I have a question SoonerDave. How will the suburbanites be paying a "lion's share" of this tax? I'm not sure what you mean, so please elaborate. Suburbs rely on the city. Remember that. What's good for the city is good for the suburbs.

There are substantial portions of the suburbs (and population) that roll well within what will be the OKC voting boundaries for this tax, and those who live in the voting and non-voting "near-OKC" areas but do business within the city will represent a substantial if not majority portion of this tax.

This was recgonized in the MAPS for Kids program, wherein a portion (I believe it was 30%?) of the proceeds were distributed to several suburban school districts.

I must say that it was impressive that at the time of the press conference only one council member was not on record of supporting the proposal. Only J. Brian Walters (Ward 5) was unaccounted for. I haven't gone back to look, but I don't recall that the MAPS 1 proposal had such near unanimity of council support, but I may be mistaken about that. Certainly the MAPS 1 extension during Mayor Humphreys' term did not.

I have no hope for OKC anymore, after seeing a news 9 poll where most people said they would be voting no.

I will be voting yes on this, because I'm tired of seeing OKC look like the slums between the river and 29th street around Robinson.

However, if this doesn't get passed and this city doesn't move forward, then I have no hope that this city will go anywhere.

OKC needs to look good, not horrible with vacant duck ponds on Walker.

megax, don't give up. as I pointed to soonerdave, you're putting the wagon before the horse. MAPS 3 isn't even a legitimate program until the council votes to approve it being an official campaign at the end of the month. THEN, if passed (likely), the OKC Chamber will start promoting it. Give it time and in the meantime, spread the word and debunk some myths in your sphere of influence.

Your opinions are duly noted. If you've read what I've written, here and in the blog article, you will know that you are not stating my position accurately at all. And, thanks for your courteous reply.

Wow, Doug, you were a lot more polite than I would have been. His reply to you was pretty blunt.

Though I do have to say I understand both sides here. On the one hand, I think that you're right that Mick Cornett didn't exactly live up to his promise that the public would be included in the planning stages on this. I certainly understood his statement to mean that there would be public meetings where everything was discussed and gone over in a transparent, above-board fashion. Instead, the first we really hear about it is with a big, already complete presentation. That said, there was obviously some backroom politics going on here to get the city council on board. I remember some reports from earlier in the year where some on the council commented about everything being downtown, about wanting improvements for the fairgrounds and for seniors around the city. Lo and behold, MAPS 3 is revealed and we've got senior centers and fairgrounds improvements. So I'm not really sure how much choice Mayor Mick had here in that regard.

I'm disappointed with the factionalism that has seemed to appear with this latest version of MAPS, but then again, I hear that the original MAPS didn't receive universal support from the city council either. I just hope they didn't let too many people get their hands in the jar this time. Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

I'm not so irritated that they haven't released all the information at once. Obviously, this isn't being done by a neutral party. They don't want people to evaluate it and reach their own conclusions. The mayor and the council are trying to sell us something. They're making a big presentation, and they want everything to go on their timetable, without a hitch. I'm not blaming them for this. They obviously want it to pass, or they wouldn't have put in the work they have. I definitely wouldn't support it if the mayor didn't believe in his own program. So I guess I can't really blame them for wanting to be showmen and have a big reveal. Nor can I blame them for being worried that if they just throw all the info out there, that the conversation will become dominated by some crazy nutjobs.

Anyway, I think your concerns are perfectly valid. I just wonder how much behind the scene politics dictated the manner in which this all played out.

I have no hope for OKC anymore, after seeing a news 9 poll where most people said they would be voting no.

I will be voting yes on this, because I'm tired of seeing OKC look like the slums between the river and 29th street around Robinson.

However, if this doesn't get passed and this city doesn't move forward, then I have no hope that this city will go anywhere.

OKC needs to look good, not horrible with vacant duck ponds on Walker.

The thing about web polls, anyone can vote in them, even someone like me that doesn't live in Oklahoma City and has no vote in the matter, and especially those who won't actually care enough to go out and vote when the time actually comes. Unless they can track where the vote comes from and count only those in the voting area likely to vote, they don't mean anything.

Hey SoonerDave I have to apologize for my tone, I in no way intended to sound hostile or that I didn't respect the suburbs. I just think that in these polls with News9 or NewsOK or whatever, that a lot of the folks from the far reaching suburbs who are in the media market but nowhere close to the city, and have no real association with downtown will not have a vote in actual election. I know that there are some suburban voters that will be included in this vote, and for that matter, a great number of people that live within city limits that actually live further from downtown than a lot of people in actual suburbs do. All I meant to convey was that in a down economy on a question such as this, I'm glad we only have to convince the OKC residents, who will by nature feel a bit stronger sense of ownership when this project is complete.

But as the taxes are concerned I don't think there is any way that the Suburbs will be paying the "Lions" share for this and that is why they do not get a vote. If you live in Midwest City (where I was born and raised) you maybe spend 30% (MAX) of your income in Oklahoma City, buying things on the weekend, and maybe buying lunches, gas etc.. Most money spent will go to the same types of businesses we all do our spending with, Home Depot, Grocery Store, drug store, etc nearby your residence. Living in the City limits I am paying my entire property tax and paying the water/sanitation bills to the city of OKC, as well as spending literally 80%+ of the rest of my money at OKC Businesses. And even if it is fair to say that the majority of sales tax collected is from the shopping of suburban voters, when the projects are complete, it will be our property tax and utility payments that will maintain them and keep the lights on for decades to come.

Wow, Doug, you were a lot more polite than I would have been. His reply to you was pretty blunt.
I was being sarcastic. I wasn't actually intending to be polite. I'm an admirer of the English and their use of understatement.


Though I do have to say I understand both sides here. On the one hand, I think that you're right that Mick Cornett didn't exactly live up to his promise that the public would be included in the planning stages on this. I certainly understood his statement to mean that there would be public meetings where everything was discussed and gone over in a transparent, above-board fashion. Instead, the first we really hear about it is with a big, already complete presentation. That said, there was obviously some backroom politics going on here to get the city council on board. I remember some reports from earlier in the year where some on the council commented about everything being downtown, about wanting improvements for the fairgrounds and for seniors around the city. Lo and behold, MAPS 3 is revealed and we've got senior centers and fairgrounds improvements. So I'm not really sure how much choice Mayor Mick had here in that regard.
Good analysis. I'd actually like a way "out" from my criticisms of the mayor since I really do like him ... he has been very good for our city. But, he did say in the spring what he said ... and it was never retracted or qualified ... so it's hard to give him a pass, as much as I'd like to.


I'm disappointed with the factionalism that has seemed to appear with this latest version of MAPS, but then again, I hear that the original MAPS didn't receive universal support from the city council either. I just hope they didn't let too many people get their hands in the jar this time. Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.
I've not noticed the factionalism but probably I've not been paying close attention. However, the added items were probably included to marginalize factionalism by spreading the goodies around beyond downtown. I really don't have a problem with that happening. It makes good political sense to do that.


I'm not so irritated that they haven't released all the information at once. Obviously, this isn't being done by a neutral party. They don't want people to evaluate it and reach their own conclusions. The mayor and the council are trying to sell us something. They're making a big presentation, and they want everything to go on their timetable, without a hitch. I'm not blaming them for this. They obviously want it to pass, or they wouldn't have put in the work they have. I definitely wouldn't support it if the mayor didn't believe in his own program. So I guess I can't really blame them for wanting to be showmen and have a big reveal. Nor can I blame them for being worried that if they just throw all the info out there, that the conversation will become dominated by some crazy nutjobs.
Crazy nutjobs are part of the way things are, just have to live with it. But, unless I'm mistaken, the city isn't supposed to try to rally the troops, I'm pretty sure that it is supposed to remain neutral at least as far as advertising is concerned. People like the Chamber usually take on the selling role. If the city has the details, and it would be wholly implausible and irresponsible if it didn't, it's duty is to make the information available and let the citizens analyze it. A managed campaign by the city isn't supposed to be the way it works, I don't think. The mayor, the chamber, whoever isn't obligated to be neutral, are free to make their best pitches, and I'm sure that will happen. I'll listen to those pitches. But I'd also like the data to evaluate for myself.


Anyway, I think your concerns are perfectly valid. I just wonder how much behind the scene politics dictated the manner in which this all played out.
Thanks.

I suppose I am a "suburbanite" although the definition seems elusive at times.

I readily admit that it irritates me no end that so much money is spent on a rather small area of Oklahoma City. That is especially true when I drive every day on a road that is maintained more poorly than a horse trail. And city government is not exactly what one can describe as responsive. It would be better for us if Oklahoma City would de-annex areas that the government has no intention of supporting. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way.

At this point I am undecided about how I will vote on the new MAPS stuff.

I readily admit that it irritates me no end that so much money is spent on a rather small area of Oklahoma City. That is especially true when I drive every day on a road that is maintained more poorly than a horse trail. And city government is not exactly what one can describe as responsive. It would be better for us if Oklahoma City would de-annex areas that the government has no intention of supporting. I am pretty sure I am not the only one who feels this way.

Flinty, keep in mind that general road and other capital improvements are funded via bond sales, which are meted out through property taxes. The 2007 General Obligation Bond Issue passed in December 2007 included improvements to over 300 miles of streets within the OKC limits. I believe you can still go to www.okc.gov and see the complete list of streets to be improved. Your street, or those nearby you, may very well be on that list.

As as I still remind people to this day, there was a 21-year funding drought between 1974 and 1995 when NO bond issues were passed. At all. As in, Zip, Zilch, Nada. As such, there was NO funding for street or other infrastructure improvements for twenty-one years. In the history of a city this size, that is a monumental amount of time, and has taken nearly 10+ years just to get barely caught up, much less ahead, considering the rate of development.

Some might argue (keep in mind I'm a "suburbanite" too) that if you choose to live out in an area that is less densely populated (far reaches of suburbs or exurbs), then yeah, you're lowest on the totem poll as the City is obligated to take care of those areas that are most densely populated first.

I look at this in terms of economic development and what this can bring in terms of additional tax revenues to the City, not to mention tourism. Of course, I'm biased as that's my industry, but anything this attractive and exciting for Oklahoma City as a whole cannot be a bad thing IMO.

I doubt building any kind of major project such as this IN THE SUBURBS would attract nearly the same amount of draw as something like this will.

> Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out
> the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

And perhaps those will be the salvation, bringing in enough yes numbers from those who desire these items, but don't much care one way or the other if there is a pretty park or a passle of shelters down near the old rail station that ain't a rail station.

I'm outside the voting perimeter so in truth my view is of minor value, but looking in from the outside, that vast mix of what's included will likely what will let it carry the day when the polls finally close, not the park itself or the convention center itself. That's not a knock on the park or the cc, just an observation on knowing how folks will vote for things they do not care about so long as they are also voting on something they do give a fig about.

> Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out
> the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

And perhaps those will be the salvation, bringing in enough yes numbers from those who desire these items, but don't much care one way or the other if there is a pretty park or a passle of shelters down near the old rail station that ain't a rail station.

I'm outside the voting perimeter so in truth my view is of minor value, but looking in from the outside, that vast mix of what's included will likely what will let it carry the day when the polls finally close, not the park itself or the convention center itself. That's not a knock on the park or the cc, just an observation on knowing how folks will vote for things they do not care about so long as they are also voting on something they do give a fig about.

I think you're probably not far off base. I think TPTB knew that a long list of projects would have components some would like, but some wouldn't, and are gambling that just enough people like just enough of the projects just enough to push the thing over the top. This thing could easily go 51-49 either way.

EBAH - No worries. It's all good. I don't think anyone here wants OKC to fail, we all just may have differing visions of how to get the job done.

There is an argument here because people mean different things by the word suburb. Some are referring to suburban style development and some reffering to suburban cities (in the political boundary sense). Consider this as you continue debating or whatever it is you are doing

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/UrbanOKC.jpg

I'd consider anything outside of the blue... including that within the OKC city limits 'suburban.'

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/UrbanOKC.jpg

I'd consider anything outside of the blue... including that within the OKC city limits 'suburban.'

Culturally and architecturally but not politically

if you choose to live out in an area that is less densely populated (far reaches of suburbs or exurbs), then yeah, you're lowest on the totem poll as the City is obligated to take care of those areas that are most densely populated first.

So we've been told. And the county can't help because it's in the city and so on.

We (well family not me) were there before the City ever was.


I look at this in terms of economic development and what this can bring in terms of additional tax revenues to the City, not to mention tourism. Of course, I'm biased as that's my industry, but anything this attractive and exciting for Oklahoma City as a whole cannot be a bad thing IMO.

I am certainly interested in economic development. Some proposals clearly have the potential to attract development and benefit tourism. But I am skeptical about those and I am entirely unconvinced about other elements of the proposal.


I doubt building any kind of major project such as this IN THE SUBURBS would attract nearly the same amount of draw as something like this will.

No doubt. Still it doesn't seem too much to ask that the City provide at least minimal support to those that live within its boundaries.

I suppose I could move somewhere else.

I don't think anyone here wants OKC to fail, we all just may have differing visions of how to get the job done.

It's often difficult to determine tone on message boards, so I'm going to tell you what mine is. Friendly curiosity. Many of us have a vision for the city that is at least similar to MAPS. The above statement seems to imply that perhaps you have a different vision. Is that so? And, if so, what is your vision? If is is different, do you have any plans for how it could be implemented?

[QUOTE=kevinpate;256539]> Maybe the plan would receive more support if they left out
> the fairgrounds improvements and the senior aquatic centers.

And perhaps those will be the salvation, bringing in enough yes numbers from those who desire these items, but don't much care one way or the other if there is a pretty park or a passle of shelters down near the old rail station that ain't a rail station. QUOTE]

Why would you think that the plan has a better chance of passing if the State Fairgrounds improvements are left out? The fairgrounds bring in more out of town tax revenue than any other attraction in our city with the plethora of equine and agriculteral events, the state fair and other events at the State Fair Arena.

IMO, the State Fairgrounds should be expanded south across Reno and connected to the OK River system.

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't actually intending to be polite. I'm an admirer of the English and their use of understatement.


Still nicer than I would have been. :)

Why would you think that the plan has a better chance of passing if the State Fairgrounds improvements are left out? The fairgrounds bring in more out of town tax revenue than any other attraction in our city with the plethora of equine and agriculteral events, the state fair and other events at the State Fair Arena.

This part worries me about it. The state fair grounds don't sit vacant the rest of the year, they're full of trade shows and ag shows of various kinds. But it's not really (just) city-dwellers who use it, some events draw people from across the country and the world (like the roping competition they had). Those people aren't coming in for NBA, they're coming in because the venue is drawing some major trade shows and events. If people don't take the year round events into account when they consider them as a piece of the MAPS puzzle, I'd worry that it may cause more people to vote no.

As for the senior aquatic centers, if there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that seniors vote. Including a measure for them is a good way to try to win their support for the measure as a whole.

Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-opposition-story,0,776611.story?track=rss)

So, how does the Central Park add to the Union Station? I don't see how it accenuates the architecture there.

So, they are going to destroy the rest of the buildings?

What about the Historic Original Film Exchange Building? They could have designed around it!

walters has been the odd man out since he has been elected. I won't be surprised if he ends up with several opponents when reelection time happens.

The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.


The park - "amenity that most world class cities enjoy"
Transit - "healthier, more sustainable community"
Sidewalks - "healthier community"
Trails - "healthier community"
Oklahoma River - "healthier community"
Health and Wellness Centers - "healthier community"

Other than the convention center and the fairgrounds it appears that the purpose of this MAPS is a "healthier community."

That may be true although really there is nothing presented to support the proposition. So I am pretty skeptical. Even so I think there might be better and less expensive ways to achieve the healthier community objective.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

There are a lot of things that would be wonderful to build but most of us have to persuade investors and lenders that what we want to build makes some sort of economic sense. That's a lot harder.

Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.

Is Walters really that dumb? Whether we vote yes, or vote no, the budget problems will remain. This has nothing to do with the budget shortfall. Won't have an effect on the money going to the general budget.

If we lower our tax rate to 7.375% we'll for sure have the lowest tax rate of any city. Every other city has tax rates well above 8%. Why not just leave the tax rate at 8.375% and see some great things happen.

If anything, MAPS 3 will create jobs. Construction jobs for starters. Staff will have to run these senior centers. SMG will need more staff for a larger convention center. An expanded transit system will require more employees. Parks Dept will have to hire more people to maintain the downtown park. etc. etc.
And what about the impact these projects will have in increasing the tax revenue coming to the city's general budget? More tax dollars from more events at State fair park. More tax dollars from events at the new convention center.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

If we can get a larger convention center, we can attract tier 2 conventions, which will bring a greater number of people into the city spending money. Just look at the amount of people San Antonio's convention center attracts.


I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

A lot of the maintence costs in the city come out of the regular bond issues we pass every few years. That's how we maintain most of our infrastructure. I know MAPS I had a use tax associated with it which was put into a special fund to maintain the original MAPS I projects. I believe $17 million is being put aside from MAPS 3 for that issue.


Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Transit will have to be subsidized just like it is everywhere else. I don't think you can ever depend on the transit system to be self-sustaining. I don't know too many systems that are. When was the last time Amtrak turned a profit?


Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

We can pay for it by increased tax revenues as well as increasing in the events booked at both State Fair Park and the new convention center.

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

Yeah, but I'm afraid we'll become like Tulsa and let bickering and division slow any progress in this city. It's not a good precedent to set.

If I were justifying these projects to investors and lenders; then, I would have to present supporting documentation. As much as they all like me they do not give a lot of weight to my wishes.

I can be persuaded but no one so far has done anything in that regard. Just saying something will happen just does not not make it so.

Sales tax revenues have not rebounded yet the last time I looked. It is not clear at all that we've seen the worst of the recession and that's assuming it doesn't become much worse or take a second dip.

If the same people that run the buses are going to run the street cars why should anyone believe they will run better? The fact that all transit has to be subsidized does not really make me want to support anymore of it.

I hope you're right and someone somewhere has something more to back these things up with than what has been shown so far.

i am for it all but the downtown park. We are in OKC for crying out loud, there is land and parks everywhere. Alot of people will see this and vote no, just because of the park issue. Using the money to improve on the current parks would be better. IMO, the money could be put to use for something better.

i am for it all but the downtown park. We are in OKC for crying out loud, there is land and parks everywhere. Alot of people will see this and vote no, just because of the park issue. Using the money to improve on the current parks would be better. IMO, the money could be put to use for something better.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. There was mention earlier of the idea that there are enough elements in the package to get folks to vote for something they didnt want to get something they do. I do kind of wish it maybe had half the money for half the park and spent the rest on better bus routes,

Is Walters really that dumb?

Yes, he's dumber than a box of hammers. But you know who's even dumber? The flipping voters who elected this neanderthal. If they actually vote in a reasonable candidate it will be a first for that district.

Well councilman Walters is certainly free to express his opinion. With that in mind I remember Ed Kelley filming quite a withering editorial about him in the Oklahoman for not sharing the progressive spirit of the city coucil. He seems to enjoy being a fly in the ointment of the local "chamber of commerce republican" establishment. The only reason I know him is that he made quite a stink about the Devon TIF district and, more recently, the 1% public art funding.

The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.


The park - "amenity that most world class cities enjoy"
Transit - "healthier, more sustainable community"
Sidewalks - "healthier community"
Trails - "healthier community"
Oklahoma River - "healthier community"
Health and Wellness Centers - "healthier community"

Other than the convention center and the fairgrounds it appears that the purpose of this MAPS is a "healthier community."

That may be true although really there is nothing presented to support the proposition. So I am pretty skeptical. Even so I think there might be better and less expensive ways to achieve the healthier community objective.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Developers can afford to build amenities in developments if the cost of those amenities can be recovered in higher lease or rental rates or greater lot prices. Even then the buyers and the renters have to agree to pay dues for upkeep.

There are a lot of things that would be wonderful to build but most of us have to persuade investors and lenders that what we want to build makes some sort of economic sense. That's a lot harder.

Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.

In basic terms, they will make the city not suck balls.

As it is, we're missing a lot of stuff that normal cities have. If we want to be competitive in the future, we need to improve the overall quality of life in the city. It's like buying a nice suit when you go to a job interview. Before MAPS, we were a guy wearing a short sleeved shirt with a clip-on tie, with tape holding his glasses together. We would interview with companies, and they'd tell us "thanks, but no thanks". Now we've got an off the rack suit from Sears and some nice contacts. We're actually getting our foot in the door.

The area that will be replaced by Core to Shore is ghetto. Drive through there and a hooker will literally leap into your car to stab you unless you give her crack. We need to clean it up, because we're moving the interstate, and from that point forward, everyone who comes downtown will have to drive through that area. We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.
Mike and everyone, while I've been critical of the mayor on two matters, I've also said that in all likelihood that I'll vote yes.

Some may think that I'm being inconsistent.

Here is one of the comments in my blog article and my response to it:




Doug,

Why would you vote yes after everything you just stated? Is this not the docility city leadership expects? How is it being litigious for the rule of law to intervene where abuses are found? This is the typical docility Oklahoma government expects. My vote is a resounding no until there is more disclosure and less money for the convention center.



By "litigious," which to me means being at least somewhat zealously inclined towards using litigation, I may well have used the wrong word. I am personally disinclined to use litigation except as a last resort. I certainly don't think that it would be wrong for someone to force the issue through litigation, but that's just not me, particularly if I like and respect those against whom the lawsuit would be filed.

As I said in the article, I do like and respect our mayor and the few council members that I know and I give our city government high marks, generally. Hence, even writing an article which was critical, as it was, of the mayor and council (but particularly the mayor since my guess is that if he wanted the detail information to be immediately available it would be) was neither a pleasant nor an easy thing for me to do. Doing so is about as un-docile act as I'm prepared to make.

To your other question, why "Yes," given what I've said. That would take a longer time to state than suits a comment, but the nutshell is:

(1) I remember all too well how I felt about my city in the days that my favorite things downtown were taken away, destroyed, and not replaced by Urban Renewal in the 1960s-1970s, and how downtown became a lifeless place to be. I remember all too well the lack of pride which I and many had in our city.

(2) I remember almost being afraid to hope that downtown would change with the passage of MAPS 1, for fear of the big letdown if I did. Instead, over the many months, years, that it took to turn the tide, the fear gradually lessened and the city pride that I dearly wanted to have crept back into my psyche as the city came alive again. I never want that pride to go away again.

(3) Plainly, the time is right to take another major step downtown given the situation foisted on us by ODOT's decision to rebuild the crosstown away from downtown to its new location. The main pieces of the plan, at least those that I value most highly, are there even if others are there that are less important to me personally. Maybe I will not like some of the detail of those pieces once it is revealed, probably I won't since it's impossible to please everyone even if general agreement exists on the pieces included. I do agree with the mayor that an opportunity is present to take the next major step.

I don't know if this fully answers your question, but I sure as heck don't want my city to take on the mindset of Tulsa which lacks the public resolve to do the kinds of things we've done here via our MAPS projects. Even if I'm pissed about procedure. In the end, substance is a more important thing.
Just because I called, "Foul," on two important (to me) procedural points does not at all mean that I want Maps 3 to lose the game.

In basic terms, they will make the city not suck balls.

As it is, we're missing a lot of stuff that normal cities have. If we want to be competitive in the future, we need to improve the overall quality of life in the city. It's like buying a nice suit when you go to a job interview. Before MAPS, we were a guy wearing a short sleeved shirt with a clip-on tie, with tape holding his glasses together. We would interview with companies, and they'd tell us "thanks, but no thanks". Now we've got an off the rack suit from Sears and some nice contacts. We're actually getting our foot in the door.

The area that will be replaced by Core to Shore is ghetto. Drive through there and a hooker will literally leap into your car to stab you unless you give her crack. We need to clean it up, because we're moving the interstate, and from that point forward, everyone who comes downtown will have to drive through that area. We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

hoyasooner, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, although I have driven through fairly often and not encountered said hooker. I again cannot strongly enough encourage people to drive through the area (keep your car doors locked, apparently).

Please, please drive south from Reno on Walker and do not stop until you reach the river if you have not already done so. I think it's almost impossible to understand the scope of the Core to Shore plan until you've driven it and seen what is there now and precisely how much land there actually is. Imagine the area completely revitalized, with a connection from the CBD to the river. There are not many cities that have the kind of land available here that we will have, who have an opportunity to completely transform this large a segment of it's core.

Yes, we've already got parks in Oklahoma City, but do you think of any of them when you think of the city like you do the Boston Public Gardens, Central Park, Millenium Park when you think of the cities in which they are located? Those parks are a huge part of the face of these cities, and green open space in a downtown, again, is a wonderful public space for a community. This is one more amenity for the public to enjoy, just as they do the Ford Center, the Brick, the canal, the library, etc. It's one more reason for people in the city and visitors to spend quality time downtown.

MAPS cannot and should not be the only solution to our public transportation problem. I doubt any city in the US funds public transportation with a temporary one cent sales tax. The streetcar should be looked at like any of the other MAPS projects we've had so far: it's one more amenity that joins the many others to make Oklahoma City more accessible, easier to enjoy, inviting for residents and tourists. It should only be considered the first step in what needs to be an ongoing attempt to improve public transportation.

I think people might be happier if we had something really big in this proposal: a space needle type of city icon, a St. Louis arch. But, in terms of improving the lives of our citizens, making the city more enjoyable and accessible, these more homely (in the JRR Tolkien sense of the word) projects are designed to improve quality of life, especially leisure time quality of life for residents of the city. It might not be as sexy as a really big tower, but in the long run, we'll probably get a lot more out of these plans.

As for an icon, Betts, the Skydance Bridge ain't too shabby (already funded and not part of Maps 3).

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/pedestrianbridge.jpg

That's true, Doug. This bridge will be an incredible icon. It's one of the things I look most forward to seeing built. What are we both doing up at 4:00 a.m.? I'm listening to train whistles and wishing the funding for the Quiet Zone could be part of MAPS 3. I love the sound of the trains, the whistles not so much.

Dear lady, I haven't got an excuse as interesting ... just insomnia, I guess ... but at least I get to talk with one of my pals!

> We want to minimize the hooker stabbings. So we need a park.

I can see the t-shirts now

De-knife dem Hookers!
Vote Yes on Maps 3

MAPS - 3
Knife totin' Crack Ho's - 0
Vote Yes this December!

To give some perspective, it might be useful to step back in time. If any of you haven't got a copy of Steve Lackmeyer & Jack Moneys' OKC 2nd Time Around, you should get a copy. It may be the best book ever written about the history of the city.

Among other things, the book sets the scene for the time of the original MAPS. I'll quote myself in the book review I did back in 2006 at Doug Dawgz Blog: OKC 2nd Time Around (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2006/11/okc-2nd-time-around.html) ...


Chapter 9 – "Downtown is dead, and we helped kill it." Chapter 9's quoted text is form a statement made by Councilman I.G. Purser in 1988, alluding to the destroyed-but-not-replaced buildings largely along the south side of downtown, the loss of downtown's retail commerce, eateries, movies, and just about anything that is just plain fun for a person to do. Surveys showed that Oklahoma Citians had a low opinion of their city and its government and that many if not most would live elsewhere, given the opportunity.

Chapter 9 begins the remarkable story of how Ron Norick, elected mayor in 1987, turned that seemingly unchallengeable tide. One is left with the impression that, if he did not do that single-handedly, without him it is most likely that the tide would not have been turned at all, at least not within our lifetimes.

In political parlance, Oklahoma City is not what is called a "strong mayor" form of municipal government. See Mayor-council government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia if you want a mini-course about that. Even so, reviewing the period of time between 1987 through the end of Mayor Norick's second term in April 1998, the authors leave no doubt that Mayor Norick knew what had to be done and that he was willing to risk his political position to at least attempt to accomplish it. Urban Renewal had stalled out and, in many substantial ways, failed, and downtown Oklahoma City was continuing to wither on the vine as a place that people would want to be and/or go after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and/or at any time during weekends.

Sure, several new buildings resulted from Urban Renewal before the Oil Bust, the fall of Penn Square Bank and the ensuing series of bank failures which rippled not only through Oklahoma but the country – Kerr-McGee Tower, Oklahoma Tower, Murrah Federal Building, Fidelity Bank, Leadership Square, Corporate Towers, Myriad Convention Center, Myriad Gardens, and some others, but, notwithstanding, a desolate and vast hole existed between much of downtown south of Park Avenue to Interstate 40 and that area's environs, excepting a place here or there (e.g., Myriad Gardens). In some limited ways, Oklahoma Citians had been willing to tax themselves – e.g., for zoo improvements but not for library and other public needs.

Chapter 9 might be seen as sort of Mayor Norick's "learning" phase – he spearheaded efforts to locate a major United Airlines Maintenance facility here – close but no cigars as Okc lost out to Indianapolis, among other failed initiatives.

Why were we close but always losers, the mayor wondered. "When people hear of Oklahoma City, they just draw a blank," he concluded. "People just don't have a clue about who we are. I just think that we have got to do something."

Chapter 10 -- Visions of a New Frontier. Chapter 10 is sort of a "catalyst" chapter. The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce and the mayor had similar if not identical notions of what was needed to turn the tide. Not without dissension, the mayor knew his head and forged ahead, putting together a task force of both those who he thought might be adversaries and not, their purpose being to come up with a grand plan. A principle of Norick's vision was "mass" -- for most of the projects to be centered downtown so that one project could feed off of one another ... some elements of which were contrary to the wishes of formidable Oklahoma Citians and/or interests, e.g., E.L. Gaylord wanted a new arena at the Fairgrounds, some wanted a totally new cultural center and not just an updated Civic Center Music Hall, etc., etc., etc. However, Mayor Norick, firmly involved in the process, held his ground. Of course, other projects were also involved ... upgrading the Convention Center, a new library, river improvement and development through south of downtown – and – canals and stuff in that ignored part of town that Neal Horton's dreams were hooked upon, Bricktown.

Mayor Norick wanted to proceed forthwith to put the grand design to a vote of the people, asking them to impose a penny sales tax upon themselves for five years to pay for the privilege!

Prior polling suggested passage to be unlikely. "The numbers, Deck and other task members decided, were bad, and almost everyone at the table the election might need to be postponed, at least until after the next mayoral election in March 1994. Instead of going along, Mayor Norick became increasingly adamant that the election needed to be held soon. "You know what?" Norick told the group. "I don't want to be mayor if we don't at least try to do this. If we take a shot at this and it doesn't pass and that in results in me not being re-elected, then so be it."

Chapter 11 -- Swing the Vote. This chapter involves the efforts of getting people on board so that the vote might succeed, and how it happened. It was not always easy.

Newspaper publisher Edward L. Gaylord was among the skeptics. "You must be crazy," Gaylord responded after hearing the plan. "You'll never get it passed. And besides, that canal is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of."

But, others like Joel Levine, conductor of the symphony, made speeches supporting a new ball park for the city, and sports enthusiasts talked about the importance of bringing musicals and opera to the town.

As he campaigned, Norick remained focused upon the plan as a whole and what he felt it would do for the city. "Are you willing to defeat your symphony because you don't like baseball?" Norick asked arts patrons. He also rallied the senior vote, telling older city residents the plan was about the future. "You may not like it. You may not even be around for it. But, aren't your grandkids?"

Rick Horrow, paid Florida based consultant but catching the fever, called the plan, "the boldest he had ever seen by a city to improve itself by dramatically raising the quality of life of its residents." Attendants at a December 1993 Myriad Convention Center rally were counseled by Coach Barry Switzer: "'The ball is on the one-yard line,'" Switzer screamed, closing out his talk in a manner he might have used with his players a time or two. "Let's put it in the end zone ... and then we'll be number one in the twenty-first century! You have got chance to make a difference, damn it! Do something about it!'"

Dirty tricks, all! But with these tactics and against all odds, the initial MAPS vote passed.
Edward Gaylord, as you can see, didn't think much of the Bricktown Canal. But, he was VERY big on the fairgrounds (I think, but haven't checked to be sure, that he was chairman of the board of the fairgrounds at the time) and he wanted the proposed new ballpark built there, but Norick held his ground on the point. But the inclusion of major fairgrounds improvements in MAPS may well have led to the December 12, 1993, editorial shown below ... still skeptical of the Bricktown canal but essentially saying that it didn't matter

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/maps1_1993_12_12.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/brianwalterss.jpgYou can see from the above editorial that Mayor Norick managed to get a unanimous city council vote for MAPS. Mayor Cornett came close but, as already mentioned, Brian Walters from Ward 5 (located largely south of I-240 into the Moore area) is the lone holdout and opponent.

Results reported in the Wednesday Oklahoman showed the MAPS votes: Yes at 32,367, No at 27,762, with the measure passing by 54% to 46%.

The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me. I am pretty certain I am not alone. In fact I suspect I'm more easily persuaded than many of my peers.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?

Hopefully there will be information put forth to explain the rationale for these projects and explain how they work.

Seriously, flintysooner? That is honestly why you are skeptical? That kind of skepticism is exactly what many in OKC had prior to the first MAPS. Now they bury their heads when reminded the amount of synergy and economic benefits that were created for the city from the FIRST MAPS project. And now we have to ride the same donkey again!?!?

Anything built by the city has to maintained by the city. That's a no-brainer. The canal maintenance is paid for by the city. SMG is paid by the city to manage the Cox Convention Center and the Ford Center. The new library's maintenance has to be paid for by the city.

That's what you do when you live in a city. You pay for the services. You want to live in a great city, you pay for it. I don't know how much convincing people need.

As far as the planned park downtown is concerned, this is not your average everyday Will Rogers Park. And to whomever suggested that the city should take the money to improve other parks... well... those other parks already get their improvements from the bond issues we vote for.

Good gosh, people. This is stuff isn't rocket science. Why are all of you acting like you don't know how the city will 'do things' when we've been down this road before... twice!

Walters maybe free to express his opinion, but he is a city leader. It is his responsibility to grow the city, not kick the can around because he 'personally doesn't agree'. That is America's problem today. Everyone wants to express their opinion without taking responsibility for what they say. If he wants to express his personal opinion, maybe he should leave city hall and become a columnist. He argues that it isn't appropriate to fund a huge project given the city's current budget woes, when MAPS isn't even a part of the city's operating budget. What a dunse.

Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-opposition-story,0,776611.story?track=rss)


Ugghhh... I hate this man.

Well if you need confirmation that passage of MAPS III is not a sure thing...

Oklahoma City leader opposes Maps 3 - KFOR (http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-maps3-opposition-story,0,776611.story?track=rss)

Notice how he didn't say anything about his constituents he represents or what they want. What a tool. Where is the REAL media to point this out?


walters has been the odd man out since he has been elected. I won't be surprised if he ends up with several opponents when reelection time happens.

Yep. In fact, I'd be shocked if he doesn't have an opponent.


Is Walters really that dumb?

If anything, MAPS 3 will create jobs. Construction jobs for starters. Staff will have to run these senior centers. SMG will need more staff for a larger convention center. An expanded transit system will require more employees. Parks Dept will have to hire more people to maintain the downtown park. etc. etc.
And what about the impact these projects will have in increasing the tax revenue coming to the city's general budget? More tax dollars from more events at State fair park. More tax dollars from events at the new convention center.

You'd think it'd be that clear to most. :fighting2


The justification for each of the projects is terribly unconvincing.

That may be true although really there is nothing presented to support the proposition. So I am pretty skeptical. Even so I think there might be better and less expensive ways to achieve the healthier community objective.

Someone is going to have to explain these projects in terms of economic benefit to persuade me.

I am also interested in the continuing costs associated with the projects. Several must have significant maintenance costs and at least at this point I do not see what revenue will be used to sustain them. Building a 130 acre park is one thing but it has to be kept up or we end up with roads like I have to drive on or jails that don't work or buses that don't run on time.

Speaking of transit just how is that streetcar system supposed to pay for its operating costs? Who is going to run it? Will it run like the buses?


WOW. Again folks, MAPS 3 ISN'T EVEN AN OFFICIAL BALLOT ITEM YET. GEEZ, it was just unveiled to the council, as to the public last week! The council doesn't even vote to allow to set it for a public vote until the end of the month. You're jumping to conclusions before it's even official. The City can't even have the Chamber promote it until it becomes official. Give them time to do their job. That's the problem with our society these days, we all want instant everything, microwave my MAPS 3 please, I want every answer now! We demand answers to everything like we're owed everything. Let them have time to present the case that is MAPS 3 before jumping to conclusions and demanding answers.

As for the streetcar funding, I believe the figure for annual maintenance costs was around $2 million or so a year. This is pocket change for a city our size. Furthermore, we probably spend more than that on the buses currently. The bus system will get an overhaul if MAPS 3 is passed anyways, making the overall system more efficient. The council is rapidly having lack of confidence in Metro Transit/COPTA, and is ever working towards a regional transit government (which is what we need and will probably happen if this passes). You all are also forgetting that if this passes, we will get state funding and even more federal funding. Federal funding usually pays the bulk of mass transit systems anyways. Again, these details will be laid out at MTP meetings, MAPS 3, etc. As someone said above, you all act as if you don't know how this works or act like the City doesn't know what they're doing, we've had 3 MAPS now, we should be used to it and confident in the system that it delivers success on time and on budget.


I find myself with Doug on a lot of this. The lack of details is troublesome. I also applaud Councilman Walters for having the GUTS to buck the boys. I don't have to agree with all his points to recognize courage.

See answer above, MAPS 3 isn't official yet, give it time and allow them to do their job. What are you and Walters wanting out of our city, complacency? No forward progress?


If I were justifying these projects to investors and lenders; then, I would have to present supporting documentation. As much as they all like me they do not give a lot of weight to my wishes.

If the same people that run the buses are going to run the street cars why should anyone believe they will run better? The fact that all transit has to be subsidized does not really make me want to support anymore of it.

I hope you're right and someone somewhere has something more to back these things up with than what has been shown so far.

Again, you haven't allowed this to become an official campaign yet, give them time to approve it so they can begin promoting and educating the public. See answer above about transit funding.


Seriously, flintysooner? That is honestly why you are skeptical? That kind of skepticism is exactly what many in OKC had prior to the first MAPS. Now they bury their heads when reminded the amount of synergy and economic benefits that were created for the city from the FIRST MAPS project. And now we have to ride the same donkey again!?!?

That's what you do when you live in a city. You pay for the services. You want to live in a great city, you pay for it. I don't know how much convincing people need.

Good gosh, people. This is stuff isn't rocket science. Why are all of you acting like you don't know how the city will 'do things' when we've been down this road before... twice!

:yourock:Finally someone who gets it, how refereshing! I'm all for people asking questions and holding City accountable, etc. But geez, this instant gratification, demanding answer me answer me, is ridiculous.

I agree that the S Robinson area of the city is pretty disgusting. But the idea of bulldozing is pretty stomach churning to me. It should be illegal to tear down anything with structural integrity (obviously not the prefab metal buildings) and architectural significance over there. There are some great buildings, and some awesome architectural details on the Robinson underpass. I've always thought that area could be kind of cool. I mean, obviously not in it's current use with all of the junk yards and aforementioned hookers. But it seems like a good spot for infill around existing structures. There are a few little clusters of store fronts especially from about S 10th to 12th or so that could be cool spots for shops and bars (something more like the chaos and sin Doug mentioned in his OKC Central piece). I think we all need to remember that it was grand urban planning and destruction of seemingly useless old buildings that got us in to this mess in the beginning. Are there any kind of plans or allowances to protect structures in that area under the C2S and Park plans?

If economic considerations are so unimportant then let's just do 10 years for more than a billion or 20 years for 2 billion.

I do understand that every detail cannot be discussed openly because of competitive considerations but surely it is possible to present something more than it makes us healthier.

But I've said my piece and understand my place and will fall back into lurkdom.

Too many posts to catch up on so here is my take.

A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River - Yes

A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub - Yes

A new downtown convention center - Yes

Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City - No. Sidewalks, while important, are not MAPS worthy. Too small and benefits too localized.

57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City - No, unless these are trails around the river. Too small and benefits too localized. I'll bet you a million dollars less than 2 people in OKC can tell me how many miles of current trails OKC has without having to look it up first. This idea is not on the grand scale MAPS requires.

Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world - Yes

State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens - No. Honestly, how did this even get on the list? Senior citizens get a refund on the MAPS tax, no way they should get their own facility designed just for them. They want to swim, they should jump off a kayak on the new whitewater course or join the YMCA.

Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds - Yes

OK, you think part is great, part is horrible, but it is up or down on the package. So, since you, if here, would have only a single up or down vote, which way would you pull your lever when you got all cozy behind your curtain?

57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City - No, unless these are trails around the river. Too small and benefits too localized. I'll bet you a million dollars less than 2 people in OKC can tell me how many miles of current trails OKC has without having to look it up first. This idea is not on the grand scale MAPS requires.

Are these bike trails in line with the original bike trail plan. From what I understood about the plan was that it would be a sort of bicycle highway so that commuting somewhat long distances on a bike would be possible. If that were the case, I would love that! I used to ride from Midwest City to brunch/bars in Midtown, Paseo, Bricktown, etc all the time when I still lived in MWC. We always took 4th but it is a pretty rough surface to deal with. It has a lot of train crossings and spotty shoulders. I've always thought a kind of bicycle freeway would be an awesome idea for the city. If there was a safe route to Edmond I would seriously ride to my Office near 2nd street on nice days. However, if we are talking about little "road to nowhere" park trails throughout the city, I could not care less. But, anything that will make bicycles in this city more of a viable transit method has my support. I mean, come on, this place is so flat it should be perfect for riding.

OK, you think part is great, part is horrible, but it is up or down on the package. So, since you, if here, would have only a single up or down vote, which way would you pull your lever when you got all cozy behind your curtain?

Doesn't matter, he doesn't get to vote in Georgia and Florida.

> Doesn't matter, he doesn't get to vote


Don't be so silly, smug, whatevah. Of course it matters.

Not Kerry personally, but Kerry as someone's thoughts, someone who does know voters and can reach out to them, favorably or otherwise. Even those of us who won't actually vote (which includes me as a Normanite) can have some sway on the outcome.

Knowing what folks who like/love parts 1,4,6 and can stand 2,3,5 but hate 7,8 might do if given the chance is useful intel, irrespective of whether one is a voter, observer or activist.

Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.

Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.

Yes you are correct, I don't have a vote. I don't even have influence over anyone that does. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Even if I disagree with 3 of the items I would still vote Yes because the three items I disagree with are small $ wise. However, I think it is a bad idea to use MAPS money to pay for things that should be covered under normal city obligations and are not cost prohibitive. Bike lanes and trails fall into that category.

MAPS should be reserve to raise big bucks to fund big ideas. 57 miles of bike trails is not a big idea, nor does it require big bucks. It seems to me that several of these little projects are just payoffs to small vocal special interest groups that cold derail the big effort. I don't like it being done that way and I especially don't like Senior Swim Centers. MAPS is for everyone, not this group or that group. If you want to have a MAPS for Seniors (like MAPS 4 Kids) then vote on that separately.

Yes you are correct, I don't have a vote. I don't even have influence over anyone that does. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. Even if I disagree with 3 of the items I would still vote Yes because the three items I disagree with are small $ wise. However, I think it is a bad idea to use MAPS money to pay for things that should be covered under normal city obligations and are not cost prohibitive. Bike lanes and trails fall into that category.

MAPS should be reserve to raise big bucks to fund big ideas. 57 miles of bike trails is not a big idea, nor does it require big bucks. It seems to me that several of these little projects are just payoffs to small vocal special interest groups that cold derail the big effort. I don't like it being done that way and I especially don't like Senior Swim Centers. MAPS is for everyone, not this group or that group. If you want to have a MAPS for Seniors (like MAPS 4 Kids) then vote on that separately.

I agree with much of what you say on the "no" issues. However, one advantage of doing it through a MAPS type program is that the long term cost of doing it on a pay-as-you-go basis is far less than if you were to fund the "no" items through bond issues (because of the interest that must be paid and the expenses related to the bond issue itself). Large capital expenditure projects generally have to be done one way or the other. City budgets don't normally just generate revenue sufficient to build these types of things. The only other alternative is to seek out private or corporate funding.

I think the whole idea behind MAPS is to try to offer something that everyone can benefit from. And, if senior centers are going to be offered, I doubt seniors will be getting a tax refund this go-around.

And the bike trails are a big deal......it will complete the trails master plan the city developed years ago which will connect all of the trail systems across the city. You'll be able to ride a bike all around the city on these trails. Will connect the Oklahoma River trails to the Overholser trails to the Hefner trails, etc. etc.

Some have raised questions about the state fair park improvements. I just don't think the money was there from the hotel motel tax to fund the new expo center that will replace most of the smaller buildings at state fair park. There's still work to be done on the horse facilities, and much of the hotel-motel tax is being funneled that direction. We would've had to wait 10-20 years to collect enough of the hotel-motel taxes to finally build this expo center, as current funds are going to revamp the horse facilities and the state fair arena. We really could use this new expo center sooner rather than later. Some of those older smaller buildings, like the arts and crafts and modern living buildings are really deteriorating. They're well over 50 years old. I believe the only buildings being kept are the Cox Pavilion (formerly International Building) and the Centennial Building (formerly the Kitchens of America building). I believe the rest, mostly steel buildings, will be demolished, as they've run their course.

Are these bike trails in line with the original bike trail plan. From what I understood about the plan was that it would be a sort of bicycle highway so that commuting somewhat long distances on a bike would be possible. If that were the case, I would love that! I used to ride from Midwest City to brunch/bars in Midtown, Paseo, Bricktown, etc all the time when I still lived in MWC. We always took 4th but it is a pretty rough surface to deal with. It has a lot of train crossings and spotty shoulders. I've always thought a kind of bicycle freeway would be an awesome idea for the city. If there was a safe route to Edmond I would seriously ride to my Office near 2nd street on nice days. However, if we are talking about little "road to nowhere" park trails throughout the city, I could not care less. But, anything that will make bicycles in this city more of a viable transit method has my support. I mean, come on, this place is so flat it should be perfect for riding.

Agree entirely!

The end result of the trails master plan is a worthy component. A 'bicycle freeway' would be the envy of any large city.

The completed master trails system will be a show piece to the nation.

Fair enough. I just find it funny that several of the strongest feelings against certain MAPS 3 components, are from out of staters with no vote, or on Newsok, from people who live in Edmond or Moore.

My handle on there says I'm from Edmond, but I'm actually in OKC city limits. So that's not always accurate. I live out by Mercy. And I'm proof that even a surburbanite can be for improvements downtown. I may live in the suburbs but I enjoy going downtown, to the Civic Center for broadway musicals, to Bricktown for dinner and a ballgame, to the Ford Center for a basketball game, and even to the downtown library to relax and read a book. You can't tell me suburbanites won't be benefitting from MAPS 3.

Yes, he's dumber than a box of hammers. But you know who's even dumber? The flipping voters who elected this neanderthal. If they actually vote in a reasonable candidate it will be a first for that district.

As someone who knows and voted for Councilman Walters, I find your statement asinine and patently offensive. Do I always agree with him? No, but just because he doesn't parrot your set of projects or attitudes doesn't make him a "neanderthal."

Walters maybe free to express his opinion, but he is a city leader. It is his responsibility to grow the city, not kick the can around because he 'personally doesn't agree'. That is America's problem today. Everyone wants to express their opinion without taking responsibility for what they say. If he wants to express his personal opinion, maybe he should leave city hall and become a columnist. He argues that it isn't appropriate to fund a huge project given the city's current budget woes, when MAPS isn't even a part of the city's operating budget. What a dunse.

No, okc, the responsibility of any councilman is first to represent his constituents, not toe the line. How many times in this forum have we wished for a politician (at various levels) who would be willing to stand against what might be perceived as the established power structure and yell "Wait a second" when everyone else is screaming "Plow ahead?"

Do I agree with Walters? Not necessarily. I don't think he actually believes MAPS money is intermingled with the city's operating budget, and honestly I don't believe you think he does, either. Without resorting to name-calling, wouldn't it be possible he's just asking for a bit of perspective?

It isn't "happy" news, but it is true that current sales tax revenues are down - and down substantially (something on the order of 11-12% if I remember correctly). The idea that we're really going to draw $100 million annually from a tax that, even in "good" times hasn't earned that much revenue is worth at least a dose of skepticism. If revenues don't end up where they're supposed to be, something in that slate of projects isn't going to get done. If fiscal restraint is ultimately needed, who decides which projects don't get done, or get scaled back?

I'm with Doug here in lamenting the lack of details. I remember when the first MAPS rolled through, and it seemed (at least in hindsight it does) that the city went out of its way to detail what was going to happen, how it was going to be managed, but I personally am not yet convinced we've seen that in *this* iteration. I'm also with Doug in that I will probably support the proposal, but I think we need to migrate to a more constructive form of disagreement than calling one councilman (or implying a larger part of the city) is a "dunse" merely because they haven't just "gone along to get along."