I definitely did misunderstand your meaning. I'll still choose to trust them on this and disagree with your assessment of whether or not certain monies were spent "for things not voted on by the voters" being argumentatively unconstitutional. If so, nobody has ever affectively made that argument. I think, for those of us old enough to remember how downtown was before MAPS can indeed point to its history and be comfortable with the results. It sounds to me as if many of you would like to dictate your own terms. Wouldn't we all? The council (and Mayor) are effectively hired by the citizens to do a job. I'm a firm believer in letting them do their job and not micromanaging because, for some unrelated or unknown reason, I don't "trust" them. It's just an opinion, but as I said earlier, there is far too much distrust of any form of government these days. We should be mindful that we reap what we sow.

Do I understand the facts correctly? Is Steve really not going to be talking about MAPS 3 on his blog anymore?

{cue freaky music}

WMidtowner, I had no idea the state constitution was worded as you have adroitly pointed out. Is this language that has been in place for some time, or recently amended as such? My understanding is that some new legislative action intended, presumably, to require line-by-line disclosure of elements on ballot initiatives such as this, was enacted just this year. If true, that's presumably what forced the City to create this single, omnibus "capital improvements" notion rather than enumerate individual projects they knew by their internal polling were not likely to pass.. Would you say that's a roughly correct interpretation of what's happened, Mid? Correct me if you think I'm not on the straight and narrow, here...

I have to give some credit to Doug, I hadn't read most of his blog post, but he has already spotted some of the hot legal issues here.

The "capital improvements" bit in my estimation is an attempted end-around on the single-subject rule, which Doug in his blog opines that it applies to political subdivisions of the state, which I suppose is a reasonable interpretation, but I don't completely agree.

Doug didn't explain his reasoning in great detail, but he did say in effect that he didn't think the legislature could authorize a political subdivision of the state to do something that the legislature can't do.

The actual language of Article 5, section 37 of the Oklahoma Constitution is this:


"Every act of the Legislature shall express but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. . . ."

My interpretation is different than Doug's. This, by its plain language is clearly a limitation on the power of the Legislature. An argument could be made that the rule by extension applies to political subdivisions of the state, i.e., municipalities, but that'd assume a lot.

The current case law isn't awfully helpful. There are several Fent cases in which a local attorney, Jerry Fent, challenges the legislature's authority to pass laws which violate the single subject requirement of the Constitution. All of these cases pertain only to the legislature and not to political subdivisions thereof.

We might then look to what we know about municipalities -- that they actually can do things which the legislature cannot do. For example, a municipality may enact a special law and a whole host of other things listed under Article V, Section 46 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Click below to see.

Constitution of Oklahoma - Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Oklahoma)

It would stand to reason then that the single subject rule likely doesn't apply to municipalities.

Further, reread Article 10, section 19.


Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied, and no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose.(emphasis added)

Note the bolded language. Here, the requirement of specifying distinctly the purpose to which the tax is allocated is specifically imposed on political subdivisions. Consider this in contrast to the single subject rule contemplated in Campbell and the Fent cases and Article 5.

I think this measure would have a strong case for being constitutional under Article 5, even considering the logrolling issue. I think, as it is written, it doesn't pass the Article 10 smell test at all. Big problems there.

To fix this, either the city should reconsider a MAPS I-style ballot or as I mentioned before, a revision in the ballot measure which would put the hands of a public trust with a very narrow mandate.


Its frustrating for me, because I think we DO need a convention center, and I can live with the park, too, but I'm wondering why it seems so much effort has been spun into the effort to avoid promising it will get done.

This is of great concern to me as well. Unless we see some assurances beyond resolutions (which carry no legal effect whatsoever), I'm going to be tough to persuade that this is the right way to accomplish this. There is far too much of a history of corruption and city council backsliding for the public's trust to be deserved at this point.

There is far too much of a history of corruption and city council backsliding for the public's trust to be deserved at this point.


That's a grandiose statement. It certainly does not seem to be applicable to previous MAPS votes.

So again, voting "no" because we're not sure we trust the city council accomplishes what?

I think I'll gamble with my $40 a month that we get most, if not all, of what we want.

So again, voting "no" because we're not sure we trust the city council accomplishes what?


Consider it a threat to vote no at this point. If the city council wanted to gain my vote, all they'd have to do would be to fix the language so that they're more tied down. They have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in the past (specific example: Bass Pro) and they will probably continue to do so in the future.

It's not even this City Council -- it's whoever is next.

For me, it's not a money issue. It's a good governance issue. The City Council could have done this right and they chose not to. That's something.

That's a grandiose statement. It certainly does not seem to be applicable to previous MAPS votes.

Sure it does. Bass Pro.

For me, it's not a money issue. It's a good governance issue. The City Council could have done this right and they chose not to. That's something.

BINGO!

An ounce of good governance up front prevents a pound of controversy and corruption later on.

Consider it a threat to vote no at this point. If the city council wanted to gain my vote, all they'd have to do would be to fix the language so that they're more tied down.

For me, it's not a money issue. It's a good governance issue. The City Council could have done this right and they chose not to. That's something.

Have you communicated your concerns to our city council members? Do you think they deliberately chose not to "do this right"? Clearly, their hands have been tied as far as including a list of projects on the ballot is concerned. Is this simply an attempt to circumvent that problem that doesn't meet your wishes? Or, do we have any evidence it was a deliberate attempt to keep themselves from being tied down?

I say this because I don't always assume the worst. Although the mayor was a city councilman at the time Bass Pro was voted for, as was Larry McAtee, the makeup of the city council is otherwise completely different. Do we automatically assume their intentions are dishonorable?

I don't see anything wrong with attempting to change the language of the ballot or to force the city to appoint an oversite group, but am unsure how that would be accomplished. If it's impossible, then again, we're forced to choose between trusting our city council and giving up the things we've been hoping for for so long.

Sure it does. Bass Pro.

For those of us that weren't paying attention or are in the cheap seats- what clearly dishonorable thing occurred with Bass Pro?

bingo!

An ounce of good governance up front prevents a pound of controversy and corruption later on.


amen!!

I fail to see why any of you have such a big issue with this? MAPS for Kids was done this way. If they change things too much, vote them out of office. With inflation, revenue fluctuations and long-term costs, they may not be able to do everything they would like but thats why we ELECT officials - to represent us. If they don't, file suit to stop their actions, then recall them.

Our officials have proven they can do the job right with MAPS 1 and 2 and MAPS for Kids. The state law reads the way it does so they have to abide by it. Bond issues sometimes don't ultimately do everything they intended to do either.

I think for all the MAPS projects, there have been oversight committees to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck. Let them all do their jobs. Some feindish person said "Trust but verify............"

I fail to see why any of you have such a big issue with this? MAPS for Kids was done this way. If they change things too much, vote them out of office. With inflation, revenue fluctuations and long-term costs, they may not be able to do everything they would like but thats why we ELECT officials - to represent us. If they don't, file suit to stop their actions, then recall them.


But that's the whole point, mug - filing suit, throwing them out of offce - by then, the damage is done, and only then after a lot of pain. What I advocate is up-front planning and control to mitigate the chance for it to even get that far to begin with.

Heck, a lawsuit was tried before when funds weren't used "appropriately," but a court ruled it was OK for the city to, in effect, change its mind based on how the tax was established. So much for the lawsuit. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me. This new tax is established in precisely the same manner - and that's what has folks like yours truly and Midtowner in a knot.

Why on earth wouldn't we want to take that extra step of prudence before so much as one penny of sales tax has been collected to prevent any such "change of heart" in the future? It sure looks like the state consitution was wrtten with precisely that sentiment in mind.

I remember the original MAPS tax/vote, and the one thing that sticks out in my mind was Ron Norick showing up on virtually every TV, radio, and media outlet in town busting his backside to explain precisely how the MAPS money was going to be controlled and accounted. All I see from Mayor Mick is a "yeah, we're going to do what we said we'd do" from his new office at Ackerman-McQueen (okay, a little sarcasm there, sorry). Sorry, but while I like Mayor Mick just fine, I can't say he instills the same kind of confidence in me that I had from Mayor Norick.

We have a chance to do this right. There's no reason to do otherwise.

Well go ahead and keep talking about corruption and stuff and kill MAPS III. That will be great for the city.

I hated the Bass Pro deal, but MAPS transformed this city.

Some of you whiny lawyer types are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I'm critical of OKC all the time, and I really feared the projects in MAPS III were not going to be relevant to our needs. I was delightfully wrong.

**** or get off the pot. They're not going to change the ballot language.

Whine all you want but I'm going to do whatever it takes to get this sucker passed by the voters.

In or out?

Another thought I don't think has been addressed here is that the ballot measure may very well be unconstitutional.

See Article 10, § 19 of the Oklahoma State Constitution:


§ 19. Specification of purpose of tax - Devotion to another purpose.

Every act enacted by the Legislature, and every ordinance and resolution passed by any county, city, town, or municipal board or local legislative body, levying a tax shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied, and no tax levied and collected for one purpose shall ever be devoted to another purpose. (emphasis added)
The plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution requires that the purpose of the tax be "specif[ied] distinctly." It doesn't take a team of lawyers (or even one) to figure out that the broad-as-the-Pacific-Ocean language in the ballot measure 'distinctly specifying' that the money is to be spent only on "Capital improvements" is neither distinct nor specific, ergo, arguably unconstitutional.

The framers of the Oklahoma Constitution were a very populist bunch. They distrusted politicians and they distrusted special interests. Our Constitution grants us as taxpayers a lot of protections against taxpayer abuse not found in other state Constitutions.
Very good points, Midtowner. As I said in my Maps 3 - The Actual Vote (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-vote.html),


Although the just cited cases pertain, strictly speaking, to state legislation and initiative petition measures, I nonetheless take it as a given — but without researching the matter further and knowing with certainty — that the same types of rules pertain to revenue measures of political subdivisions, e.g., cities such as Oklahoma City, since it would be senseless for one set of rules to apply to state-level revenue measures and a different set of rules to apply to political subdivisions, e.g., cities such as Oklahoma City.

But, if your hunch is correct (that similar logrolling rules do not apply to municipalities), that's a big-time important thing to know. Very big. Huge, even. My guess may well have been mistaken and misplaced. Please report back what you find, and I'll do the same.

Have you communicated your concerns to our city council members? Do you think they deliberately chose not to "do this right"? Clearly, their hands have been tied as far as including a list of projects on the ballot is concerned. Is this simply an attempt to circumvent that problem that doesn't meet your wishes? Or, do we have any evidence it was a deliberate attempt to keep themselves from being tied down?

I say this because I don't always assume the worst. Although the mayor was a city councilman at the time Bass Pro was voted for, as was Larry McAtee, the makeup of the city council is otherwise completely different. Do we automatically assume their intentions are dishonorable?

I don't see anything wrong with attempting to change the language of the ballot or to force the city to appoint an oversite group, but am unsure how that would be accomplished. If it's impossible, then again, we're forced to choose between trusting our city council and giving up the things we've been hoping for for so long.

Are you for real? Communicate with the city council members? Do you actually not think that city council members don't know what public trusts are and what they can do? Do you think their memory is so short that they forgot that they passed a ballot measure just a couple years ago concerning a hotel tax to be used for specific improvements at the fairgrounds?

This language is deliberate. The design is absolutely deliberate. Nothing gets onto these ballot measures by mistake. According to you, we have perfectly honest council members who just happen to be absolute morons who can't even recall how they accomplished similar (smaller) tasks in recent history. That's absurd. These are smart enough people and the folks putting this program together are highly competent. Everything about this is by design. The language is no mistake. They want flexibility to be able to win the money by selling us one thing and then be free to do something else, otherwise, through very simple mechanisms, they could have tied themselves down.

As I have said, the constitutionality of the MAPS I ballot was probably a more substantial certainty than the constitutionality of the present ballot. The more I consider this, the more I see that this is designed as a project for city council members to get their paws on their own personal bailout funds.

-- or yeah... I could go speak at the citizens' comment microphone and be ignored just like every single person who has ever spoken there has been in the past. That's a great suggestion.

Are you for real? Communicate with the city council members? Do you actually not think that city council members don't know what public trusts are and what they can do?

This language is deliberate. The design is absolutely deliberate. Nothing gets onto these ballot measures by mistake. According to you, we have perfectly honest council members who just happen to be absolute morons who can't even recall how they accomplished similar (smaller) tasks in recent history. That's absurd. These are smart enough people and the folks putting this program together are highly competent. Everything about this is by design. The language is no mistake. They want flexibility to be able to win the money by selling us one thing and then be free to do something else, otherwise, through very simple mechanisms, they could have tied themselves down.
The more I consider this, the more I see that this is designed as a project for city council members to get their paws on their own personal bailout funds.

Yes, I am for real. I have written my city councilmen (and some who aren't on several occasions). I've always gotten an answer. Do we just sit around and complain on a message board, and then say there's nothing we can do? I'll forward these concerns on to several I've found to be very responsive, and see if I get an answer. To be honest with you, your last comment sounds like complete paranoia.

I managed to get to the City Council meeting yesterday around 9:30 am or so ... I was delayed from getting there sooner because I had to be at my home to receive my wife's purchase of some radically cool new living room furniture. After that, I got to the city council meeting as fast as I could.

I arrived during nearly the end of a citizen speaker's passionate plea to vote No on the matters pending before the council. While I strongly disagreed with his perspective (don't submit the matter to a vote of the people), in the part of his speech that I heard, he presented his position very well.

But, to the point of this reply, no, no one in the council's horseshoe gave his remarks any note because minds were already made up about how each of the council members were going to vote. That was clear enough from the council meeting from a week before.

I don't mean this comment to be critical of the city council. I do mean it to say that what those who appear at a council meeting have to say isn't necessarily all that important, certainly not when council members' minds are already decided on a particular matter, like they were on the 9/29 council meeting concerning MAPS 3. Both the citizen protests, and the council's vote, were just part of the formality and nothing more.

Any thoughts that citizen commentary at council meetings have the realistic potential to influence council member votes, at least concerning high profile meetings where issues have been determined before council meetings (like 9/29), are highly overrated.

Citizen comments at council meetings where council members' minds are already decided don't really matter. Yesterday, the items to be decided all involved whether to submit the MAPS 3 items to a vote of the people in the manner and form which had been presented a week earlier. The decision was already made and the 9/29 meeting and what occurred in that regard was just a formality.

I agree with metro. City leaders will use the money for the projects promised, otherwise they face political suicide, and forever risk never getting an improvements program passed in this city ever again. They're not dumb enough to use the money for other uses.

And, actually, remember, even though we were promised certain projects in MAPS 1, there was some doubt that, for example, the arena would ever be built, especially after we were denied the NHL team.Patrick, I'm not so sure about the "They're not dumb enough" thing. Remember the 1989 3/4 cent Public Safety Sales Tax illegal use, and misappropriations? I know for a fact the current Municipal Counselor for the City has a much different view of what the voters did back in 1989 on how that tax should be, or has to be spent.

the journal record had a story today about the 3 city unions opposing MAPS 3(fire, police, afscme or whatever its called). I might have missed one of the many MAPS' threads where this was discussed. everyone wants a cut for their own special pet project-they were left out.

one of the 10 pm local tv news stations had a deal about the whitewater rafting proposal. Their slice is like $60M. the spokesperson claimed that every event held in OKC would bring $4M to OKC. I find that hard to believe. I find it harder to believe that the whitewater rafting thing even ended up on the list. lol!

I live in norman, but i'd have a hard time voting in favor of any 'capital improvement slush fund'.

just out of curiosity, what isn't a capital improvement? there's human capital, infrastructure capital, transport capital, social capital, etc...

oh and what if the feds say OKC needs to resolve the jail situation or face fines? could this slush fund, once approved, be directed toward a new jail being constructed?

oh and what if the feds say OKC needs to resolve the jail situation or face fines? could this slush fund, once approved, be directed toward a new jail being constructed?

Agree with the rest of your post...to answer your question, it is unlikely because the Jail is a County issue not a City one (if not mistaken, the City pays the County to keep their prisoners). Many years ago in a duplication of services move to save money, when the County Jail opened, the City closed it's decrepit jail.

But that does bring up another point, the City is touting that OKC has one of the lowest sales tax rates in the Metro. Not saying they are doing anything dubious, but they don't even mention the distinct possibility of a Oklahoma County tax.

Most likely it will be a penny tax lasting about 4 years (presuming the going rate of about $100M/year) for the renovated/new county jail. If passed, that will raise the tax rate in a lot of OKC to 9.375% and some surrounding communities in Oklahoma County even higher than that. If both the MAPS 3 and County sales tax pass, it would move OKC from one of the lowest (16th) tax rates in the Metro area to one of the highest (7th). Bethany, Choctaw, Harrah, Nichols Hills, The Village & Warr Acres would be tied for the highest at 9.5% with OKC the next highest at 9.375%

> could this slush fund, once approved, be directed toward a new
> jail being constructed?

I can see it now, nice, neat, stacks of banded dobbers on a table, their tight lil' money bands imprinted with a new slogan ... Take Me To County!

Some of you whiny lawyer types are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Well, us "whiny" lawyers know better than you or anyone else exactly what happens when you draw up a bad court order or a contract full of loopholes.

To think that politicians are going to be better than normal people and keep to the spirit of their handshake with the public is an absolutely laughable concept.

Some of you whiny lawyer types are making a mountain out of a mole hill.


Your ass is lucky that we whiny lawyer types desire oversight in government spending.

Well go ahead and keep talking about corruption and stuff and kill MAPS III. That will be great for the city.

I hated the Bass Pro deal, but MAPS transformed this city.

Some of you whiny lawyer types are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I'm critical of OKC all the time, and I really feared the projects in MAPS III were not going to be relevant to our needs. I was delightfully wrong.

**** or get off the pot. They're not going to change the ballot language.

Whine all you want but I'm going to do whatever it takes to get this sucker passed by the voters.

In or out?

:congrats: I agree, mountains are being made out of molehills. You're either in or out. Me - I'm in, I'll take my chances that promises will be fulfilled. These people should still be alive in 7 years, and probably many still on council, so it's not like we can't hold them or their future counterparts up to the stand. Anyhow I don't get the crying over Bass Pro, yes it was one of the biggest blunders in our city's history, but to my knowledge, MAPS money was not used for it, and #2 we were told what the money would be spent on, Bass Pro in Bricktown and we got it. I'm not sure how money was misused, other than we shouldn't have done it in hindsight! And Mid, you'd be surprised how naive our City council is. Believe it or not, but we're still run like a small town in many regards and all of the councilpersons are constantly learning about basic stuff many of the general public already knows more about.

oh and what if the feds say OKC needs to resolve the jail situation or face fines? could this slush fund, once approved, be directed toward a new jail being constructed?

Again, the jail is a COUNTY issue, not City. #fail

Again, I wasn't living in OKC at the time and have no idea why people were upset about Bass Pro...

Your ass is lucky that we whiny lawyer types desire oversight in government spending.

AMEN!!

The fact that people are targeted for personal attack and criticism merely for asking for a proper amount of up-front governance in the expenditure of $700+ million absolutely amazes me.

We know without question, that funds have been reallocated in precisely the manner being discussed here - change of council intent - in prior years. Lots of people fought it. The laywers on the opposite side of the fence won that one. I'm glad there are some lawyers out there who are looking out for our side of the fence beforehand right now - yet they get slammed. That just doesn't even make sense.

We owe ourselves that modicum of due diligence that forces us to ask the question if the structure of this ballot passes the sniff test, not to grab it from the hands of those who created it like a child desperate for a candy bar, willing to accept anything with the label "MAPS" slapped across it.

Suppose we're all here in ten years, and among all the candy projects added in to get the broader vote, the only one that gets done is the convention center - the one that polled the worst of ALL the projects - all because the city council "changed its mind." I have a sneaking suspicion the convention center (as an example) is a LOT higher priority on the City's list than it is the people's list (although I personally support it). But I'll bet you dollars to donuts the Council would cut off its right arm before it would ever decide NOT to build the convention center - even if it meant trashing every other project on the MAPS "intent" agenda.

That's the point many of us are trying to get across here, folks. There is absolutely no guarantee ANY of the projects here will get done. You guys want this 21st century city, and so do I, so why wouldn't we all want the proper up-front governance to ensure it GETS done? You don't think there are non-civic influences on the council? You don't think the whims of Ackerman-McQueen might not influence someone on the council to a particular set of priorities over another?

It's our money, folks. We should take every step possible to ensure that it spent in exactly the manner being promised, but not legally ensured. Monumental difference.

I still want evidence that MAPS 1 or MAPS for Kids money was inappropriately used.

Same for Bass Pro, we knew what we were getting, yes it was a bad deal in hindsight, but to my knowledge, we weren't lied to.

The idea of oversight is not to wait until something bad happens and then react...

OKC Mayor Mick Cornett plans to educate about $777 million proposal | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4738/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

I still want evidence that MAPS 1 or MAPS for Kids money was inappropriately used.

Same for Bass Pro, we knew what we were getting, yes it was a bad deal in hindsight, but to my knowledge, we weren't lied to.

Bass Pro was a bad deal because no one was authorized to use city money in this fashion. If I'm mistaken, someone can correct me (and I'm sure they will), but those funds were derived indirectly from MAPS, and this was the very issue that ended up in court, with the court holding that since the city changed their "intent," it was legal. Now, umpteen years later, we are being asked to hand the city $700 million with nothing more than their "intent" to do all manner of nice things.

As I said before, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We've got a chance to prevent this kind of back-door dealing, so why not do so?

I still want evidence that MAPS 1 or MAPS for Kids money was inappropriately used.

Same for Bass Pro, we knew what we were getting, yes it was a bad deal in hindsight, but to my knowledge, we weren't lied to.

It was pretty well-documented back then as to what happened. Both MAPS I and II monies are actually tied up in Bass Pro and other projects as we speak. My source for this is not internet based. It would probably take some FOIA requests to the proper offices to get your "proof," but trust me, it's out there.

It's out there and I'm not going to go through the pains of prosecuting a FOIA request just to make a point on the internet.

Again, the jail is a COUNTY issue, not City. #fail

It's both a city and county issue. There's nothing keeping OKC from constructing its own jail. Currently, we have chosen not to. Instead, OKC pays Oklahoma County to house its prisoners. I believe counties *must* operate jails, but that doesn't mean the city can't do it if they want to.

I know for a fact that OKC, Edmond, Bethany, etc. operate their own jails.

And yes, a jail would be considered a "capital improvement."

As I said before, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We've got a chance to prevent this kind of back-door dealing, so why not do so?

I'm am not at all against prevention, but how? What can we do besides foolishly thinking we're sending a message by not voting for MAPS? That is not the answer, but I'd certainly be willing to participate in a practical attempt to change things.

Believe it or not, but we're still run like a small town in many regards and all of the councilpersons are constantly learning about basic stuff many of the general public already knows more about.

I'm well aware of the fact that it is not a prerequisite to be educated, be a lawyer, or even be of above average intelligence to run for public office. The Oklahoma Legislature is a monument to that well-established fact.

That said, this Council knows damn well what a public trust is. They are each partially responsible for appointing people to public trusts and may even themselves serve as ex-officio members of certain trusts. Heck, not too long ago, several of these supposed yokels produced a ballot measure channeling revenue from a hotel tax to the State Fair's public trust to accomplish specific projects.

So are they all suffering from dementia? Or are they really THAT incompetent?

It would be much less scary to me to think -- and I hope this is the case -- that the city council does have some sort of idea as to what they're doing. If this language is merely a product of their naivete, then MAPS III is among the least of our concerns.

You all have made your point. We get it.

Go ahead and raise holy hell due to your paranoia. You just might succeed in killing MAPS III. How will that go for the city?

Just about every law that is passed has loopholes. The court system is flawed. Corrupt politicians -- and even sociopaths -- serve our country at all levels. I'm not naive.

I just happen to believe MAPS III will be very good for our city, and its failure bad for our city, so I'm going to support it.

I doubt our city counselors are saints, but I generally trust Mick Cornett and the counselors serving today have not been a part of any known public malfeasance.

Midtowner's argument seems to be: "All politicians are inept, self-serving, spinesucking weasels, and cannot be trusted."

I may not have a law degree but I've been around enough to that when anyone says the worlds "all, always, or never" in a sentence, they are exaggerating.

I'm going to take the gamble that we can trust these guys in hope that MAPS III delivers on its promise.

I'm am not at all against prevention, but how? What can we do besides foolishly thinking we're sending a message by not voting for MAPS? That is not the answer, but I'd certainly be willing to participate in a practical attempt to change things.

I think Midtowner's suggestion is perfect - create a trust to hold the funds, legally define the purpose of the trust as that of funding expenditures for line items 1 through 8, and those line items are the eight projects MAPS3 is supposed to fund. Period. No Bass Pro's, no "backdoor" deals. You create a wall of fiduciary responsibility around that money.

If there were something like that in MAPS3, I'd have no problem with it at all. Postpone this vote a few weeks or months to recast the proposal in that way - and I'm sure Midtowner could tell us the proper way to do it that dots all the legal i's and crosses all the t's. My disappointment is that there are plenty of forward thinking folks on the council that could have done this up front, but chose not to. But the vote still hasn't been taken, so we can fix this issue without voting "no" on MAPS3.

I'm am not at all against prevention, but how? What can we do besides foolishly thinking we're sending a message by not voting for MAPS? That is not the answer, but I'd certainly be willing to participate in a practical attempt to change things.

I haven't ruled out writing a strongly worded letter.

Wth do you expect us to do? The Council apparently doesn't know its asshole from a hole in the ground and you're thinking they'd actually take the word of some citizen lawyer over the word of the municipal counselor?

I'll have what you're smokin'!

The only way to send a message or get change is to defeat this thing. In all seriousness, there's a very good chance I'll try to get this information out via letters to the editors of the various publications around town, maybe a telephone call to the Mark Shannon show to reach all 17 of his listeners, etc.

I'm not against any of these projects. I like them all. I support them all and I want to see them built. That's why I'm against this ballot measure language.

I think Midtowner's suggestion is perfect - create a trust to hold the funds, legally define the purpose of the trust as that of funding expenditures for line items 1 through 8, and those line items are the eight projects MAPS3 is supposed to fund. Period. No Bass Pro's, no "backdoor" deals. You create a wall of fiduciary responsibility around that money.

If there were something like that in MAPS3, I'd have no problem with it at all. Postpone this vote a few weeks or months to recast the proposal in that way - and I'm sure Midtowner could tell us the proper way to do it that dots all the legal i's and crosses all the t's. My disappointment is that there are plenty of forward thinking folks on the council that could have done this up front, but chose not to. But the vote still hasn't been taken, so we can fix this issue without voting "no" on MAPS3.

So, my suggestion is: write every city councilperson with this suggestion. Write the mayor. Go to a city council meeting and take a chance that they won't listen, hoping that they will. Our responsibility as citizens is to do everything we can to change what we think needs changing, not just to complain. I will add my voice, but, if nothing happens, I'll still be voting "yes" because as I said, I'm willing to gamble my $40 or less a month in the hopes that I can contribute towards making my city a better place in which to live. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

So, my suggestion is: write every city councilperson with this suggestion. Write the mayor. Go to a city council meeting and take a chance that they won't listen, hoping that they will. Our responsibility as citizens is to do everything we can to change what we think needs changing, not just to complain. I will add my voice, but, if nothing happens, I'll still be voting "yes" because as I said, I'm willing to gamble my $40 or less a month in the hopes that I can contribute towards making my city a better place in which to live. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

It sounds like a good idea, but is it legally sound?

So, my suggestion is: write every city councilperson with this suggestion. Write the mayor. Go to a city council meeting and take a chance that they won't listen, hoping that they will. Our responsibility as citizens is to do everything we can to change what we think needs changing, not just to complain. I will add my voice, but, if nothing happens, I'll still be voting "yes" because as I said, I'm willing to gamble my $40 or less a month in the hopes that I can contribute towards making my city a better place in which to live. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

You threaten to make empty threats?

Yep, that's always effective.

So, my suggestion is: write every city councilperson with this suggestion. Write the mayor. Go to a city council meeting and take a chance that they won't listen, hoping that they will. Our responsibility as citizens is to do everything we can to change what we think needs changing, not just to complain. I will add my voice, but, if nothing happens, I'll still be voting "yes" because as I said, I'm willing to gamble my $40 or less a month in the hopes that I can contribute towards making my city a better place in which to live. I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Okay, betts, you're on. I will, this very night, compose a letter to the council and the mayor and express my thoughts on the matter.

The whole point is that I want to do everything I can do make sure your $40 a month is spent on the things you're wanting to MAKE this city a better place. Believe it or not, we really are on the same page.

The only way to send a message or get change is to defeat this thing.

And how are you going to separate yourself from the anti-tax for anything people, the anti-government paranoids, the I hate Oklahoma City and will vote for anything that will pull the plug on progress "no" voters? The message it will send is that people aren't willing to spend a few dollars a month to improve our city, and nothing else. There's not going to be a new MAPS vote in six months with language that makes you happy, believe me. Because our city is behind many other cities of similar or slightly larger size, we will continue to be overlooked and, given entropy, things will slide, not improve.

You think it's impossible to be a lone voice to effect change in a positive way, but are willing to do the same to support a negative position?

Okay, betts, you're on. I will, this very night, compose a letter to the council and the mayor and express my thoughts on the matter.

The whole point is that I want to do everything I can do make sure your $40 a month is spent on the things you're wanting to MAKE this city a better place. Believe it or not, we really are on the same page.

I agree. I understand we're on the same page. I have concerns as well, but, when I weigh concerns about oversight versus concerns about our city, my concerns for the city win. That's why I said I'm willing to gamble, but I've already starting writing my letters. I will vote "yes", but I'll do everything I can up until the vote to make sure there's better oversight.

You think it's impossible to be a lone voice to effect change in a positive way, but are willing to do the same to support a negative position?

Hopefully, I'm not alone in thinking that government should be run in a minimally competent fashion.

Seems with the other plans, the government handled them far better than "minimally competent." If the trust idea would fly legally, then that might be the way to go. If its simply a matter of appointing an independent oversight committee - appointed by someone other than the City Council, that should be sufficient too.

I don't see our city government as being controlled by the good-old-boy network like it was 20 years ago and before. I see them as being a pretty competent, responsible bunch. No, we may not agree with everything they do but in a city this large and with people of different opinions - just like on this board - its impossible to please everyone.

Hopefully, I'm not alone in thinking that government should be run in a minimally competent fashion.

You know, as a government employee, it's tough having to read countless entries from people insinuating that we're incompetent, greedy, or otherwise. Believe it or not, many of us choose this line of work because we truly believe we're working for the people and want to help make a better community.

Seems with the other plans, the government handled them far better than "minimally competent." If the trust idea would fly legally, then that might be the way to go. If its simply a matter of appointing an independent oversight committee - appointed by someone other than the City Council, that should be sufficient too.

I don't see our city government as being controlled by the good-old-boy network like it was 20 years ago and before. I see them as being a pretty competent, responsible bunch. No, we may not agree with everything they do but in a city this large and with people of different opinions - just like on this board - its impossible to please everyone.

Oversight committees have no power to do anything. And even if they did, they wouldn't. They're political appointees with loyalties to their appointors rather than the public.

The only way to make this right would be to create a public trust and turn over 100% of the money to said trust for the enumerated projects. I'd take it a step further and require that any excess monies either go into an endowment for maintenance of the projects or some of them.

This could almost certainly be done without another vote of the people and the current ballot language could stand.

You know, as a government employee, it's tough having to read countless entries from people insinuating that we're incompetent, greedy, or otherwise. Believe it or not, many of us choose this line of work because we truly believe we're working for the people and want to help make a better community.

Unless you had a hand in drafting this piece of crap ballot measure, then I'll assume you're doing just fine at your job.

That said, there's a big 'ol difference between the political side of things and the way the 'real' municipal employees work. It ain't even close.

Once again I dont trust the City Council, and we need a public trust to assure it will be done as the voters approved of.

Okay, betts, you're on. I will, this very night, compose a letter to the council and the mayor and express my thoughts on the matter.

The whole point is that I want to do everything I can do make sure your $40 a month is spent on the things you're wanting to MAKE this city a better place. Believe it or not, we really are on the same page.

betts,

The letter has been written, with copies to the mayor and every councilmember, all signed and sealed. They just need stamps and a shove in the mailbox, which I'll do in the morning.

I am debating whether there would be any value in sending a copy to any local media types.

betts,

The letter has been written, with copies to the mayor and every councilmember, all signed and sealed. They just need stamps and a shove in the mailbox, which I'll do in the morning.

I am debating whether there would be any value in sending a copy to any local media types.

I would.
Dont trust the media types to report the truth behind opposition to a MAPS3, like how they Demonized the "Railway Yard supporters".

There's not going to be a new MAPS vote in six months with language that makes you happy, believe me.....

IF it is that important to the City that the "forward momentum" continue (they have implied that if it doesn't pass the city will essentially wither and die), they will indeed come back with another MAPS proposal. Maybe not in 6 months, but it will happen. Of course, by then they won't be able to make the misleading claim that it won't raise taxes because the Ford/NBA tax will have ended and the tax rate dropped to 7.375%

Case in point: is the City of Edmond abandoning there efforts for their new facilities because the ballot issue failed? No, because it is important to the City, they are going to try to resolve where they went wrong with the last proposal and try again.

I would.
Dont trust the media types to report the truth behind opposition to a MAPS3, like how they Demonized the "Railway Yard supporters".

Letters have been mailed this morning...will be following up with some media members, haven't decided which ones.

BTW, for those of you that might think I engaged in some sort of rant or fringe paranoia commentary, rest assured I did not. I shared that I embrace the positive things MAPS has done for OKC, but am concerned about the weakness of the ballot measure insofar as it protects the voters to ensure their will is done. It then prescribes the trust as the solution.

-soonerdave

Letters have been mailed this morning...will be following up with some media members, haven't decided which ones.

BTW, for those of you that might think I engaged in some sort of rant or fringe paranoia commentary, rest assured I did not. I shared that I embrace the positive things MAPS has done for OKC, but am concerned about the weakness of the ballot measure insofar as it protects the voters to ensure their will is done. It then prescribes the trust as the solution.

-soonerdave


This seems like the right tone to me. I share your concerns about misappropriation, though perhaps not to the same degree.

My greater concern is that negativity will blossom and MAPS III will fail. I think it is extremely important to OKC that we pass this, now.

Can you imagine the positive press we will glean from passing this forward-thinking initiative amid a national economic downturn? What a message to send the rest of the world that OKC is on the move.

This seems like the right tone to me. I share your concerns about misappropriation, though perhaps not to the same degree.

My greater concern is that negativity will blossom and MAPS III will fail. I think it is extremely important to OKC that we pass this, now.

Can you imagine the positive press we will glean from passing this forward-thinking initiative amid a national economic downturn? What a message to send the rest of the world that OKC is on the move.

We need to pass MAPS to send a message??

I'm definately voting No now.

We need to pass MAPS to send a message??

I'm definately voting No now.

Say what? Surely you jest.

These are good projects for the city. The message to potential investors and to international media is just a bonus. It's a bonus, nonetheless.

Don't be so unreasonable.

We need to pass MAPS to send a message??

I'm definately voting No now.

Wow. What a reason to vote no. Do you not realize sending a message about improving our quality of life is exactly what this city needs? Do we want to send a message to major employers, companies and other things we want in this city that we're stagnant, don't want to improve quality of life, etc. We need to Maximize the national and international publicity we've been getting as of late. We were voted "recession proof" because of the previous MAPS we voted on in a down economy. That's like a business saying, business is down, I can't afford advertising, when history has repeatedly shown that companies that advertise the most during down times are the ones who prosper most long term. Do a case study on Post vs. Kellogg cereal, better yet, they've been done:

Forbes Clips How Kellogg Won the Cereal Wars of the Great Depression (http://clipmarks.forbes.com/2009/04/13/how-kellogg-won-the-cereal-wars-of-the-great-depression/)

The same principal goes for cities, we need to maximize our exposure in the lean times, so it lures new business, money, etc. during all times, and explodes during the good times. The national convention of mayors will be here next year, this is a HUGE deal, there is a good chance Obama (love him or hate him) will be here. He draws international attention everywhere he goes. Think of the HUGEEEEEEEEE publicity it would send to the world if he and and Mayor Cornett were to be on the international stage next year touting the passage of MAPS 3 and how OKC WILL HAVE THE BIGGEST, and GREENEST CIRCULATOR STREETCAR system in the U.S. as well as plans for a signature downtown park and a host of other quality of life improvements. This is good as PR as you can get!!

lol, delusional doesn't even begin to describe the previous 2 posts