I don't see why anyone would not vote yes on this. There isn't anything worth not voting in favor of.

Really like this plan, especially the emphasis on mass transit and recreation, the two most glaring needs if OKC is going to take another big step forward.

Most the complaints/concerns are minor which is a testament to our civic leaders once again doing a darn good job.

Credit to everyone that was involved in the planning process... Now lets get this thing passed!

70 acres is 3 times as large as Millennium Park in Chicago.

70 acres is approximately 64 football fields large. That's huge.

Not sure what the problem is...

But Millennium Park is only a part of Grant Park, which is 319 acres

NOTABLY ABSENT: The Bricktown canal extension

I'm very happy about this. It was a bad idea. We don't need to extend the canal when we haven't even adequately developed the one we have.




EXCELLENT point.

not a grumble, but wasn't the figure being tossed about on a new convention center something in the neighborhood of half again that 280 million figure? I thought they were talkiing 400 mil not so very long ago?

It's also interesting to see this version of the 'temp' sales tax will clear the 7.5 year mark. I imagine that will chap some. The relatively low dobbers I drop in OKC won't result in any noticeable impact on our family.

The Boston Public Garden, one of my favorites, is 24 acres. That puts the size of the park in perspective. The other thing that does is a drive around the area.

I agree with Pete. We all need to work hard to get this passed. It's very important to OKC to sustain our momentum. These are all good projects, and even if I'm not thrilled with, for example, the Fair Park thing (what an outrage), I'm enthusiastically going to work to pass MAPS III.

Why are people displeased about the fair park thing?

Because Fair Park has it's own dedicated revenue stream from the hotel/motel tax.

At least it's only $60 million. They were touting a massive exhibit hall that would have been as expensive as the downtown convention center and the two projects would have been redundant.

Because Fair Park has it's own dedicated revenue stream from the hotel/motel tax.


Well, not to put too fine of a point on it, but it sounds like that revenue stream is grossly inadequate to make major capital improvements/renovations/repair if they need MAPS3 money?

To me, it's like pizza. As long as it makes sense in some way, it's all good. 1% sales tax to make our city a greater place is money well-spent.

Here's a brand new two block city park in St. Louis that looks really nice, and it's far smaller than what's planned for Core to Shore. Isn't the Core to Shore park supposed to be 37 acres?

I was in the St Louis park a couple weeks ago for the Tour of Missouri. It is a compact, yet very nice place in the center of downtown St Louis. Size isn't everything when it comes to these things, good execution of a small park is far preferable to poor execution of a larger plan. The planned C2S park compares very favorably to the St Louis park.

I love it all. This just shows that OKC is fortunate to have the leadership it does. I'm in Norman, a town I love, and we have terrible leadership with no vision.

But maybe I'm crazy because I'm worried the park size will be too big for downtown, which is the opposite concern that a couple others posed. I just don't want it to be too big for what downtown can handle right now. Still, as others have said, a good park will likely lead to more growth and development, so the 'too big' fear is probably overblown on my part. Considering it all, it looks like a fantastic proposal that will do wonders for OKC. I'm truly excited for the city and our state.

I'm also willing to bet the sales tax may get to expire before the proposed 7.5 years, depending on the success of ongoing development, growth, and economic recovery. So that would be a big win.

Where is the proposed convention center? Is there any consideration of replacing the climbing feed mill?

Where is the proposed convention center? Is there any consideration of replacing the climbing feed mill?

That is a real eyesore, I wish they would do something with it.

Looks like Bennett pulled Cornett's strings and got the fairground improvements in there after all, not happy about that, there are better funding mechanisms. Surprised, but glad to see the 57 miles of bicyling trails in there!Metro, I agree with you, I'm not happy about that either. Funny how certain people, or groups of people, get everything they want. I seem to remember a simular situation a few years ago only in reverse. Remember when some on the City Council wanted a small piece of the revenue from the Hotel/Motel tax increase, so they could add some pools and/or sprayparks but were told no, by this same group. Now you have the same people who were not willing to share with pools and parks, with their hand out wanting, and getting, money that could be spent on pools and parks.

I saw the plan. My mind has been changed. I'll vote for all of the projects. What an amazing job by all who worked on this. I'm incredibly impressed and proud to be a citizen of OKC. For those of you working directly on the campaign, DO NOT SCREW THIS UP.

Where is the proposed convention center? Is there any consideration of replacing the climbing feed mill?

Are you suggesting we destroy what is perhaps OKC's finest example of adaptive reuse--a facility that promotes recreation and is a small business owned by locals?

Just a note:

This isn't a cafeteria plan. There is only one vote. Up or down. That's the genius of MAPS.

Metro, I agree with you, I'm not happy about that either. Funny how certain people, or groups of people, get everything they want. I seem to remember a simular situation a few years ago only in reverse. Remember when some on the City Council wanted a small piece of the revenue from the Hotel/Motel tax increase, so they could add some pools and/or sprayparks but were told no, by this same group. Now you have the same people who were not willing to share with pools and parks, with their hand out wanting, and getting, money that could be spent on pools and parks.

There's always something or someone else to give money to. You elect to spend money for your internet service provider, a cell phone (an iPhone perhaps?) and (I am guessing) cable TV but you could have given that money to the homeless or to Habitat for Humanity or any number of charitble orgainizations that desperately need money. Instead, you chose to spend money on these other things for your entertainment (and possibly for education or business).

OKC is putting MAPS 3 out for the citizens to decide if they want to invest further in the future of their city. Sure, the money is to go to the C2S park when it COULD go to the park system in general. But its not - its to go to the C2S park. If you dont like something in the plan, then just say it and vote against the plan. The reasoning that the city could, instead, give the money to improve parks citywide is a moot issue.

not a grumble, but wasn't the figure being tossed about on a new convention center something in the neighborhood of half again that 280 million figure? I thought they were talkiing 400 mil not so very long ago?

It's also interesting to see this version of the 'temp' sales tax will clear the 7.5 year mark. I imagine that will chap some. The relatively low dobbers I drop in OKC won't result in any noticeable impact on our family.

I imagine the convention center blueprints will allow for seemless expantion.

I dont think there is anything about this plan I dont like. It's almost like they read this board and OKC central and planned around it. The price tag is very managable and the the emphasis on fitness is incredible. It's things like this that get people out of their homes and onto bikes and jogging trails. I'm very excited about this. :congrats:

I saw the plan. My mind has been changed. I'll vote for all of the projects. What an amazing job by all who worked on this. I'm incredibly impressed and proud to be a citizen of OKC. For those of you working directly on the campaign, DO NOT SCREW THIS UP.

Well if they can sell Mid I think the plan is a go.

Yes, as already explained, between studies, site selection, site prep, and oh, enough funding coming in to start construction, it will be about 2019 before it opens. Thus the repeated quote of leaders saying it Cox will be about 50 years old when/if the new convention center opens.

i forget where i saw it, maybe natgeo, but somewhere in asia they are finishing building a whole city; skyscrapers and all for 60,000 ppl. took them 8 years. they throw skyscrapers up in 6 months. why would it take 10 years to do a convention center and what 35 years to implement everything? i dont get why it takes so long for things to get done in the u.s.

There's always something or someone else to give money to. You elect to spend money for your internet service provider, a cell phone (an iPhone perhaps?) and (I am guessing) cable TV but you could have given that money to the homeless or to Habitat for Humanity or any number of charitble orgainizations that desperately need money. Instead, you chose to spend money on these other things for your entertainment (and possibly for education or business).

OKC is putting MAPS 3 out for the citizens to decide if they want to invest further in the future of their city. Sure, the money is to go to the C2S park when it COULD go to the park system in general. But its not - its to go to the C2S park. If you dont like something in the plan, then just say it and vote against the plan. The reasoning that the city could, instead, give the money to improve parks citywide is a moot issue.I did say there was something in the plan that I don't like. It's obvious you failed to see my point. Furthermore, if you made the assumption I was refering to the City-wide park system in general, then your assumption was wrong.

That is a real eyesore, I wish they would do something with it.

I think it's awesome and unique.

Yeah, I wish they would keep the ClimbOKC (OKC Rocks) building. It really is a unique place...i believe one of VERY few in the U.S. And they've gone above and beyond to try and make the place look good. You know they could have just left it as cracked paint on conrete instead of doing actual work to spruce it up.

It's a shame that we're going to lose the place. I look and see, what an absolutely awesome thing to come back in 50 years and see an urban environment with a grain silo in the middle of it!!!! It speaks to the history of the area and serves to connect the past with the future. Not to mention then it serves as an entertainment venue for the future C2S residents!

It's a shame that we're going to lose the place. I look and see, what an absolutely awesome thing to come back in 50 years and see an urban environment with a grain silo in the middle of it!!!! It speaks to the history of the area and serves to connect the past with the future. Not to mention then it serves as an entertainment venue for the future C2S residents!

Is this satire?

No. I think he is serious. I tend to agree with him.

i forget where i saw it, maybe natgeo, but somewhere in asia they are finishing building a whole city; skyscrapers and all for 60,000 ppl. took them 8 years. they throw skyscrapers up in 6 months. why would it take 10 years to do a convention center and what 35 years to implement everything? i dont get why it takes so long for things to get done in the u.s.

Yes, but the U.S. has worse credit and is not growing near the pace of China. We have higher building standards, not to mention, you're STILL missing the biggest factor. The funding for the project to come in from the sales tax. It will take several years to accumulate enough funds, then site feasibility studies, site selection, then we have to acquire the site, then blueprints and site prep are at least a years time (we learned that with Devon), and then construction of a MASSIVE building (2-3 years at least). This isn't building an Ideal Home in Edmond, this is a major construction project. FYI..They are still doing site prep work on ground zero in New York 8 years later....


[QUOTE=bombermwc;255738]Yeah, I wish they would keep the ClimbOKC (OKC Rocks) building. QUOTE]

You do realize there are no plans for that site, nor to tear it down, right?


For all you on the fence or naysayers of MAPS 3, I think one of your suburbanite counterparts in the comments section of Newsok.com said it best this morning (he still gets it, but can't vote. Love it!).

Sam, Oklahoma City: Look south of Moore, look MWC, look Norman.
All of this new development came after OKC began MAPS. When the tide comes in, all boats rise. Problem is that OKC citizens are paying to raise the tide for all the suburb boats. Let Moore, MWC, Edmond, Choctaw, Harrah, Bethany, Warr Acres, Village, Nichols Hills raise their tax rates for the benefit of all. Fat Chance.

Read more: NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-unveiled-maps-3-plan-today/article/3401748?custom_click=lead_story_title/#ixzz0RSsFaPI6)

i forget where i saw it, maybe natgeo, but somewhere in asia they are finishing building a whole city; skyscrapers and all for 60,000 ppl. took them 8 years. they throw skyscrapers up in 6 months. why would it take 10 years to do a convention center and what 35 years to implement everything? i dont get why it takes so long for things to get done in the u.s.

Because they build the projects as they get the money. $777 million over 7 years, 9 months (93 months) would come out to about $8.35 million per month. They will probably start with the land acquisition, the Central Park, MTP and then work their way down the list. Since the Ford Center took a little over three years to build, I would assume it will take them 4-5 years to build the new convention center. I think that is where the 9 year estimate comes from and it sounds about right.

Nice!

And it's not just the OKC suburbs... when OKC pays the tide even rises in Tulsa.
...sorry Tulsa.

i forget where i saw it, maybe natgeo, but somewhere in asia they are finishing building a whole city; skyscrapers and all for 60,000 ppl. took them 8 years. they throw skyscrapers up in 6 months. why would it take 10 years to do a convention center and what 35 years to implement everything? i dont get why it takes so long for things to get done in the u.s.

New Songdo City in South Korea.

New Songdo City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Songdo_City)

Home (http://www.songdo.com/)

I was being serious...no satire at all. Of course there are plenty folks that would say tear it down and forget about it. But think about it for a second. Yeah, it's not historical by any means really....so we're not talking a I.M. Pei type of bulldozing or anything.

BUT - It IS something unique and stands to be even more unique as time goes by. I believe it's Minneapolis that has a similar, albeit smaller, version of the same thing. Somewhere up north here.

I personally think it would be neat to see such a mix of urban/rural in a downtown like that. My only caveat would be that the place needs to be well maintained. They would need to continue to keep the place looking nice. And that won't really be difficult becaues the more people that move downtown, the more people that would frequent the business...and more often since it's so close. And if it's right next to the park, it serves to increase that traffic even more!

I just saw you post after i applied mine metro.

The only reason why I've been worried about it is because some of the maps proposals I've seen have different things on their lot.

We are truly fortunate to be in OKC right now. Frankly, our citizens are much more interested in improving their city than many Tulsans are.

I read the Tulsa World every day and it is astonishing how negatively Tulsans view their city government. That's even after the smashing success of things like the BOK Center and D-fest.

There is almost a perverse anti-government attitude there, and it's truly holding their city back.

I know it's not a done deal that MAPS 3 will pass, but I'm still bullish on OKC's citizens. They are truly becoming the most progressive in the state.

Not becoming, we have been the most progressive in the state for quite some time.

Looking at the central park PDF, I'm impressed. I've never been to Millenium Park, or any of the other places people have mentioned as inspiration. But this does remind me of one place with which I'm intimately familiar. It reminds me of the Washington Mall. The long, narrow layout. The reflecting pool. Iconic structures in the background. An overall sense of peace and tranquility in the middle of a low-rise city.

I can say from living in DC for several years, the Mall is a great place to relax. I spent many hours walking back and forth down there, relaxing and enjoying a break from the city. This looks like it could serve the same purpose in OKC.

Now, if only we could get some cultural exhibits along the side of the park. A natural history museum, a large aquarium, an outdoor ampitheater, public baseball fields. Converting Union Station into a museum on early OKC would be a wonderful idea. Things like this could turn the C2S area into something entirely different from the "entertainment district" of Bricktown.

I wish they would have included a key housing/school component that would serve as a draw to increase housing density downtown. Why do people move to suburbs? Housing and Schools. We should be focused on creating downtown living spaces that would be attractive to working professionals with children. We should also be focused on creating a state of the art school downtown like none seen in this state. Something very compelling that would make people want to live downtown so their children could attend with strict parent involvement and academic requirements (preferably a charter school).

We can build all the pretty infrastructure and green spaces we want, but if the goal is to create a densly populated urban environment, it will never happen unless there are attractive and affordable (less than 400K) housing (condos don't cut it) options supported by a top notch educational system in place. If these are not in place, our only hope is to cater to the small population of single working professionals that is a mobile population once they get married and have kids, which is at a fairly young age on average in OKC.

I wish they would have included a key housing/school component that would serve as a draw to increase housing density downtown. Why do people move to suburbs? Housing and Schools. We should be focused on creating downtown living spaces that would be attractive to working professionals with children. We should also be focused on creating a state of the art school downtown like none seen in this state. Something very compelling that would make people want to live downtown so their children could attend with strict parent involvement and academic requirements (preferably a charter school).

We can build all the pretty infrastructure and green spaces we want, but if the goal is to create a densly populated urban environment, it will never happen unless there are attractive and affordable (less than 400K) housing (condos don't cut it) options supported by a top notch educational system in place. If these are not in place, our only hope is to cater to the small population of single working professionals that is a mobile population once they get married and have kids, which is at a fairly young age on average in OKC.

Flyfish, I believe a school is going to be taken care of with Devon's TIF along with street and sidewalk resurfacing.

We are truly fortunate to be in OKC right now. Frankly, our citizens are much more interested in improving their city than many Tulsans are.

I read the Tulsa World every day and it is astonishing how negatively Tulsans view their city government. That's even after the smashing success of things like the BOK Center and D-fest.

There is almost a perverse anti-government attitude there, and it's truly holding their city back.

I know it's not a done deal that MAPS 3 will pass, but I'm still bullish on OKC's citizens. They are truly becoming the most progressive in the state.


This is always so fun to read when OKC makes waves: The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow - Index (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/)

Not to be a wet blanket on the party here, but I think this particular round of MAPS taxes will face the toughest battle of any of the prior rounds.

First, there will be the perception that the thrust of the proposals are to benefit a narrower group of people. Despite any marquee/specific uses, the park will be perceived as generally benefitting the presumed eventual downtown residential population - specifically the park and the transit issues. Prior MAPS issues dealt with making downtown a destination, and thus made the benefit highly tangible. Selling downtown-centric-lifestyle issues on the basis of making downtown more attractive may not close the deal.

Second, the longevity of the tax, combined with the length of time before we can hope to see a new convention center, may be a problem in the minds of those who see things as "out of sight, out of mind, never getting done." Not saying this is a proper view, but we're talking about a high-profile, high-expense project that won't begin to be complete until well-after Cornett et al are long out of office.

Third, this is a *ton* of projects to throw under one funding umbrella, and by the time these projects are realized, I can't help but suspect there will be strong suspicion that the entire list is perhaps on the ambitious side - implying more, longer taxation in the out-years to complete what this project couldn't.

Fourth, the economy. This is an obstacle that wasn't present in the previous MAPS issues, or at least nowhere near to the degree it is now. Whether the perception is accurate is less important than to acknowledge its presence, and that makes people cautious - especially when you're talking about a slate of projects sniffing the $1B range.

Lastly, and most importantly, the tone here (as I have noted before) is at times decidedly hostile toward the suburbs. If the advertisers behind MAPS put a similarly "urban vs suburban" spin, then the folks who will be paying the bulk of these sales taxes - those in the suburbs - it would be the ultimate demonstration of shooting oneself in the foot. As someone else in this thread eloquently stated, make sure it is spun as a willingness to offer the best of both worlds - urban and suburban living. Not one versus the other.

-soonerdave

We are truly fortunate to be in OKC right now. Frankly, our citizens are much more interested in improving their city than many Tulsans are.

I read the Tulsa World every day and it is astonishing how negatively Tulsans view their city government. That's even after the smashing success of things like the BOK Center and D-fest.

There is almost a perverse anti-government attitude there, and it's truly holding their city back.

I know it's not a done deal that MAPS 3 will pass, but I'm still bullish on OKC's citizens. They are truly becoming the most progressive in the state.

Those voices are a small minority in Tulsa, they are just very vocal, especially on the internet. These people have a very conservative radio station in Tulsa that makes money by inflaming them on a lot of wacko issues. But the station, KFAQ, has pretty low ratings overall is killed in the talk radio category by KRMG, which is often the top rated station in the market. KFAQ is something like 13th or 14th.

These people had their favorite son, Chris Medlock, run for mayor (again) and even with tying his name to the anti-Obama, anti-tax, birther and tea bag movements he only got 1/3 of the vote in the Republican primary. And that was against a very weak winning candidate in Dewey Bartlet Jr, whose greatest political accomplishment is being his father’s child (Dewey Sr, former US Senator). Medlock probably wouldn’t be able to pull over 20% in a general election, if he ever got there.

They yell loudly, but there aren’t very many of them. To read the Tulsa World comments you would think that Kathy Taylor is the most hated person in Tulsa, but in opinion polls her approval rating is over 60%. Before she declined to run for reelection, no one was going to run against her because it was pointless.

Most of the time I think OKC is fine the way it is. Then I go somewhere like St. Louis which I did last week. The area of downtown stretching from the Arch to Union Station along Market Street is amazing. Parks with all sorts of statues/fountains, hanging baskets of plants from the light poles, huge medians full of gigantic plants. When I see things like that I want OKC to do more improving of downtown and the surrounding areas and I'm more than willing to pay 1% to do it.

We can build all the pretty infrastructure and green spaces we want, but if the goal is to create a densly populated urban environment, OKC.

Right on........the images of the park appear to be thoughtless, large expanses of lawns, large expanses of gardens and long lengths of sidewalks. I know features and attractions can be added, but who is going to go down to this area if there are not the urban residents to use it?

It reminds me of the Myriad Gardens next to the Cox convention center, which is even closer to the Core, I would rarely see a dozen people there on a given day.

Right on........the images of the park appear to be thoughtless, large expanses of lawns, large expanses of gardens and long lengths of sidewalks. I know features and attractions can be added, but who is going to go down to this area if there are not the urban residents to use it?

It reminds me of the Myriad Gardens next to the Cox convention center, which is even closer to the Core, I would rarely see a dozen people there on a given day.

Good Lord, when do u go to the Myriad Gardens??? I've been there 3 times in the last 3 months and there were far more than that (and they weren't the drunk, schitzo types either!). Now, you go there in the middle of the afternoon on a 100 degree day and no, there aren't too many. Go on a weekend or a nice evening. Go there around Christmas for the lights.

I have no problems with the park design and understand they are the foundation of the plan and are easily changed. I would love to see a larger lake that can handle paddle boats. I would also love to see several fountains and such but those can come later. At first, I don't expect to see a lot of users. However, if significant urban apartments and condo's are built alongside the park, then I expect to see far more use with runners and biking going on. Its not all going to happen at once. The success will take time.

Not to be a wet blanket on the party here, but I think this particular round of MAPS taxes will face the toughest battle of any of the prior rounds.

....the tone here (as I have noted before) is at times decidedly hostile toward the suburbs. If the advertisers behind MAPS put a similarly "urban vs suburban" spin, then the folks who will be paying the bulk of these sales taxes - those in the suburbs - it would be the ultimate demonstration of shooting oneself in the foot. As someone else in this thread eloquently stated, make sure it is spun as a willingness to offer the best of both worlds - urban and suburban living. Not one versus the other.

-soonerdave

Perception is always important, but I think that anyone who tells people they meet that they live in Oklahoma City needs to understand that the core is the key to how our city is viewed by people from all around the country. When you think of NYC, do you think of Manhattan or Long Island? Dallas or Plano? Chicago or Lake Forest? Boston or Waltham? We can have the most wonderful suburbs in the country, but if our city is falling behind, we've lost something. That's what people have to understand. A downtown park in any city is not just for the nearby residents. It should be seen as a gathering place, a place that fosters community for all residents. What is happening in the park may be as important as the existence of the park. Millenium Park, which is often held up as a goal to which we should aspire, is for all the residents of Chicago, and used by many, many of them. That's how people who don't live downtown need to perceive it.

As far as transit goes, again, if you drop a rock in the downtown pool, the ripples spread to the edge. But remember, there is a plan to include commuter rail and a hub to this system. We cannot do it all at once, and the taxpayers of Oklahoma City might object to paying for rail so people from Norman and Edmond can ride to Oklahoma City more than they object to providing mass transit downtown.

As far as hostility towards the suburbs goes, again I think this is perception. There are forums for the suburbs on this board, and I doubt you'll note any hostility there. In the Oklahoma City forum, people are quite understandably focusing on the city. I believe we cannot survive as a progressive, forward moving city if we don't work on our downtown, and so that is where the focus of my interest lies, and perhaps of other people's as well. That's not hostility.

I wish they would have included a key housing/school component that would serve as a draw to increase housing density downtown. Why do people move to suburbs? Housing and Schools.


I'm pretty sure the funding is already set aside for a downtown school. MAPS for Kids supposively set some money aside as well as other funding sources.

Converting Union Station into a museum on early OKC would be a wonderful idea. Things like this could turn the C2S area into something entirely different from the "entertainment district" of Bricktown.

Don't be surprised if this is all you see in Union Station for awhile, a cultural or OKC History Museum, until C2S is well underway and the park is well visited, justifying other uses such as retail and restaurant. Also the "big rentals" are supposed to be located in the Union Station (such as bikes and other large items), the smaller rentals will be in the cafe bldg. in the front of the park.


Not to be a wet blanket on the party here, but I think this particular round of MAPS taxes will face the toughest battle of any of the prior rounds. Selling downtown-centric-lifestyle issues on the basis of making downtown more attractive may not close the deal.

Fourth, the economy. This is an obstacle that wasn't present in the previous MAPS issues, or at least nowhere near to the degree it is now. Whether the perception is accurate is less important than to acknowledge its presence, and that makes people cautious - especially when you're talking about a slate of projects sniffing the $1B range.

Lastly, and most importantly, the tone here (as I have noted before) is at times decidedly hostile toward the suburbs. If the advertisers behind MAPS put a similarly "urban vs suburban" spin, then the folks who will be paying the bulk of these sales taxes - those in the suburbs - it would be the ultimate demonstration of shooting oneself in the foot. As someone else in this thread eloquently stated, make sure it is spun as a willingness to offer the best of both worlds - urban and suburban living. Not one versus the other.

-soonerdave

As betts pointed out, this is PERCEPTION, not reality. If you were at the meeting yesterday, or listened to Mayor Cornett on the News or on City Channel 20, you would have CLEARLY seen him focusing on talking about how this is not like the other MAPS projects and will not be an easy sell. We are not in dire straights like we were 16 years ago. I think this is your perception of how you think it's been "marketed", however everyone involved, especially the Chamber and City realize this and have and will be marketing it aggressively with that in mind, and will be educating the public on the benefits and details.

About the economy, you do have a strong point on the national economy, but ITS BECAUSE OF MAPS 1 and MAPS FOR KIDS that we're ONE of TWO "RECESSION PROOF CITIES" in America (source: Forbes). We wouldn't be in such great shape during this bad economy if it wasn't for the MAPS program. We want this momentum to continue and not stagnate. Business doesn't become complacent, it goes to where is thriving. The economy locally is doing quite well actually, it's the national economy that is doing bad and that most people locally focus on. Again, the people that matter (Mayor, Chamber, etc.) are well aware and will educate the public on this.

Perception is always important, but I think that anyone who tells people they meet that they live in Oklahoma City needs to understand that the core is the key to how our city is viewed by people from all around the country. When you think of NYC, do you think of Manhattan or Long Island? Dallas or Plano? Chicago or Lake Forest? Boston or Waltham? We can have the most wonderful suburbs in the country, but if our city is falling behind, we've lost something. That's what people have to understand. A downtown park in any city is not just for the nearby residents. It should be seen as a gathering place, a place that fosters community for all residents. What is happening in the park may be as important as the existence of the park. Millenium Park, which is often held up as a goal to which we should aspire, is for all the residents of Chicago, and used by many, many of them. That's how people who don't live downtown need to perceive it.

As far as transit goes, again, if you drop a rock in the downtown pool, the ripples spread to the edge. But remember, there is a plan to include commuter rail and a hub to this system. We cannot do it all at once, and the taxpayers of Oklahoma City might object to paying for rail so people from Norman and Edmond can ride to Oklahoma City more than they object to providing mass transit downtown.

As far as hostility towards the suburbs goes, again I think this is perception. There are forums for the suburbs on this board, and I doubt you'll note any hostility there. In the Oklahoma City forum, people are quite understandably focusing on the city. I believe we cannot survive as a progressive, forward moving city if we don't work on our downtown, and so that is where the focus of my interest lies, and perhaps of other people's as well. That's not hostility.

Bravo!!! Well said! Perception is WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE, BUT IS NOT REALITY NECESSARILY. People fail to realize the suburbs fail without a successful downtown, and it's at the cost of OKC that Moore, Norman, Bethany, Warr Acres, Village, MWC, Edmond, etc. succeed. If suburbanites want the suburbs to stagnate, vote no. Suburbs don't have the resources necessary to thrive without a healthy CORE of a major city. Show me ANY healthy, thriving, successful suburb without a thriving CORE/Downtown area that it feeds off of, you won't find it. Detroit has nice suburbs, but you don't hear anyone talking about it, look how crappy it's downtown and business environment/economy is too.

I personally thought that the powers that be were very careful to be inclusive in this version of MAPs. With the finishing of the bike trails, more sidewalks and the senior centers (very savvy move that). Of course it does not include the suburbs because this is a city tax. If we ever talk about a county or counties government then we can start talking about a MAPs for the suburbs.

I started to snip in some of the salient responses to my post, but it got way too long...

First...I'm not at all saying that this has been marketed in an adversarial way; I think our mayor is too smart for that. If that's what it sounded like I was suggesting, my apologies. I was saying that it would be a mistake for them to do so, because the suburb folks will be paying the bulk of this tax, evil folk we are. There is, however, a clearly anti-suburbanite tone from some of the posters here, and that's off-putting. I have no quarrel with anyone who chooses to live downtown. I would hope the urban folks would not quarrel, or seem condescending, to those of us who are happy in the suburbs.

Second...I'm not sure I'm ready to ascribe our "recession endurability" to MAPS. Oklahoma's economy has always operated in a roughly inverse manner to that of the national economy. We're not as heavily manfuacturing-based as others, say, in the upper midwest. I've grown up in Oklahoma, and have seen several nationwide recessions of varying degrees not impact Oklahoma as severely. Surely not suggesting MAPS hasn't been good to this point, but that specific cause-and-effect is not one I"m ready to assent.

Third, as for "the suburbs fail without an urban core (paraphrase)", and I'm going to toss that one on its ear - the suburbs, particularly in the OKC area, came into existence and thrived BECAUSE of downtown neglect and/or poor public policy. My mom, who grew up back when downtown OKC was a thriving area, talked about how I.M. Pei just tore it to shreds, and people started leaving downtown. There hasn't been a thriving, core residential presence in downtown OKC in, what, five or more decades, and that surely hasn't hurt the suburbs.

Fourth, please keep in mind that when it comes to advertising, perception IS reality. If people believe the banks are unsound, and start a run, even if they're perfectly sound, perception is going to rule. If the perception is that the urbans and the suburbanites are being pitted against each other, its a mistake. As I said above, I don't think that's going to happen. They must take special care to avoid that, too.

One quote: "Of course this doesn't include the suburbs because it is a city tax." This is precisely what I'm talking about above. You're in a suburb, you're not "in" on this one. Sorry to point this out, but the folks in the suburbs are going to be the ones to pay this $700+ million tax over the next near-decade. I am in a suburb within OKC, not Moore, not Edmond, not Bethany, not any of those places. I do most of my business in OKC shops and restaurants, and so do the bulk of my neighbors. So, despite my title as suburanite, I am most certainly "in" on paying this tax.

I supported the original MAPS, and am likely to support this one as well...we'll just have to see as more details unfold.
-soonerdave

Not to be a wet blanket on the party here, but I think this particular round of MAPS taxes will face the toughest battle of any of the prior rounds.

First, there will be the perception that the thrust of the proposals are to benefit a narrower group of people. Despite any marquee/specific uses, the park will be perceived as generally benefitting the presumed eventual downtown residential population - specifically the park and the transit issues. Prior MAPS issues dealt with making downtown a destination, and thus made the benefit highly tangible. Selling downtown-centric-lifestyle issues on the basis of making downtown more attractive may not close the deal.

Second, the longevity of the tax, combined with the length of time before we can hope to see a new convention center, may be a problem in the minds of those who see things as "out of sight, out of mind, never getting done." Not saying this is a proper view, but we're talking about a high-profile, high-expense project that won't begin to be complete until well-after Cornett et al are long out of office.

Third, this is a *ton* of projects to throw under one funding umbrella, and by the time these projects are realized, I can't help but suspect there will be strong suspicion that the entire list is perhaps on the ambitious side - implying more, longer taxation in the out-years to complete what this project couldn't.

Fourth, the economy. This is an obstacle that wasn't present in the previous MAPS issues, or at least nowhere near to the degree it is now. Whether the perception is accurate is less important than to acknowledge its presence, and that makes people cautious - especially when you're talking about a slate of projects sniffing the $1B range.

Lastly, and most importantly, the tone here (as I have noted before) is at times decidedly hostile toward the suburbs. If the advertisers behind MAPS put a similarly "urban vs suburban" spin, then the folks who will be paying the bulk of these sales taxes - those in the suburbs - it would be the ultimate demonstration of shooting oneself in the foot. As someone else in this thread eloquently stated, make sure it is spun as a willingness to offer the best of both worlds - urban and suburban living. Not one versus the other.

-soonerdave

SoonerDave,

Don't worry, the mayor and others understand this. It's not true that these projects only benefit a narrow segment. The current proposals have many things that will benefit the entire city.

I realize you're speaking about perceptions, and it's true that perception is often more important than reality in politics, but we have some pretty good salesmen running MAPS and a compelling case to make. Let's "continue the momentum."

The mayor has it right when he says these projects will capture our "imagination." I think he's right. Most people won't overanalyze park square footage and obscure planning nuances when casting their vote. They'll just say, "Wow, this seems pretty cool and it won't raise my taxes."


Most residents of OKC, when surveyed, think the city does a good job with such services as garbage, parks, police and fire, utilities, etc. They are inclined to trust the city, and the MAPS brand is popular. While it's true, as Cornett says, voters won't "rubber stamp" another MAPS project, it's also true that MAPS has made people feel really good about the city, and MAPS gets the credit for it. That is powerful.

In order for this to fail, the opposition will have to be more motivated and well-financed than the supporters. That's not going to be happen.

We might have some angry people yelling about socialism and mass transit, but the majority of OKLAHOMA CITY citizens will vote for MAPS. It is, after all, Oklahoma City residents who vote on MAPS, not Edmondites, and even if people in Edmond could vote, I think they would support it, too.

This will not be pitched as an urban vs. suburban thing. That would be insane. All the same, OKC is very lucky in that its suburban residents, for the most part, have been very supportive of MAPS -- and very supportive of the city improving its downtown core. I don't believe that has changed.

As Mick Cornett himself said: "You can't be a suburb of nothing." That we have thriving suburbs is because the engine of our economy, the city, is doing well. I think our suburban residents understand this.

Sadly, many voters in places like Owasso, Broken Arrow, and Bixby don't seem to get this concept in Tulsa. As far as they are concerned, downtown Tulsa can rot and wither away. Just read any issue of the Tulsa World and check out the comments after the articles. It's really sad. We're lucky we don't have that problem here.

Those voices are a small minority in Tulsa, they are just very vocal, especially on the internet. These people have a very conservative radio station in Tulsa that makes money by inflaming them on a lot of wacko issues. But the station, KFAQ, has pretty low ratings overall is killed in the talk radio category by KRMG, which is often the top rated station in the market. KFAQ is something like 13th or 14th.

These people had their favorite son, Chris Medlock, run for mayor (again) and even with tying his name to the anti-Obama, anti-tax, birther and tea bag movements he only got 1/3 of the vote in the Republican primary. And that was against a very weak winning candidate in Dewey Bartlet Jr, whose greatest political accomplishment is being his father’s child (Dewey Sr, former US Senator). Medlock probably wouldn’t be able to pull over 20% in a general election, if he ever got there.

They yell loudly, but there aren’t very many of them. To read the Tulsa World comments you would think that Kathy Taylor is the most hated person in Tulsa, but in opinion polls her approval rating is over 60%. Before she declined to run for reelection, no one was going to run against her because it was pointless.

This is interesting to hear. I hope you're right. I do business in Tulsa and I hear a lot of the negative stuff from people I wouldn't expect to hear it from.

If what you say is the case, though, why does the city seem to have such a tough time passing voter initiatives?

I hear endless prattling about how "dangerous" downtown Tulsa is, how Kathy Taylor has screwed everything up, etc.

On the other hand, the under 40 set in Tulsa is totally different. Very upbeat, positive and progressive. It's truly bizarre. Total generation gap.

New Songdo City in South Korea.

New Songdo City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Songdo_City)

Home (http://www.songdo.com/)

wow, thanks. ive been looking for that forever and never could find it.
you guys are right with everything you said regarding my first comment. i guess its just a little frustration on my part because of the excitement i have for all these grand ideas for the city. i see myself old and gray and not really getting a chance to enjoy the fruits of our taxes when some of these projects are done.

Well, to speed things along, I suppose they could get a wild hair and propose an extra 2 cent temp sales tax to go along with the extension of the longstanding MAPS 1 cent tax, but talk about yer hard sell at the polls .... sheesh.

But oh wouldn't it speak volumes if the good folks did get behind such a commitment.
Not happening, but it would speak volumes.

Well, to speed things along, I suppose they could get a wild hair and propose an extra 2 cent temp sales tax to go along with the extension of the longstanding MAPS 1 cent tax, but talk about yer hard sell at the polls .... sheesh.

But oh wouldn't it speak volumes if the good folks did get behind such a commitment.
Not happening, but it would speak volumes.

I'd vote yes. Seriously. How long is the temp? I think it would objectively hurt the local economy (people shopping more in Warr Acres, e.g.), but I'd totally do it. I'm not going to miss an extra, what, $200/yr spread out over 24 paychecks.

I was thinking about this last night, and what I remembered is that when this country was first founded, all villages had a town square or common. Each village knew that it was important to have a central open space that belonged to all. This is what we are lacking, and it too will belong to all and, if planned right, will be a gathering space for our entire community.

I also hope every single person who will vote for or against MAPS goes downtown and drives the Core to Shore area and imagines that park. I think unless you know precisely what is there now, you cannot appreciate what this could mean for our city.

I do still wonder what the plan is for what will be displaced, assuming there is a plan yet.
Certainly there's a lot of blight that will simply be toppled and replaced, but there's also a lot of activity regarding the shelters.

Any word on where the shelters will go?

I also hope every single person who will vote for or against MAPS goes downtown and drives the Core to Shore area and imagines that park. I think unless you know precisely what is there now, you cannot appreciate what this could mean for our city.

Great idea! I will definitely do that, probably more than once.

I should have said I hope everybody goes down and walks the Core to Shore area:tongue:. Even driving, it takes a while to encompass the area. I've not walked it, but I suspect I'd be even more impressed with the scale if I had.

I wouldn't recommend walking unless you do it in a large group...it's pretty sketchy down there.

Yeah, I've driven through there a couple of times. I wouldn't walk it. Just driving through it should give you a good idea as far as why we need something like C2S.

Sorry fellas,

Until they get that area developed, I would drive through there in an armored tank!