I did it on a bicycle after dark once...and will never do so again.

Come on fellas, yeah it's shady and desolate, but it's not that bad. The Matt Hoffman Action Sports Park is over that way and so are the river trails. I see plenty of legitimate people over there. Now, I'm not saying the area doesn't have plenty of problems, but an armored tank, large group, guns? - NO, would I lock my car doors - YES

There are worse areas, far worse, with much higher propensities of violence, within OKC proper than the C2S area.

Might not wanna oversell the danger aspects, lest folks tie it to the shelters, you know, those facilities that are gonna end up going somewhere else if M3 passes? No need to awaken the NIMBY crowds if yer for this thang. If yer not, well, fergit I wrote anything.

Bricktown used to be pretty shady at night. Look at what MAPS 1 did to Bricktown. MAPS 3 can change those areas for the better.

Wow, the area really isn't that bad. It's legend on the Internet is growing....

Yeh, the area is not that bad at all...

Though I will say that riding a bike through the railroad underpasses is wild. It is surprisingly dark and you have to weave in and out of mattresses, all the while wondering whether one might be occupied.

OKC voters exclusively share opinions on MAPS 3 options | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4716/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

OKC voters exclusively share opinions on MAPS 3 options | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4716/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

The two most surprising things in this article are:

"A plan for a downtown park gained 36 percents, while 45 percent opposed. With a price tag of $130 million, the 70-acre park is one of the highlighted projects, but it's lack of support may come from its location. 'A lot of the city isn't touched by this. That's why the support is more broad-based for general outdoor improvements,' Gaddie said. If they are going to pay taxes, they want it to go to services that will come out to them."

and

"One other demographic to consider if the election is close is African-Americans, of which 54% support extending the tax."

Considering just how important green spaces are in many of the big cities in the US and Europe, I wonder if many of the people polled simply haven't traveled much. Compared to other cities I have lived in, city parks, perhaps with the exception of Lake Hefner, don't seem regarded by people who live here as a destination on the weekends or evenings. Maybe the concept of such a park is too foreign to appeal.

And, hopefully, if the above poll data is true, advocates of this bill campaign effectively in the African-American population.

I also think job creation is one item, especially in this economy, that can appeal to a different demographic than those likely to vote in favor of the proposals.

Actually betts, my guess on the 'a park, so what?' crowd is they may well see it as a larger version of several other smaller parks: not highly maintained, less than savory elements hanging out in facilities, trails and bushes and unsafe to bring your tots.

It's not that the parks are in fact filled with hoodlums, druggies, ho's, woe's, pimps and kiddie snatchers. It's that when people hear a bad story on a park, it sticks and folks do not always distinguish one troubled area from another.

That the new park borders an area lots of peeps have an initial misconception of won't ease them issue.

This won't be an easy sell to the masses. I think it likely will sell, though only barely, and as the mayor already noted, it's no cakewalk between now and December.

Actually betts, my guess on the 'a park, so what?' crowd is they may well see it as a larger version of several other smaller parks: not highly maintained, less than savory elements hanging out in facilities, trails and bushes and unsafe to bring your tots.

It's not that the parks are in fact filled with hoodlums, druggies, ho's, woe's, pimps and kiddie snatchers. It's that when people hear a bad story on a park, it sticks and folks do not always distinguish one troubled area from another.

That the new park borders an area lots of peeps have an initial misconception of won't ease them issue.

This won't be an easy sell to the masses. I think it likely will sell, though only barely, and as the mayor already noted, it's no cakewalk between now and December.

Excellent point. Thus the reason the mass clearing of the area is vital to the success of the park. A park surrounded by what is there now will, no doubt, become the home to the various follks you mentioned above. The city MUST do a good job of setting this park as an example of a highly safe and people-friendly place that is not beset by people you wouldn't want your children around.

No one is going to go in there and clean the area, raze the buildings, close the shelters, relocate the shelter clients, chase off the homeless in the area, etc., etc., etc. anytime soon, certainly not before there is a vote in early December.

The value and potential of the park will absolutely have to be sold on what it can be, not putting something pretty in the midst of the misery that is there and in the surrounding several blocks at this time.

That bit of marketing is going to take a lot of face to face time, friend to friend, co-worker to co-worker, neighbor to neighbor, church bud to church bud, barfly to barfly, and stranger to stranger. Some commercials and a pretty website picture won't come close to bringing it off in my opinion.

kevin, while you have valid points and I agree, you will be surprised that a large number of voters in this country, and especially this state, simply vote on 2 things. TV ads and name recognition. It's been statistically proven many times. Don't believe me? Look at the clowns that keep getting re-elected to Washington, while the same people complain about them.

No surprise, as most sheeple don't connect a politico to their pocketbook, something that many count on actually.

But consider if the loudest voice tells them - do you want to pay for a park in an already (perceived) scary scary neighborhood for the pimps and hoe's to share their drugs and woes in, or do you want to say NO MO! and see your TAXES GO DOWN a bit.

OKC only has one councilperson on record as it's a bad idea, but let the hate all taxes crowd get riled up and the proponents will end up using timea nd treasury on arguing 'it's not a new tax' instead of arguing the value of the program

All in all, I do think it will pass, so long as folks, not just leaders, but every day folks, work it and work it fairly strong.

Yet I also believe even a fairly minor level of complacency could see it defeated, barely so, but barely counts in an election such as this.

A lot of the proposals fall into, in many minds, wishes, and not needs. Lots of wishes get left on the shelf in tough times, so persuading voters why there are needs, not wants, has to happen. otherwise, too many may decide they want their temp tax to finally come to an end. And I don't believe that is in the best interest of OKC.

kevin, while you have valid points and I agree, you will be surprised that a large number of voters in this country, and especially this state, simply vote on 2 things. TV ads and name recognition. It's been statistically proven many times. Don't believe me? Look at the clowns that keep getting re-elected to Washington, while the same people complain about them.

Exactly. How do you think Ernest Istook got re-elected so many times? If it wasn't for him, we'd already have a railed trolley or street car system downtown. The federal money was there......he voted it down, in favor of giving it to Salt Lake City.

do you want to pay for a park in an already (perceived) scary scary neighborhood for the pimps and hoe's to share their drugs and woes in, or do you want to say NO MO! and see your TAXES GO DOWN a bit.

But building the park and instituting the whole Core to Shore program will change the area, just as it did with Bricktown, and all of downtown. Before 1992 and MAPS I, downtown OKC was a desolate scary place at night. Now, it's a vibrant busy place at night. We have an opportunity to really change that entire area.

And big deal about our taxes going down a whole penny on the dollar. By the way, we pay 8% in every other suburb city around OKC.


OKC only has one councilperson on record as it's a bad idea, but let the hate all taxes crowd get riled up and the proponents will end up using timea nd treasury on arguing 'it's not a new tax' instead of arguing the value of the program

That's happened in the past. And, it's private money donated to the chamber for the campaign, so who cares how much they spend...it's their money if they want to spend it arguing the value of the program.

I think as long as people know they're going to get all of this and their taxes won't be raised, it won't be a problem.


A lot of the proposals fall into, in many minds, wishes, and not needs. Lots of wishes get left on the shelf in tough times, so persuading voters why there are needs, not wants, has to happen. otherwise, too many may decide they want their temp tax to finally come to an end. And I don't believe that is in the best interest of OKC.

All of MAPS 1 was wishes and not needs. We didn't have to build the Bricktown canal. We didn't have to build a new downtown library. We didn't have to renovate Civic Center. We didn't have to dam up the river. We didn't have to build the Bricktown Ballpark......we don't have to have a minor league baseball team. We didn't have to pay for the downtown trolleys.

There's a lot of stuff we don't have to do. But, this place would sure be a dump and quality of life would suck if we only did the things we really need to do.

Why the big deal of Walters opposition? I may vote yes on MAPS 3, but I don't like the attitude that all must have a lockstep attitude about it.

Also, if it's too soon to talk about specifics, why the rush to the election? Maybe they could have had some good public input, laid out more specifics and THEN set the date for an election. That's what we expect in state government; and what about DC? The conservatives go crazy in Washington if the current administration does anything at all without details and specifics. But here, it's a good way to run the local government?

My biggest problem is the lockstep mode we are supposed to kick into and if not, we are accused of not wanting the city to move forward and all of that. That's ridiculous, we all love OKC, we might have differences in how certain things are done. We shouldn't be shamed into supporting another MAPS 3, we should look at the proposals carefully and not feel a sense that we MUST support this or else.....

I may vote yes on MAPS 3, but I don't like the attitude that all must have a lockstep attitude about it.

No one implied this. Geez. The reason people are hacked off at Walters is he misleads his own constituents by suggesting MAPS has any import on things such as roads. It's a red herring.

Either he is intentionally misleading his constituents or he's too dumb to understand. I'm thinking it's the latter.

He doesn't seem to take his role of counselor very seriously.

No one implied this. Geez. The reason people are hacked off at Walters is he misleads his own constituents by suggesting MAPS has any import on things such as roads. It's a red herring.

Either he is intentionally misleading his constituents or he's too dumb to understand. I'm thinking it's the latter.

He doesn't seem to take his role of counselor very seriously.

He is a dumbass...but even a VCR flashing 12:00 ,is right 2 times a day..lol

Patrick, we're talking opposite sides of the same coin I think. I'm not even in disagreement with the general nature of your points. I'm simply noting it isn't 1993, life is far more polarized and more and more folks who used to gladly either move along with the sheeple or bleat quietly in a pasture corner now seek out media, carry bullhorns and consider it a sacred duty to fight against progress or anything that resembles a higher tax.

They're far less a lil' bitty minority, and several sub groups that still are find solace in anti-tax anything.

If there is confusion, none of the M3 items give me major heartburn. But I pick up a sense, here and elsewhere, that some thing it is so obvious a good thing there are not many worries.

I just think the way to assure matters for the pro M3 crowd is to begin, now, to work the issues as though you're 7+ points behind in the hearts and minds.

When I see anyone, not picking on you at all, but anyone take the stance that this is like or better than M1, which was fairly close as I recall, relying on a BT district with many empty buildings and many failed businesses in its wake isn't one of the stronger cheers out there.

I truly am not trying to knock anything on M3. But I have lived through campaigns heavy early on with complacency, and know that result can bit hard if something good is edged out.

I'm just suggesting proponents should take absolutely nothing and no one for granted as, while I may be wrong, I expect more organized opposition this go around.

You guys like the 3/4 penny per 1$ extension for 9 years,or the current 1cent/1$ ext.for 7 yrs.----one would actually drop taxes from the current level, if we were to extend the current 1cent/1$ tax??????

Patrick, we're talking opposite sides of the same coin I think. I'm not even in disagreement with the general nature of your points. I'm simply noting it isn't 1993, life is far more polarized and more and more folks who used to gladly either move along with the sheeple or bleat quietly in a pasture corner now seek out media, carry bullhorns and consider it a sacred duty to fight against progress or anything that resembles a higher tax.

They're far less a lil' bitty minority, and several sub groups that still are find solace in anti-tax anything.

If there is confusion, none of the M3 items give me major heartburn. But I pick up a sense, here and elsewhere, that some thing it is so obvious a good thing there are not many worries.

I just think the way to assure matters for the pro M3 crowd is to begin, now, to work the issues as though you're 7+ points behind in the hearts and minds.

When I see anyone, not picking on you at all, but anyone take the stance that this is like or better than M1, which was fairly close as I recall, relying on a BT district with many empty buildings and many failed businesses in its wake isn't one of the stronger cheers out there.

I truly am not trying to knock anything on M3. But I have lived through campaigns heavy early on with complacency, and know that result can bit hard if something good is edged out.

I'm just suggesting proponents should take absolutely nothing and no one for granted as, while I may be wrong, I expect more organized opposition this go around.

May I remind everyone that Oklahoma City's economic condition was worse in 1993 than it is today. For starters, our per capita income alone in 1993 was only 89% of the national average, whereas today it is clearly above the national average.

That pretty much throws the "current economic conditions" argument right out of the window. Stop treating the economy like it's a static property for goodness sake.

I think an important point needs to be made. I don't think people are upset because walters opposes . MAPS. He is entitled to his opinion. However, walters is doing more than opposing. Through his actions he is trying to block the citizens of OKC from voting on the issue.

He didn't vote no for MAPS, he voted no to even allow the council to bring the proposal to the people.

I've also yet to hear walters make a sound arguement on why he oppose the proposal so much.

After listening to him and mark shannon yesterday it is pretty clear he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on what is going on. Imo he doesn't even seem to have strong beliefs behind his opposition. He's just against this.

Is an audio/video of the Walters/Shannon conversation available? I'd like to hear it if it is.

I own a very popular business in far south OKC and think i have a pretty good feel for the pulse of our part of the city and I can tell you without a doubt that Walters is seen as an election day mistake that is in over his head.

In a form of government that is all about consensus and coalition building (majority vote wins) he has polarized himself and alienated himself from the other council members. He has virtually no influence and has left south OKC without adequate representation.

He has opposed every issue involving taxes since taking office including the Ford Center vote and the 2007 bond issue. I have been told by a very reliable source that serious dollars meant for south OKC were left on the table because of his refusal to support that issue.

His term can't end soon enough...

I think an important point needs to be made. I don't think people are upset because walters opposes . MAPS. He is entitled to his opinion. However, walters is doing more than opposing. Through his actions he is trying to block the citizens of OKC from voting on the issue.

He didn't vote no for MAPS, he voted no to even allow the council to bring the proposal to the people.

I've also yet to hear walters make a sound arguement on why he oppose the proposal so much.

After listening to him and mark shannon yesterday it is pretty clear he doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on what is going on. Imo he doesn't even seem to have strong beliefs behind his opposition. He's just against this.

Yup. I even wrote him an email even though I live on the northside urging him that, although his individual opinion is fine and he can vote no all he wants, to attempt to keep this from a public vote (or using his position to influence individual voters) is inappropriate.

Wow, my husband just told me he did the same thing. Your'e not my husband are you?

Wow, my husband just told me he did the same thing. Your'e not my husband are you?

I'm not sure...you're probably feeling pretty neglected if I am! Need anything from the store on my way home from work, hun?? :tiphat:

Walters reminds me of Whinehart... pun intended

I'm no civil engineer or construction expert, so let me ask a potentially dumb question: why in the world is it going to take 10 years to complete the convention center? It took us just a little more than one year to complete the Empire State Building. I'm assuming the majority of time will be spent in purchasing the land, clearing it, and solving legal issues. Still, 10 years seems ridiculous to my layman's mind.

I think part of that might have to do with the rate at which the funds are collected and distributed for different projects at different priority levels.

For example, I think that the transit element will happen first because the Devon TIF money will be spent on streets starting next year. It will be important to put the project first so that the streets are renovated once, not twice. Obviously, there may be opportunities to "stretch the dollar" is projects are carefully coordinated.

Second, the sales tax revenues generate between 90 - 100 million a year. Contracts will probably be awarded as the funds become available.

So I think that the timing of the convention center will be further out because of funds collections and project coordination.

I think part of that might have to do with the rate at which the funds are collected and distributed for different projects at different priority levels.

For example, I think that the transit element will happen first because the Devon TIF money will be spent on streets starting next year. It will be important to put the project first so that the streets are renovated once, not twice. Obviously, there may be opportunities to "stretch the dollar" is projects are carefully coordinated.

Second, the sales tax revenues generate between 90 - 100 million a year. Contracts will probably be awarded as the funds become available.

So I think that the timing of the convention center will be further out because of funds collections and project coordination.


Yea my thoughts as well..

Yup. I even wrote him an email even though I live on the northside urging him that, although his individual opinion is fine and he can vote no all he wants, to attempt to keep this from a public vote (or using his position to influence individual voters) is inappropriate.

You don't think Mick Cornett is not using his position to influence individual voters? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Walters is a great councilman, but he has every right to use his position to influence voters against MAPS 3 as the others do in support of it. I also honestly believe it took guts to buck the horseshoe and all those who can't wait to once again use public money to fix things up for their friends to come in and profit from it all.

You don't think Mick Cornett is not using his position to influence individual voters? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Walters is a great councilman, but he has every right to use his position to influence voters against MAPS 3 as the others do in support of it. I also honestly believe it took guts to buck the horseshoe and all those who can't wait to once again use public money to fix things up for their friends to come in and profit from it all.

First, there is nothing wrong with someone making a "profit" from MAPS. Thats called capitalism. Perhaps you feel there was some sort of graft and "profiteering" that has gone on. If you do, please give us some examples so that we can try to avoid it in MAPS 3? There's a great difference between profit and profiteering. Careful who you accuse of profiteering.......

You don't think Mick Cornett is not using his position to influence individual voters? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Walters is a great councilman, but he has every right to use his position to influence voters against MAPS 3 as the others do in support of it. I also honestly believe it took guts to buck the horseshoe and all those who can't wait to once again use public money to fix things up for their friends to come in and profit from it all.

This is the concept I have a problem with. Can we not look at these projects from an objective point of view and decide if they benefit the citizens of Oklahoma City? Every single thing that gets built anywhere benefits someone. If nothing else, there's a contractor who gets the job and makes money from it. So what? If I benefit from it, if it's something I can enjoy, if it helps my city become a better place in which to live, I could care less if someone makes money from those improvements. Should we deny ourselves just so someone doesn't profit? That sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Personally, I think many of the proposed projects are good for Oklahoma City, and I consider them good for me and my family. That's why I'll vote for them. I'll be thrilled to see a blighted part of Oklahoma City become beautiful and, if someone makes some money, that's fine with me.

A good part of the world doesn't see urban planning that way. But, this is Oklahoma, heart of conservatism and profit before only God, or maybe it's the other way around? Forget I mentioned it.

Actually, I'm neither conservative nor pro profit for profit's sake. I'm simply pro Oklahoma City, and I make my decisions based on what I think will benefit the city and, selfishly, me. I don't see leaving blight alone just so someone doesn't profit as urban planning.

I'm liberal and have no problem with someone making good money for doing good work. Admittedly, I was not pleased with the Bass Pro deal -- at all. But MAPS is a proven winner for OKC and the contractors who win the bids to do these projects have every right to make a profit.

I'm liberal and have no problem with someone making good money for doing good work. Admittedly, I was not pleased with the Bass Pro deal -- at all. But MAPS is a proven winner for OKC and the contractors who win the bids to do these projects have every right to make a profit.

The part of Bass Pro that angers me the most is how they didn't require Bass Pro to integrate the building in with the canal at all. The back of Bass Pro should have been against the canal with the parking lot in front. Instead, you have parking lot bordering the canal. The canal should be closely bordered by buildings the way the San Antonio canal is to help cut the wind and to help keep it cooler in the summer.

I'm liberal and have no problem with someone making good money for doing good work. Admittedly, I was not pleased with the Bass Pro deal -- at all. But MAPS is a proven winner for OKC and the contractors who win the bids to do these projects have every right to make a profit.

While the Bass Pro deal was a little sketchy, it really is kind of okay because the city owns the building still and if Bass Pro is ever out they can find their own way to reuse it or tear it down without acquiring property to build something new.

The back of Bass Pro shouldn't have faced the canal. The back of any building should face away from the canal; otherwise, the pedestrian relation to the canal is lost.

You don't think Mick Cornett is not using his position to influence individual voters? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Walters is a great councilman, but he has every right to use his position to influence voters against MAPS 3 as the others do in support of it. I also honestly believe it took guts to buck the horseshoe and all those who can't wait to once again use public money to fix things up for their friends to come in and profit from it all.


As I posted earlier I don't think anyone has a problem with Councilman Walter being against MAPS. He certainly is entitled to his opinion and will get his chance to vote on the issue. I think most people have a problem with him voting no to even send it to a vote of the people. Walters is not just being against MAPS, his actions are trying to block the citizens of OKC from even voting on MAPS.

According to the Gazette poll 48% of his district is already in favor of MAPS and they don't have a lot of info on it. It doesn't sound like he is really representing his district.

Also, I've yet to hear Walter put together a sound arguement for his opposition either.