A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.

No, okc, the responsibility of any councilman is first to represent his constituents, not toe the line.

His constituents are Westmoore. Obviously, residents of the ward with possibly the highest per capita income in the city wouldn't be caught dead on public transit.

It's obviously Councilman Walters' right to hold his own opinion. His opinion is clearly going to get more press than ours. However, if he's going to speak for his constituents, then I would think he needs to be more specific than simply citing the economy. Perhaps he has expanded on this elsewhere. If I were a councilperson, before I spoke publicly, I'd have data regarding my constituents' opinions, I'd address the negative effects of a tax versus the potential positive ones associated with job creation, and perhaps I would discuss MAPS item by item. If he votes no, and he wishes to be reelected, then he needs to make sure he is truly representing the wishes of his constituents.

A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.

I think the original MAPS was YES or NO for the sales tax. But I remember Steve Lackmeyer writing about the possibility that MAPS 3 might be broken out because of subsequent court rulings. But I've not read anything that makes me believe it will be broken out or how.

A poster stated earlier that this would be an up or down vote. I have not seen anything of an official nature that it would be up or down, but I could have missed it. Was not the first Maps voted on a project by project basis? Since I have noticed in the past that a few posters like to make up facts as they go can any one direct me to something official in regards to this. I believe the voters should have a choice of what projects they wish to fund. To make it up or down would be an attempt to force too much down the throats of the citizens and there will be several. if not many, that would campaign against it in my opinion and I would probably be one of them.

MAPS and MAPS for Kids were both an all or nothing vote, as the MAPS 3 vote will be. There have been meetings on Core to Shore open to the public over the past several years, and there was a poll conducted by the city regarding citizens wishes for MAPS. So, the city has made some attempt to determine what people would like to see in MAPS, and from there has made a determination of what will be included in the proposal. As with the previous MAPs votes, one will have to decide if the pluses outweight the minuses or vice versa and vote accordingly. If MAPs 3 doesn't pass, nothing will be funded and if it does, everything will be. I don't think there will be a "Whoops, let's try this again" vote in six months or a year or two, so we all have to make our best decision about what will be best for the city and vote.

I think the most important thing is not to vote based on whether we like the city's methods or attitude, but rather, vote with cool heads based on our opinion about the proposals.

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.

AGAIN, I'LL POST IT FOR THE 217th time! MAPS 3 isn't an official campaign yet folks. It was unveiled to the City Council just last week! Right now all MAPS 3 is, is a CONCEPT! The City Council is still reviewing the up front details for crying out loud! They don't even vote up or down on it until Sept. 29th! Gripes, you want details when they can't even legally promote it yet! Cry me a river folks who want instant grantification and act as if we're entitled to answers to everything immediately. If the council approves it (extremely likely), THEN the OKC Chamber can (and is the legal entity) that can promote it and talk details!! DETAILS ARE COMING FOLKS, LET PEOPLE DO THEIR JOBS! ....FYI, original MAPS details weren't in abundance until AFTER the vote. That's how these things work folks. You don't start building a house without financing in place, same goes for massive projects like this, you dont' spend more money on consultants, surveys, utility analysis', site selection, etc. until your funding is secured, then if it passes, there are safeguards in place to make sure resources are maximized.


I think the original MAPS was YES or NO for the sales tax. But I remember Steve Lackmeyer writing about the possibility that MAPS 3 might be broken out because of subsequent court rulings. But I've not read anything that makes me believe it will be broken out or how.

No it wasn't, even I remember that and I was early in high school at the time. Heck, if we did that, we'd get no where as a city. If each interest group had their own item on the ballot, and the entire city population group voted, the majority of the voters (rest of the city) would be much larger than the special interest group and nothing would get accomplished. This is the genious of MAPS. The only way to get it passed is if everyone gets a slice of pie! :tiphat:

It's obviously Councilman Walters' right to hold his own opinion. His opinion is clearly going to get more press than ours. However, if he's going to speak for his constituents, then I would think he needs to be more specific than simply citing the economy. Perhaps he has expanded on this elsewhere. If I were a councilperson, before I spoke publicly, I'd have data regarding my constituents' opinions, I'd address the negative effects of a tax versus the potential positive ones associated with job creation, and perhaps I would discuss MAPS item by item. If he votes no, and he wishes to be reelected, then he needs to make sure he is truly representing the wishes of his constituents.

If he wants to individually vote NO, that's fine. If he wants to block a vote on a legitimate sales tax project based on his individual opinion, he should burn in city councilman hell. He needs to be able to discern between these two ideas.

That's correct. The vote will be yes/no to continue, or not continue, the existing temporary tax beyond its programmed expiration date. it will not be an opporutnity to pick and choose a, b, c but also reject f and g.

In short, the announced projects are what you get if the majority of actual votes say to continue the tax. The temporary 1 cent tax actually going away at its scheduled time is what you get if the no votes carry the day.

It's been one of the longest temporary taxes I can recall, but it's done a lot of good over the years too, which is why folks thus far have been voting to extending it for new projects, i.e., finishing MAPs, then Maps 4 Kids, then Upgrade Ford Arena, and coming soon to a ballot box near you, whether to proceed on Maps 3.

AGAIN, I'LL POST IT FOR THE 217th time! MAPS 3 isn't an official campaign yet folks. It was unveiled to the City Council just last week! Right now all MAPS 3 is, is a CONCEPT! The City Council is still reviewing the up front details for crying out loud! They don't even vote up or down on it until Sept. 29th! Gripes, you want details when they can't even legally promote it yet! Cry me a river folks who want instant grantification and act as if we're entitled to answers to everything immediately. If the council approves it (extremely likely), THEN the OKC Chamber can (and is the legal entity) that can promote it and talk details!! DETAILS ARE COMING FOLKS, LET PEOPLE DO THEIR JOBS! ....FYI, original MAPS details weren't in abundance until AFTER the vote. That's how these things work folks. You don't start building a house without financing in place, same goes for massive projects like this, you dont' spend more money on consultants, surveys, utility analysis', site selection, etc. until your funding is secured, then if it passes, there are safeguards in place to make sure resources are maximized.

No it wasn't, even I remember that and I was early in high school at the time. Heck, if we did that, we'd get no where as a city. If each interest group had their own item on the ballot, and the entire city population group voted, the majority of the voters (rest of the city) would be much larger than the special interest group and nothing would get accomplished. This is the genious of MAPS. The only way to get it passed is if everyone gets a slice of pie! :tiphat:
Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

Perhaps we could address both of these questions of "all or nothing" or "project by project" on the original and III to Steve as he has the research capacity on both.

Here's the link to Steve's blog post: David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/07/20/david-holt/) (July 20, 2009).


Many people might forget that the original MAPS ballot – a list of items to be paid by the tax but with just a “yes for all” or “no for all” vote might be difficult to exactly duplicate today due to a court ruling that came out against such ballots a few years ago.

David Holt, assistant to Mayor Mick Cornett, reports the following regarding a potential MAPS 3 ballot:

“Legal interpretations of what an Oklahoma ballot should look like have evolved since the original MAPS vote in 1993. Should the Mayor and Council move forward with a MAPS 3 proposal, the process will certainly conform to the operative law, and the City’s legal office will be exploring those issues as appropriate. It would be our intention to stay close to the basic model the voters have shown themselves to be comfortable with.”

Again that was in July and I don't recall reading more.

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."

He's allergic to facts and logic. In my view, that makes him a neanderthal. Sorry you were offended.

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.

This is revisionist history. The details did NOT emerge until after the vote. We didn't see blueprints, we saw crude renderings. It will take years to do the drawings and plans, and they may look different than you imagine them today.

Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

Agreed. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the Chamber officially announced their campaign today, since City Council voted (7-1) to move forward.

With all but one council member on record as favoring the proposal, the council was presented the measure at a special session on 9/22. Following that, midday, it was reported that the Chamber did announce its campaign on 9/22 during a kickoff luncheon. I was not there so I can't give a 1st hand report on that ... for now, see this link (http://okc.biz/article/09-22-2009/%E2%80%98YES_for_MAPS_Coalition%E2%80%99_supportin g_latest_Oklahoma_City_initiative.aspx) although I expect that others will shortly follow.

Metro, you can be a real jerk sometime.

I'll leave the opinion's to yourself, but the reality is, they can't and shouldn't release too many details until the council votes on it. What if the council for some odd reason voted no on this Sept. 29th. Details and spending more money on it beforehand would be a moot point. You say you want to have a reason to take back what you said about the Mayor about what he said about public input, but why the heck can't we let him do his job and wait until he and the council get to vote on it, so they can release more information and move forward with it? Lots more information will be coming out after Sept. 29th.

Agreed. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, the Chamber officially announced their campaign today, since City Council voted (7-1) to move forward.

The official council vote is scheduled for Sept. 29th City Council meeting, however in light of Doug's recent post, it appears they held special session yesterday, so that means today is the first real day they could actively promote it in full fashion. Don't be surprised if we see more details soon, now that it's official, however keep in mind the point soonerguru points out that the original MAPS didn't have much details until after it was passed by voters and funding was in place. These types of projects take years of planning and funding. You can get all the details you want right now, but mark my words, final details will change.


This is revisionist history. The details did NOT emerge until after the vote. We didn't see blueprints, we saw crude renderings. It will take years to do the drawings and plans, and they may look different than you imagine them today.

Exactly, this is what I've been trying to clarify all along.

I’ve added a poll in my blog … kinda late (only 6 days to vote) … but, ending September 30, the poll asks, “Do you want more MAPS 3 detail before October 1?” Possible answers are Yes, No, and Don’t care. The poll is located in the upper left area of my blog:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/maps3poll.jpg

I invite your participation, regardless of your opinion.

Here's a link:

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

I disagree with those that want to vote on separate projects. That was the beauty of MAPS 1. All passed because there was something in it for everyone. But, had we voted on each individual projects, projects like the Ford Center might never have passed. Many people also don't use the downtown library. And the canal was not very popular initially. I think the ballpark and state fair improvements were probably the more popular items.

I agree Patrick. If I had been old enough to vote on individual projects back then I think the river project especially would have been a hard sell. Just look at what it's turned into!

Patrick is right.

The reason MAPS is now a model for the nation is it included "everything in one vote." Other cities could only do piecemeal development projects for years, constantly running campaigns, which makes citizens weary. And then, they only get one thing at a time, which doesn't exactly stimulate the kind of improvement cities desire.

It's amazing how much MAPS 1 transformed this city. I believe MAPS III will have a similar impact.

The new Gazette sheds light on what voters are thinking. Right now, they narrowly favor passage of MAPS III (before the campaign has even begun). In a scientific poll, it would receive today about 51% of the vote.

Here's what's really interesting:

The most popular things are

1. Citywide sidewalk, bike trails and park improvements
2. The street car

Both of these would pass today on their own.

The Central Park would fail, and the Convention Center would fail miserably. Currently it only has 28 percent support.

The point is, we probably do need the convention center, but it wouldn't pass on its own, so MAPS allows us to pass it and do other great things that are popular at the same time.

I admit I wasn't thrilled myself about the Convention Center, but once it's passed I'm sure it will be great for OKC and I'll look back on it wondering why I was hesitant to support it.

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."

I'm sorry but after listening to Mr. Walters ramble for 20 minutes with Mark Shannon it is pretty clear he has limited understanding of most things discussed (and that has nothing to do with his views on MAPS).

Steve posted the ballot question on his blog at OKC Central:

Maps 3: The Ballot (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/25/maps-3-the-ballot/)

Patrick is right.

The reason MAPS is now a model for the nation is it included "everything in one vote." Other cities could only do piecemeal development projects for years, constantly running campaigns, which makes citizens weary. And then, they only get one thing at a time, which doesn't exactly stimulate the kind of improvement cities desire.

It's amazing how much MAPS 1 transformed this city. I believe MAPS III will have a similar impact.

The new Gazette sheds light on what voters are thinking. Right now, they narrowly favor passage of MAPS III (before the campaign has even begun). In a scientific poll, it would receive today about 51% of the vote.

Here's what's really interesting:

The most popular things are

1. Citywide sidewalk, bike trails and park improvements
2. The street car

Both of these would pass today on their own.

The Central Park would fail, and the Convention Center would fail miserably. Currently it only has 28 percent support.

The point is, we probably do need the convention center, but it wouldn't pass on its own, so MAPS allows us to pass it and do other great things that are popular at the same time.

I admit I wasn't thrilled myself about the Convention Center, but once it's passed I'm sure it will be great for OKC and I'll look back on it wondering why I was hesitant to support it. I find it quite perplexing that the poll conducted overwhelmingly supports park improvements but does not support a Central Park? It seems like a contradiction in terms we want better amenities and improvements city wide for parks but we do not wish to support a Central Park?? Why would the residents of OKC want to keep that filthy nasty area South of Downtown from being redeveloped? The mentality of this thinking just does not add up IMHO.

I've OCRed the proposed ordinance, associated council resolution and its Exhibit A which lists the projects, and the proposed ballot, and have converted them into an html file for ease of reading. If there are OCR errors I didn't catch, please let me know.

I'll add the documents to my blog article sometime today, but if you want to see the single document which combines all of the above, click here (http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/councildocuments.htm).

I think that is simply an education issue. People aren't sure exactly where the area is and most probably have a hard time relating to the difference of a "World Class" park and their local neighborhood park.

The streetcar ranked high because our volunteers have been tirelessly explaining the value that it offers. The same should be done for the park.

By the way, the scale model of it is on the ground floor of city hall.

Seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say. I think the support for this proposal is MUCH stronger in the actual City of Oklahoma City. We don't have to worry about convincing every Edmondite that this is worth while despite the lack of funding for a train running directly from their front door to the entrance of their office building.

Hey!!! Not fair!! I am one of those Edmondites!! :fighting3

Well...sort of....kids go to Edmond schools but I have OKC utilities and can vote in OKC referendums. That said - I think we would be nuts to vote no on MAPS 3. The improvements made via MAPS is what kept this transplant here rather than looking elsewhere when my job went away a couple years ago. OKC is poised to become a really cool place to live - not that it is bad now. I for one would love to be able to hop on a train here and ride it all the way to my job in Norman, but that is a few years away.

I think the park needs some better planning, but overall I like the MAPS3 plan. I think those are vertical wind turbines in one of those renderings. We do not need to waste park space and money on something that will not pay for itself during its useful life.

brian...

parks are like roads and highways... they don't 'pay for themselves' per se... but the benefits are obvious. Like public art, how is it expected to 'pay for itself'?

I think the way it is being done will win very broad support. I certainly have no hesitation in voting for continuation of a one cent sales tax. I still like the limited term although I'd prefer it shorter. I like the idea of the fund and advisory board.

I have enough confidence in City government to trust the advisory board to do a good job in implementing projects to benefit the entire city. It is obvious that all of us cannot be involved in deciding the details.

brian...

parks are like roads and highways... they don't 'pay for themselves' per se... but the benefits are obvious. Like public art, how is it expected to 'pay for itself'?

He's not saying it should "pay for itself." He's saying that the wind turbines wouldn't be enough to pay for the park so why waste park space on wind turbines?

At least I think that's he's saying.

For those that say Councilman Walters needs to reflect the views of his constituents, shouldn't that apply to Councilman McAtee as well?

From the Gazette/News9 Poll, (link courtesy of Doug):

Gazette/News9 September Maps 3 Poll (http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/gazettepoll.htm)

For Mayor Cornett and his MAPS 3 organizers, the search is on for the pockets of support and pitfalls of opposition. The first place they might want to start is in Councilman Larry McAtee's Ward 3 district. The Southwest Oklahoma City ward has the highest and most consistent levels of resistance to the proposal.

On the basic question of extending the sales tax or not, only 31 percent in Ward 3 said yes, 15 points below the next district of support. THE WARD ALSO REJECTED EVERY ONE OF THE PROPOSED MAPS 3 PROJECTS, especially the convention center, which only 8 percent approved.

Contrasting the views of Ward 3, the councilman swore his support in a written statement to the mayor.

"For the good of my children and grandchildren, now is the time to keep moving forward. I wholeheartedly support the MAPS 3 initiative," McAfee said.
------------

"Website polls are not scientific. I'm quite sure these issues have been polled legitimately. The transit issue, if memory serves, would have passed on its own. I wouldn't pay attention to Kelly Ogle viewers' Internet polling results" -- Soonerguru

"Thankfully, unlike the poll from ch 9, when it comes to an actual vote, the suburbs wont have a say." -- Ebah

"p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless." -- SoonerDave


To those that keep saying the Gazette/News9 Poll was an unscientific, internet poll, that just isn't the case. The Poll was a scientific poll, conducted by phone by Shapard Research. Other areas of the Metro were NOT included, but only those who would be eligible to vote in the election were polled ("likely voters registered to vote in Oklahoma City")

Contrast that with the City's online, internet MAPS 3 Survey which was exactly what people are saying is invalid (and the Mayor has used as "consensus" and "overwhelming" support to move forward with a MAPS 3 (85% of those who responded said there should be a MAPS 3).

It was an internet poll, open to anyone, registered voter or not, inside the OKC voting limits or not etc etc. The City's poll was up for 4 months, got responses from all 50 states and 57 foreign countries. Even if one presumes all respondents were OKC residents, only "2,367 people responded to the unscientific survey" (out of an OKC population of just over a half-million people..."estimated population as of 2008 was 551,789"). This translates to roughly half a percent.

Yet this is what the Mayor is using for the basis of support for MAPS 3? They mention 12 out of 14 of the highest project suggestions in the survey are either addressed in MAPS 3 or previous City bond issues. Some of those included were suggested by very few people. Combined, Ford Center Improvements and NBA Practice Facility (separate items in the Survey) got a grand total of 81 people (roughly 1.5% each or combined, 3% of the less than a half percent of OKC residents). Contrast that with Mass Transit which was suggested by 668 people.

"The reason MAPS is now a model for the nation is it included "everything in one vote."

Problem with that is, it is against the Oklahoma State Constitution to "log-roll" unrelated items in the same Bill/Ordinance etc. Just slapping a generic "Capitol Improvement" label on it doesn't make it necessarily so and I am not the first to suggest this, but that looks like an even more egregious example of log-rolling than the listing method.

Have you read the actual ordinance? You know, the thing we are actually voting on? Not the Council's "Intent" resolution (that is non-binding and doesn't mean a thing from an enforceable, legal standpoint). Tell me which one of the project(s) mentioned you are for or against.

Good luck with that, as NOT A SINGLE ONE of the proposed list of 8 MAPS 3 projects is listed or mentioned. Nada, Zero, Ziltch. No Convention Center. No Central Park. No River improvements. No Downtown Streetcars. etc., etc.

They do go on defining what a "Capitol Improvement" is, but the definition is so broad, that it can include just about anything. In other words, it is at the discretion of the sitting Council what is and what isn't included during the nearly 8 years the tax is collected.

Granted, if they want to get re-elected, it would be in their best interest to build the projects mentioned, but there is nothing requiring them to do so. Council persons and Mayors come and go (we have had 3 Mayors since MAPS and who knows how many different Council persons).

He's not saying it should "pay for itself." He's saying that the wind turbines wouldn't be enough to pay for the park so why waste park space on wind turbines?

At least I think that's he's saying.


Vertical axis wind turbines on that site would never produce enough electricity to pay for the cost of the turbines alone, let alone anything else in the park. They are a wasteful gimmick in that application. Plant some trees.

For those that say Councilman Walters needs to reflect the views of his constituents, shouldn't that apply to Councilman McAtee as well?

Actually, this situation is a bit different than is implied here. Regardless of which poll said what, the question was not whether the MAPS projects should be funded, but whether the people should be allowed to vote on obtaining the funding for said projects.

Were the city councilmen voting yes or no on funding the projects, then yes, McAtee should have made his best effort to determine the wishes of his constituents and voted thusly. However, this was a question of instead allowing his constituents to have the opportunity to vote themselves. So, one could argue that rather than using a poll, all of which are fraught with potential error, he is allowing his constitutents to make their own determination. The argument against Walters was that he didn't even want his constitutents to have the opportunity to vote.

"p.s. As far as the Ogle poll goes, understand that web polls are worthless as far as legitimate statistical sampling goes. Absolutely worthless." -- SoonerDave


To those that keep saying the Gazette/News9 Poll was an unscientific, internet poll, that just isn't the case.

Larry, if you're going to cite me, and then claim I'm wrong, I would repsectfully request you do so in context. I was specifically referring to a limited-duration poll posted on Channel 9's website, not the poll you cite. I have no issue with scientifically conducted polls. Web polls, where anyone and their dog can (and do) participate, and often do so repeatedly, where there is no validation of origin, no control of sample size or composition, essentially no governing parameters whatsoever, are scientifically and statistically meaningless.

You are correct. It's an absolute joke how all of the local newscasts show the responses to their Web polls as if they have any substantive value.

Larry, if you're going to cite me, and then claim I'm wrong, I would repsectfully request you do so in context. I was specifically referring to a limited-duration poll posted on Channel 9's website, not the poll you cite. I have no issue with scientifically conducted polls. Web polls, where anyone and their dog can (and do) participate, and often do so repeatedly, where there is no validation of origin, no control of sample size or composition, essentially no governing parameters whatsoever, are scientifically and statistically meaningless.

SoonerDave: please accept my sincere apologies. The scientific poll I referenced was the only channel 9 one I was aware of. I stand corrected on that point, and my issue isn't with you then.

Would you agree that the City's MAPS 3 survey is worthless and the Mayor shouldn't be using it as overwhelming support (can't locate his exact wording at the moment) for moving ahead with a MAPS 3?

My posts are currently time delayed

LOL well it looks like they are NOT time delayed anymore...guess I met my new member quota!

Would you agree that the City's MAPS 3 survey is worthless and the Mayor shouldn't be using it as overwhelming support

The mayor has not said anything of the sort. He's implied it's going to be a close, tough race, but he thinks the voters will ultimately decide to continue the momentum.

I happen to agree with him.

Would you agree that the City's MAPS 3 survey is worthless and the Mayor shouldn't be using it as overwhelming support (can't locate his exact wording at the moment) for moving ahead with a MAPS 3?

There's a very logical reason for moving ahead with a MAPS 3, and it's unrelated to any survey: Oklahoma City needs to continue to improve itself. IMO, stagnation is unacceptable in a city that has marginal amenities for a city that wants to be seen as second tier, or hopes to become so.

I am all for MAPS 3. Why do people make such a big deal about a cent that will go along way in generating much more money for OKC than the money they are asking for to appeal to soooooo many different people across our state. I believe this MAPS project is going to stir so much new stuff its going to be exciting. With the trail/sidewalk system I think it will generate alot more activity by the people in Oklahoma. I am excited for the future of OKC and Oklahoma. Lets not take away anything from OKC but add to our city and make it a place people want to come to.

I am all for MAPS 3. Why do people make such a big deal about a cent that will go along way in generating much more money for OKC than the money they are asking for to appeal to soooooo many different people across our state.

Hell even if it doesn't, it will still make OKC a better place to be.

The mayor has not said anything of the sort. He’s implied it’s going to be a close, tough race, but he thinks the voters will ultimately decide to continue the momentum.

I happen to agree with him.

Touche SonnerGuru! I would appreciate is you are going to quote me, to please do so in context as well (include the complete sentence or at least indicate with ellipses that it is incomplete).

My complete sentence was: “Would you agree that the City’s MAPS 3 survey is worthless and the Mayor shouldn’t be using it as overwhelming support (can’t locate his exact wording at the moment) FOR MOVING AHEAD WITH A MAPS 3?”

That isn’t quite the same thing as if a MAPS 3 vote will pass or not.

Here is what the Mayor said this year in his 2009 State of the City address (am including the entire paragraph):

“All indications are that the vast majority of people in this community want to go forward. That same web site recorded that over 85 percent of respondents said they wanted to pursue a MAPS 3. It is evident that this community still has needs, and it still has ambitions. MAPS has been the vehicle for our progress, and it should remain so. But exactly ‘when’ we move forward is less clear, and that’s the conversation we’ll be having over the course of the next few months. We will come to a community consensus no later than the end of this coming summer. MAPS 3 is no longer a distant dream. The opportunity to continue this city’s momentum is before us. The opportunity to create jobs for the next generation, and therefore to keep our kids and grandkids in Oklahoma City is approaching.”

You correctly point out he has said it is going to be a tight race, but I see that as nothing more than the “rallying of the troops” so supporters aren’t complacent, thinking it will easily pass and not show up at the polls. Recall similar statements made before the Ford tax vote, yet it easily passed.


... I have no issue with scientifically conducted polls. Web polls, where anyone and their dog can (and do) participate, and often do so repeatedly, where there is no validation of origin, no control of sample size or composition, essentially no governing parameters whatsoever, are scientifically and statistically meaningless.

The City’s MAPS 3 Survey site readily admits just what you are describing (Survey Results tab)

MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/factsheet.html)

85% of you said “yes” to MAPS 3.

The “MAPS 3?” Web site had 131,214 total hits from January 17th to May 15th, from all 50 states and 57 countries. That includes visits from an estimated 13,639 unique visitors.

The “MAPS 3?” Web site asked the question whether the citizens wanted to see the City pursue a MAPS 3 initiative. 2,367 people responded to the unscientific survey with a Yes or No answer. Over 85 percent of those responses were: Yes, Oklahoma City should pursue a MAPS 3 initiative.

Touche SonnerGuru! I would appreciate is you are going to quote me, to please do so in context as well (include the complete sentence or at least indicate with ellipses that it is incomplete).

My complete sentence was: “Would you agree that the City’s MAPS 3 survey is worthless and the Mayor shouldn’t be using it as overwhelming support (can’t locate his exact wording at the moment) FOR MOVING AHEAD WITH A MAPS 3?”

That isn’t quite the same thing as if a MAPS 3 vote will pass or not.

Here is what the Mayor said this year in his 2009 State of the City address (am including the entire paragraph):

“All indications are that the vast majority of people in this community want to go forward. That same web site recorded that over 85 percent of respondents said they wanted to pursue a MAPS 3. It is evident that this community still has needs, and it still has ambitions. MAPS has been the vehicle for our progress, and it should remain so. But exactly ‘when’ we move forward is less clear, and that’s the conversation we’ll be having over the course of the next few months. We will come to a community consensus no later than the end of this coming summer. MAPS 3 is no longer a distant dream. The opportunity to continue this city’s momentum is before us. The opportunity to create jobs for the next generation, and therefore to keep our kids and grandkids in Oklahoma City is approaching.”

You correctly point out he has said it is going to be a tight race, but I see that as nothing more than the “rallying of the troops” so supporters aren’t complacent, thinking it will easily pass and not show up at the polls. Recall similar statements made before the Ford tax vote, yet it easily passed.



The City’s MAPS 3 Survey site readily admits just what you are describing (Survey Results tab)

MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City (http://www.maps3.org/factsheet.html)

85% of you said “yes” to MAPS 3.

The “MAPS 3?” Web site had 131,214 total hits from January 17th to May 15th, from all 50 states and 57 countries. That includes visits from an estimated 13,639 unique visitors.

The “MAPS 3?” Web site asked the question whether the citizens wanted to see the City pursue a MAPS 3 initiative. 2,367 people responded to the unscientific survey with a Yes or No answer. Over 85 percent of those responses were: Yes, Oklahoma City should pursue a MAPS 3 initiative.


Ummm. You're quoting SoonerDave, not me, although I tend to agree with him.

I simply ask that if you're quoting me it's a quote i actually said.

Hmmmmm, SonnerGuru, not sure what happened there...the first quote was correctly attributed to you but, you are indeed correct, the 2nd one was not...isn't technology wonderful!

What do you have to say about the Mayor did in fact say?