get excited about, and creates a sense of vitality in the community. If MAPS doesn't pass, then we know nothing,and the development those projects might stimulate will not even be in the planning stages. We'll have what is already planned, but there will be no stimulus to develop new areas. What I can see happening is the city getting all excited about the boulevard, since that wouldn't have been voted down, and they'll end up doing the one thing I really could care less about. More pro-automobile development that enables people to get through downtown quickly.....bleh.

As a stand alone, there is no evidence the convention center would have enough votes to pass. It's best hope is as part of a package. So, if MAPS 3 doesn't pass, who knows when we would ever get a convention center.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I have always intended to vote NO on MAPS 3, the F & P issue is not the reason. Lets say I support 7 of the 8, and I love the 7 and dislike 1.

We both know this is where you and I differ, you will pay for something that you dislike and have it shoved down your throat to get something you want, and thats ok it doesn't make you a bad person, but I will not, now if that makes me a bad person then thats ok with me.

You know the C.C. would not pass if it had to stand alone. You ask when would we get a C.C. if MAPS fails. If the C.C. had to stand alone, we would get one when the majority of Citizens wanted one. Not when the C of C told us we had to have one. If MAPS passes the majority will get a C.C., and pay for a C.C even though they did not want a C.C. but they were to afraid of not getting a park, or a streetcar, or whatever. Like I said doesn't make that person bad, but to me, thats pathetic.

This needs to be voted down. Contrary to what you think the Council could come back within the month with ballot that listed each project that had to stand on its own merit.

I would have been fine with MAPS 3 starting a year ago, but since improving the Ford Center would have been part of it had the vote not been separated, and since the projects don't all start simultaneously, in essence we did start MAPS projects a year ago.

Nice spin, except for the fact the the Ford has pushed everything else back by at least a year. That delayed every one of your projects that you want, didn't it? It delayed finding out where any of the projects (Streetcars, Kayaking, Convention Center, Senior Aquatic Centers) are going to be located and until that is known, any private development is in limbo, isn't it? Even if it hadn't been pulled out (piece-meal, that PASSED easily), where would the Ford have placed in the order? Those other items would still be "delayed".


If you could GUARANTEE me that MAPS would pass in two years (which you and I know you cannot do, regardless of your hypothesis), ...

Fair enough.

Can you GUARANTEE me that all of the "proposed" projects (NONE of which are even mentioned in the Ballot/Ordinance) are going to be completed, as described "world class" and all, within the budgeted amount, etc., etc.?

Can you GUARANTEE me that the $100M/year will be achieved (when the historical increase between MAPS has been about 11% instead of the 25% they have estimated)?

Can you GUARANTEE me that cost over-runs will only be the 2.2% they have budgeted (when MAPS came in 47.75% over what voters were told....When the City admits that projects come in an average of 8% over).

Until you can, the vote on this is NO


...the path of the streetcar would be known,...

Exactly when would any of the things you mentioned be "known" so that any of that could occur? No matter if it appears as an all-or-nothing or separate propositions or even separate elections, nothing changes the fact that these are planned, built etc over time. The time frame may be condensed some as projects overlap, but that is it.

How soon did we know where all of the projects in the original MAPS were going to be located? The Ballpark? The route of the Canal? The route of the downtown streetcars? Heck, we didn't even know if it was going to be streetcar type, monorail, rubber-tired or what. The location of the Arena? The Library?

Some locations were known (the Myriad, Fairgrounds & Civic Center improvements) but no one knew when. The location of the River project was known, but how many years after construction was started/or completed did the 1st private investment/development happen?

Point is, those decisions didn't happen all at once even though upon the passage of MAPS, even though it was "known" they were going to be built. It was the where and when those things were going to happen (can't buy land to build a hotel next to the Arena when you don't know where the arena is going to be and no need to build the hotel until you know when the Arena is going to start construction and projected to be completed, possibly years before it is needed).


...We would know where the park was going to be located, and developers might start purchasing and clearing land there as well. ...

They can do that now as this is one of the few things we actually know anything about. As you are aware the City was authorized in the 2007 G.O. bond to start buying land in the C2S/Park area. They have already gone just over $6M in bond and TIF debt on this MAPS 3 project that hasn't even gone to a vote yet. They are authorized by that same bond to go even deeper into debt (up to $26M). Actual cost so far is $12M to $24M (depends on the length of the bond and the interest rate paid). If the entire $26M is used the actual cost is $52M to $78M. The Mayor has indicated he is going to proceed with the Park (just doesn't have a back-up plan for financing it).


...This is very different from piecemeal voting, as knowing the projects are going to happen and where they're going to happen is the impetus for private development, regardlessof the order in which they're built....

While knowing the projects are going to happen is important (again, we have nothing binding them to any of the projects), where they happen is equally as important (see above). The timing (order/construction/completion) ranks right up there in importance too (see above). No matter which ballot format is used. We do not know any of that yet, and won't know on December 9th. There will be a planing and a promised public process that will take months/years to determine all of that.


...As a stand alone, there is no evidence the convention center would have enough votes to pass. It's best hope is as part of a package. So, if MAPS 3 doesn't pass, who knows when we would ever get a convention center.

This is true based on the polling info. Problem is, as most keep forgetting, this all-or-nothing format is probably illegal (see link below).

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/maps-3-ballot-wont-detail-individual-projects/article/3415497)

...This needs to be voted down. Contrary to what you think the Council could come back within the month with ballot that listed each project that had to stand on its own merit.

Exactly, and that is what the Mayor implied when he said at the MAPS 3 announcement back in September:

"I think the citizens are going to look at this with a very discerning eye. Each of these projects is going to have to stand on its own.”

Notice he didn't say this "group of projects"

but then something changed...

The city’s alternative to the all-or-nothing MAPS 3 ballot ... was one that included each of the proposed projects as separate propositions requiring separate votes.

Mayor Mick Cornett has said council members decided against separate propositions for MAPS 3 projects because city voters are accustomed to the all-or-nothing approach, which was used for MAPS and MAPS for Kids.

True for elections with the MAPS label, but completely ignoring the fact the voters are are also accustomed to the separate proposition format (see the 2007 General Obligation and School bond issues...all of which easily passed...all 14 of the separate G.O. bonds passed with 80%+). Granted there is no guarantee as evidenced by the Tinker bond vote, where some props passed and some failed.

Nice spin, except for the fact the the Ford has pushed everything else back by at least a year. That delayed every one of your projects that you want, didn't it? It delayed finding out where any of the projects (Streetcars, Kayaking, Convention Center, Senior Aquatic Centers) are going to be located and until that is known, any private development is in limbo, isn't it? Even if it hadn't been pulled out (piece-meal, that PASSED easily), where would the Ford have placed in the order? Those other items would still be "delayed".

It's not spin. The Ford Center would have been the first thing done, because it was the project that got us an NBA team, and that NBA team ended up in OKC faster than we'd originally hoped. To me, the Thunder is one of the best and most significant things that has happened with the passage of MAPS, and I would have been perfectly happy with the Ford Center being completed first.


Can you GUARANTEE me that all of the "proposed" projects (NONE of which are even mentioned in the Ballot/Ordinance) are going to be completed, as described "world class" and all, within the budgeted amount, etc., etc.?

Can you GUARANTEE me that the $100M/year will be achieved (when the historical increase between MAPS has been about 11% instead of the 25% they have estimated)?

Can you GUARANTEE me that cost over-runs will only be the 2.2% they have budgeted (when MAPS came in 47.75% over what voters were told....When the City admits that projects come in an average of 8% over).

No, I can't, so go ahead and vote "no". From the start it was pretty obvious you were going to, regardless of your statements about thinking we need a new convention center, etc. We'll never have a ballot specific enough to satisfy you, it seems. I have yet to see any guarantees like that on any of the MAPS ballots. I haven't seen any guarantees like that on any of the bond issues either. I don't see how they can guarantee something as fluid and difficult to predict as sales tax. I should be sorry I voted for all the MAPS proposals in the past, since they didn't give me those guarantees? I guess we should just stop voting for improvement to the city altogether?

And can we relax a bit with the world class obsession. You know, and I know and everyone else knows that city leaders say things like that about everything. It's part of the getting the public excited hyperbole. Private corporations do the same thing and call it "advertising". Go to any city in the country and you'll see the same thing.

As I've said, I'm part of the "do-something' party. Keep building, keep growing, keep the public portion of city enhancement going. If the things we build aren't the best, the most perfect, the most "world class", well, rarely is anything else in this world. At least we're doing something. If we stop, we'll never catch up to the cities we admire and want to emulate. I want a streetcar, I want a park, I want Oklahoma City to keep moving, to keep trying to be something better than what it is. I want to be part of that, and, since I'm not a multimillionaire who can help the city out of my pocket alone, I'll contribute my pennies and hope that as part of the larger group it has the same, or better, effect.

Betts,

The point is, those improvements have delayed the other items in MAPS 3 haven't they? You implied a delay wasn't acceptable to you, yet they have been delayed, haven't they? In regards to a delay if items were to be piece-mealed out (like the improvements were) didn't you say:


When I said 15 to 20 years, I was referring to the fact that it will already take 10 years to complete the convention center. Any delay adds to that. ...

Contrary to what you believe, I would be voting YES for the "proposed" projects in MAPS 3, if they would fix the Ballot & Ordinance language. Similar to the "guarantees" that WERE present in the original MAPS (not just a non-binding resolution that can be changed at any time).


...I have yet to see any guarantees like that on any of the MAPS ballots. I haven't seen any guarantees like that on any of the bond issues either....
Not all of the "guarantees" I mentioned were included of course, but I urge you to go back and read the ballot language of the original MAPS, projects were not only listed but with some amazing detail (PDF courtesy of Doug on the 1st page of the "New info on MAPS 3" thread, I have transcribed)

While many projects in the original MAPS Ballot were general (but all were listed), some were fairly specific (especially for a Ballot, wouldn't be at all surprised if the actual Ordinance 20,045 had more specifics but don't have access to it). From the 1993 MAPS Ballot:


Subsection
(B)(3) A baseball park meeting not less than "AAA" professional standards;

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

(B)(8) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between Interstate Highway 40 and Meridian Avenue and downtown Oklahoma City; provided, said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

As a side note, the ballot had a few supplemental projects listed if funding didn't run out on the main ones:


(C)(1) Additional improvements to the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds ...

(C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown Oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

(C)(3) Art, natural history, history, cultural, or educational museums and/or facilities;

Granted I would prefer guarantees that there be some "truth in advertising" too.

As far as bond issues go, take a look at the 2007 bond issue where 14 propositions were there and every one of them passed (if not mistaken, by 80%+ on each)

I want to see the accountability that was present in previous MAPS.
This MAPS doesnt have it.
As it stands now I will vote no on this MAPS.

They have commited to a Citizens Oversight Board just like the other MAPS. I watch channel 20 occassionally and it looks/sounds like the Ford Center expansion oversight board is working out well. They debate and decide some pretty minute issues too.

None of the other MAPS had oversight board members in place before the election. Since they have committed to doing this, I don't see why you would vote no.

With regard to the streetcar, the city is acutely aware of MTP's capabilities of getting something on a ballot. We will commit ourselves to making sure that the transit component is fullfilled quickly and in the bestbpossible manner as well.

They have commited to a Citizens Oversight Board just like the other MAPS. I watch channel 20 occassionally and it looks/sounds like the Ford Center expansion oversight board is working out well. They debate and decide some pretty minute issues too.

None of the other MAPS had oversight board members in place before the election. Since they have committed to doing this, I don't see why you would vote no.

With regard to the streetcar, the city is acutely aware of MTP's capabilities of getting something on a ballot. We will commit ourselves to making sure that the transit component is fullfilled quickly and in the bestbpossible manner as well.

Well good!
Thanks for the news!!
I hadnt heard this!!

CITIZENS FORUM ON PUBLIC TRANSIT

THE MAPS 3 TRANSIT PROPOSAL AND WHY WE NEED TO DO IT NOW

Next Tuesday (November 17th)
Starts Promptly at 7PM
Free to Attend

OKC Museum of Art Museum (Noble Theatre)

The Modern Transit Project is pleased to invite the Public to attend this forum. A short video and powerpoint presentation will provide visual information on the MAPS 3 Transit Proposal. Twelve panelists have been assembled to answer your questions and discuss the future of the world class transit system proposed in the MAPS 3 Ballot Initiative.

Please feel free to invite others. No RSVP is required.

PANELISTS & POTENTIAL SUBJECTS

Marion Hutchison (Transit Hub)
Lauren White (Bus System)
Josiah Daniel (Federal Funding)
Rick Cain (COTPA & Metro Transit)
Turner Mann (Midwest City Connection)
Austin Hacker (Wind Power)
Bob Kemper (Commuter Rail and Amtrak)
Steve Nash (Commuter Rail and Amtrak)
Walter Jacques (Bus System)
James Ellison (Transit Oriented Development)
Robbie Kienzle (Urban Planning)
Debbie Blackburn (Historic Neighborhoods)
Jeff Bezdek (Modern Streetcar)

Nathaniel Harding of Harding & Shelton will be added to the panel to represent the possibilities of powering transit vehicles with CNG (Compressed Natural Gas).

They have commited to a Citizens Oversight Board just like the other MAPS. I watch channel 20 occassionally and it looks/sounds like the Ford Center expansion oversight board is working out well. They debate and decide some pretty minute issues too.

I would definitely like to catch that, the last I had heard about the Ford oversight board (which the Mayor's office said there wasn't a need for before the vote), was a short little article listing the appointees. If anyone else has info they can post or link to...

I have read in the physical paper and seen on Channel 20 that they meet frequently and make very detailed decisions. If someone has the time to go look for some of these links, start a new oversight board thread.

Featured Film at Transit Forum Tonight

The Modern Transit Project is pleased to announce that it has obtained permission to present film footage from PBS’s Blue Print America. The series of films and national broadcasts examines positive changes in Portland Oregon and Charlotte North Carolina as the result of new mass transit systems.

Also examined:

The Highway Building Age and Federal Funding
Transit Oriented Development


OTHER FEATURED FILM FOOTAGE INCLUDES

OETA News Report examines the shortcomings of the existing “rubber tired trolleys in downtown Oklahoma City”.

NEWS 9 CBS reports on the success of the Modern Transit Project citizens’ movement on including the Modern Streetcar as a Yes Maps initiative.


The event starts promptly at 7:00 PM
OKC Museum of Art (Noble Theatre)
4:15 Couch Drive
Free to Attend

Attended transit meeting tonight. Very disappointed. All questions were to be written on note cards, then to be turned in for the moderator to ask the panel. Not a true open forum. Lots of questions left out. Only about 60 or so showed. Mass transit would have to be subsidised. Not sure where hub will be. All in all very weak presentation, and turnout for such a "wanted" project. Lots of Kool-Aid for all though!!!

Mass transit is always subsidized. In some cities, you can ride free. Since we don't know precisely where the streetcar will go, of course the exact location of the hub is not known.

The opposition never ceases with the negative "scorched earth" message. How would you know that lots of questions weren't answered? I was the moderator and the program was extended an extra 30 minutes. I asked questions verbatim off of cards. We had 13 knowledgeable people to answer questions.

Because I knew some of the other attendees, and they said their questions were not asked. Also I'm not opposed to a transit system, although I would never use the service, just a concerned citizen. No "scorched earth" message, just observations I observed.

Because I knew some of the other attendees, and they said their questions were not asked. Also I'm not opposed to a transit system, although I would never use the service, just a concerned citizen. No "scorched earth" message, just observations I observed.

I judiciously asked as many questions as time would allow. In fact, we used cards intentionally to make sure that we could ask as many questions and let the panelists thoroughly discuss them.

Also, I thought the attendance was reasonable for a cold Tuesday night.

Here is a link to the Blueprint America video that was shown for blog viewing. Click on the Portland "The Road Less Traveled" for the exact excerpt used during the event.

Road to the Future ~ Video: Full Documentary | Blueprint America (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/road-to-the-future/video-full-documentary/648/)

Great job putting last night's presentation together. I know you wanted a bigger turnout, but it seemed that those that did attend were very interested in the subject matter, were fairly educated about the topic, and brought an overall positive view of the efforts you're making. You handled the entire night very well, from the intro movie to sorting the questions to the proper panelist (and taking a few for yourself) to ending on a resounding note touting the benefits of a grassroots campaign to vastly improve this city. Regardless of what happens on December 8, you've done a fantastic job, and should be commended loudly.

Keep up the good fight-

This was my first event to attend, but I would have thought something this high on the priority list would have brought a larger crowd. I'm also concerned with the amount this idea will have to be subsidised. I believe it was around 50%.

Keep in mind that we have been having mass transit events for almost a year. It undoubtedly one of the most publicized, discussed, and presented part of the MAPS proposal up until now.

It has been a citizens' initiative and we have kept it that way.

Regarding the subsidy, I am not sure what you mean.

Maps provides $130 million for infrastructure. The streetcar operational budget should be around $3 million a year with most of that offset by discontinuing most of the "rubber tired trolley" service, increased ridership, and advertising. If there is a shortfall, it will be minimal.

If you are talking about transit in general, it is no more greatly subsidized than highways. With highways, the subsidization is hidden however. We pay taxes for infrastructure. It is a proper use of tax money.

Here is a story from the Norman Transcript about the event...

MAPS 3 could bring commuter rail to area (http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_322064355/resources_printstory)

This was my first event to attend, but I would have thought something this high on the priority list would have brought a larger crowd. I'm also concerned with the amount this idea will have to be subsidised. I believe it was around 50%.

And what percentage do you think public highways have to be subsidized? Or roads? I can't believe you say you support transit but actually believe transit is not subsidized.

It's all subsidized. OKC just paid a billion for ten miles of highway. Think about that.

...The streetcar operational budget should be around $3 million a year with most of that offset by discontinuing most of the "rubber tired trolley" service, ...

You did say "most" so are the rubber tired troleys going away completely? I understand that the trolleys are mostly a downtown circulater (sp) but one of their functions is service to the Meridian Motel corridor. It is my understanding that the Streetcars will not be going out to that area. So does that mean that area won't be serviced any more? Seems like a lot of tourism $$$ being left out there to hang...

No, you caught the word "most" correctly. Right now the "rubber tired trolleys" also service Meridian, Stockyards, and provide linkage to the River Cruisers.

Many of the trolleys are reaching their life expectancy in terms of years/miles, however, there are a few that can be retained for those purposes. The streetcar will further extend the life of those units by removing the downtown routes they currently also cover.

It is my understanding that they require an amazing amount of maintenance and that is why they have the spare "back-up" units.

I missed this article in the Oklahoman due to our scrambling this week. This is a very notable encouraging factor for streetcar development. While the area is pretty far west in the initial goals of teh streetcar alignment, it is great motivation to incorporate connections such as these though TIF (Tax Increment Financing)... Jeff

Excerpt from the Oklahoman...

"OCU President Tom McDaniel said he began looking at options of moving the law school downtown after he was asked by Mayor Mick Cornett to submit ideas for adding an education component to a potential MAPS 3 ballot.

"We looked at a good number of locations, including First National Center,” McDaniel said. "But we never had one that appeared to be financially viable — where the finances would work.”

McDaniel called the old car plant an ideal location for the law school — if voters approve MAPS 3 and plans to create a downtown streetcar system. The streetcar, he said, could allow the school and the county to consider a consolidation of their two law libraries. He also noted the property is within walking distance of the Oklahoma County jail, police headquarters and municipal courts — all ideal for enhancing indigent legal aid initiatives for students.

"We want to start an innocence project — we want to be servant leaders, we want people to graduate our law school knowing there is a need to serve others,” McDaniel said.

As a result, the letter of intent has a big "if” clause — the passage of MAPS 3 on Dec. 8.

"We think continued development of downtown and Core to Shore is an important element in their plans for developing the property and our plans to move the law school to downtown,” McDaniel said. "We think the transit element is important. We would be bringing 750 people to downtown every day, and more than 600 of them would be students riding that transit to law offices and the county law library.”

Should the ballot fail, McDaniel said, the school would have to start new discussions with members of the Hall family on whether the project is still feasible."