MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem Larry. ....

LOL, forgot to mention the most recent MAPS 3 style project that indeed DID get passed piecemeal...the Ford Improvements!

They passed by a respectable margin even though the Mayor said it was going to be an uphill vote (similar to recent statements from the Mayor about MAPS 3).

... The argument for the beauty of the original MAPS project, which has been brought up for years, and why it's even been touted in the national media, was that each of the projects appealed to different groups and so a coalition of people supported it. Very few of the original MAPS projects probably would have passed individually. ...

I might not have voted for the canal, the Oklahoma River improvements or the Redhawks stadium individually or the Ford Center and maybe the library, because ....

I agree to an extent. Because that may or may not be the case. As evidenced by the myriad of projects and numerous individual propositions in the 2007 bond issue that Patrick posted, ...didn't EVERY ONE of those propositions pass? Didn't the single issue Ford Improvements tax pass (by a respectable margin)?

No guarantee of course, pre-MAPS the City had a pretty poor pass rate when it came to bond elections (due to broken promises or any statements of intent to the contrary). The recent County Tinker Bond issue...some propositions passed, some failed.

But back to MAPS 3...which projects mentioned in the Ballot or the Ordinance are going to appeal to "different groups"?

The ONLY reason the double issue Ford Center proposal passed was because we got something for it. People were voting for the NBA, far more than Ford Center improvements, although there were a few voters who wanted a better experience for concerts, etc. But I suspect that it wouldn't have passed if it were a vote just to improve the Ford Center to make it nicer. I would have voted for it, but I bet many people wouldn't have.

Clearly, if you read the Gazette article, there were far varying levels of support for different projects in the new MAPS proposal. I suspect that the business community will be the group most in favor of a new convention center. While I think ours is pretty mediocre right now, most of the other projects appeal to me far more. I'd probably vote for it just because I think that we probably will start losing what convention business we do have over the next ten years, but it will almost assuredly not pass if it stands alone.

The Park also doesn't have a lot of support overall either. I'm not sure why, since to me this is the most important and city changing of all of the proposals. But, I think most people who haven't visited other cities with iconic parks are not really sure what they would do with this one. Perhaps they think it's going to be similar to any of our neighborhood parks, I don't know.

Bike trails? I'd be voting for this one, because I like to ride my bike, and it would be nice to be able to ride someplace other than Lake Hefner and the river. I'm certainly in favor of anything that improves my ability to ride to places I want to go. But, what percentage of our population rides bikes and when looking at the price tag would think it's worth it? Nevermind the fact that more people SHOULD be riding both for transportation and recreation.

The kayak course will appeal to recreation and water sports people, but it's a pretty limited group.

Senior centers? I'm sure this was designed precisely to target one group of voters that hasn't always been soundly in favor of MAPS and who don't like taxes in general. They're not necessarily going to be around for a 25 year plan, and so the big picture may not be as appealing. But, I'm not sure I would vote for this myself.

A streetcar and better transit options? This one has the most widespread support and would almost assuredly pass. It's the only one I think is probably a slam dunk. It too has the potential to be city changing, but by itself, it's going to have only a fair amount of impact.

Again, what proposals would be probably see put before us if MAPS is rejected. In two to five years, the convention center.

Interestingly, people in charge of the city are probably much less interested in the streetcar than the populace. We might not even get a chance to vote on the one thing that would be most likely to pass if it stood alone.

As I said before, we'd probably see sidewalks crop up in a bond issue, and perhaps we'd continue buying land in the blighted area south of Reno in hopes of someday getting a park. But, the only issues that I feel certain we would see again sometime is the convention center and perhaps some money for new buses.

LOL, forgot to mention the most recent MAPS 3 style project that indeed DID get passed piecemeal...the Ford Improvements!

They passed by a respectable margin even though the Mayor said it was going to be an uphill vote (similar to recent statements from the Mayor about MAPS 3).

Yes, but it was a SINGLE issue, so you're comparing apples to oranges. Had it been multiple issues up for vote, it may have been a completely different story, similar to what the "hypothetical" situation we would be facing today if some of you got your way.

Yes, but it was a SINGLE issue, so you're comparing apples to oranges. Had it been multiple issues up for vote, it may have been a completely different story, similar to what the "hypothetical" situation we would be facing today if some of you got your way.

But didn't you say:


MAPS 3 style projects don't get done piecemeal is the problem. ...

Which is it? The Ford Center improvements were a MAPS 3 project that got pulled out to be a single issue (piece-meal) approach.

Again, the multiple issues (propositions) Patrick posted of the 2007 bond issue (which included a myriad of Capital Improvements) all passed, didn't they?

No Ford Center improvements ARE NOT a MAPS 3 project, simply put, MAPS 3 has been presented and there are NO Ford Center improvements in it, period! MAPS 3 was not even announced at the time of that vote, simply speculated. It wasn't a piecemeal vote where there were multiple items to vote on. Had there been, special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money. Apples to oranges.

Betts,

I appreciate your response but you didn't answer the question I asked:

"But back to MAPS 3...which projects mentioned in the Ballot or the Ordinance are going to appeal to "different groups"?"

No Ford Center improvements ARE NOT a MAPS 3 project, simply put, MAPS 3 has been presented and there are NO Ford Center improvements in it, period! MAPS 3 was not even announced at the time of that vote, simply speculated. It wasn't a piecemeal vote where there were multiple items to vote on. Had there been, special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money. Apples to oranges.

I am sorry but you are wrong on that, the Mayor clearly stated that the Ford improvements were being pulled out of MAPS 3 because of the timing of the NBA relocation committee vote. They were going to be a MAPS 3 item (of course they aren't in there now, that would be silly to include them again).

You do realize that no specific project is included in the Ballot or Ordinance don't you?

Again, your contention that "special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money" isn't supported by the 2007 bond issue Patrick posted, where every one of the piece-mealed propositions passed. For example, if MAPS 3 was presented this way:

The length of the temporary tax will be determined by the number of propositions that pass. If all 9 Propositions pass, the one cent tax would be collected for 7 years and 9 months. If less than all 9 propositions pass, the tax will be shortened to the amount projected for each proposition.

Proposition 1
A new one cent tax would be collected for a 70 acre downtown park. Projected cost $130M

Proposition 2
A new one cent tax would be collected for a new Convention Center. Projected cost $280M

Proposition 3
A new one cent tax would be collected for a Downtown Streetcar system. Projected cost $130M


In the example, the projects are presented piece-meal (separate propositions) that are voted on separately. Voting on #1 doesn't "cancel out" #3. You can vote for one or all or any combination of the above.

Again, your contention that "special interest groups would have been cancelling each other out and not much would have got accomplished, except wasting taxpayer time and money" isn't supported by the 2007 bond issue Patrick posted, where every one of the piece-mealed propositions passed. For example, if MAPS 3 was presented this way:

The length of the temporary tax will be determined by the number of propositions that pass. If all 9 Propositions pass, the one cent tax would be collected for 7 years and 9 months. If less than all 9 propositions pass, the tax will be shortened to the amount projected for each proposition.

Proposition 1
A new one cent tax would be collected for a 70 acre downtown park. Projected cost $130M

Proposition 2
A new one cent tax would be collected for a new Convention Center. Projected cost $280M

Proposition 3
A new one cent tax would be collected for a Downtown Streetcar system. Projected cost $130M


In the example, the projects are presented piece-meal (separate propositions) that are voted on separately. Voting on #1 doesn't "cancel out" #3. You can vote for one or all or any combination of the above.

So, Larry, which of the above propositions WOULD pass? Proposition 3, perhaps. 1 and 2, at least by current polls, would not. And yet, as a whole, there might be enough items that appeal to a coalition of voters that the entire project will pass.

When looking at the first MAPS: Which of the following would have passed as a single proposition? The library, perhaps. Maybe the Civic Center. I'm not sure any of the others would have passed. It's the coalition concept that works. 25% of people want a new baseball park, so they vote yes. 25% hope to get an NBA or NHL team or want a better venue for concerts, so they vote yes. Almost no one "gets" the canal concept, but it's in the package so what the hey. That's why it worked as a whole, but probably would not have individually.

The last bond issue was for streets, bridges, traffic control, maintenance, drainage, police, fire, parks. Basically, what most people consider essential services. That's the kind of piecemeal issue that is more likely to pass, because everyone needs those things and doesn't consider them a luxury item. You're talking apples and oranges.

betts: The last bond issue was for streets, bridges, traffic control, maintenance, drainage, police, fire, parks. Basically, what most people consider essential services. That's the kind of piecemeal issue that is more likely to pass, because everyone needs those things and doesn't consider them a luxury item. You're talking apples and oranges.

Exactly my point, not to mention, Oklahoma is one of the worst states for voter turnout, and especially in "bond elections". Only people who are seriously informed and care even consider turning out to bond elections. It's been proven mathmatically. Bond issues are not sexy issues, and usually the people who care enough to vote, are actually on board with bond issues, since they are typically infrastructure.

MAPS, although somewhat infrastructure improvements, are more "luxury" or "quality of life" issues. Roads and Bridges would never be in a MAPS style high profile tax.

So, Larry, which of the above propositions WOULD pass? ... And yet, as a whole, there might be enough items that appeal to a coalition of voters that the entire project will pass.

When looking at the first MAPS: Which of the following would have passed as a single proposition? ... It's the coalition concept that works. ... That's why it worked as a whole, but probably would not have individually. ...

Some probably would have passed and some would have failed. But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a concept that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.

Some probably would have passed and some would have failed. But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a concept that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.

Larry, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Have a look at the Oklahoma Constitution. It's a really important document for law in Oklahoma, but most folks are only marginally aware of its existence, and even fewer folks have read it:

OCIS Document Index (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKCN&level=1)

Direct your attention to Article V, section 57:


Every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length: Provided, That if any subject be embraced in any act contrary to the provisions of this section, such act shall be void only as to so much of the law as may not be expressed in the title thereof. (emphasis added)

Article V, section 57 is what you are clearly referring to. There are quite a few cases on this subject. In all cases, the Supreme Court was invalidating an act of the legislature which offended, and by its plain language, this act is a limitation on the powers of the legislature. Further, it falls within Article V, which exclusively pertains to the legislature.

Where we do start to run into problems with the language of the current measure is 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)

First, let me draw your attention to the first bolded passage. Note that it is a limitation on the legislature AND on municipalities, counties, towns, etc. This is a significant difference. It is much easier to argue that this passage is applicable and the other is not. In fact, by their plain language, that is the case.

Second, as to the second paragraph, this is where you and I might see eye to eye vis-a-vis the Constitutionality of this measure. The plain language of the Oklahoma Constitution requires that the tax must "specify distinctly" the purpose for which it is levied. The current language merely states "capital improvements" -- something which is neither distinct nor specific.

My conclusion is that logrolling is hunky dory just so long as the municipality specifies distinctly the purpose for which the tax is being used. In other words, the ballot has to actually express what the money can be used for and it can be used for nothing else (none of that [money not being used for other purposes] happened with MAPS I or II).

Larry, I'm not so sure about logrolling as applied to municipal sales tax issues being unconstitutional.

That conclusion was my 1st, also, since I didn't logically see a reason to differentiate Oklahoma Legislature and/or initiative petition issues from revenue measures by municipalities. But, as Midtowner pointed out much earlier, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions have to do with an express provision in the constitution which pertain precisely and only to the state class, and I could find no similar provision which pertained to cities or counties.

I could locate no Supreme Court decision which address logrolling in a municipal context. If you go here ... Web Search (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/search.asp) ... and type in the search word "logrolling" and mark "Oklahoma Cases" as the database to search, no municipal cases will turn up in the search.

ON EDIT: Ha! I see that Midtowner and I were posting simultaneously. Must be so, whatever we said!

What may become real interesting, not necessarily in a good way, is if someone initiates litigation challenging the absence of specificity and its resulting blank check grant to the city by the taxpayers.

There are time crunches at play in order for MAPs3 to be promoted as only an extension of an existing tax. Not real sure the time crunch allows much room for a detour through the courts.

In the long run, an extension of any set to expire tax is actually a new tax, but to some folks, being able to not call it a new tax sits much better with them. if litigation does muddy the water, if the projects are desired enough, new, old, even more than a penny, shouldn't get in the way.

Time will tell.

The blog article I've been working on for about a week and it's still not finished is about the history of 1993 MAPS, except that I decided to start with Mayor Coats term first ... which took longer than I expected. During his term, 3 tax initiatives were tried. 2 failed outright ... they were of the logrolling class.

The last, the so-called Six To Fix, broke up items into six separate propositions. Only one of those provisions, though, was for a penny sales tax which would have lasted 4 years ... it failed ... but, standing alone, it was a "logrolling" tax which covered multiple items. The domed arena at the fairgrounds was a distinct item, a bond election, and it failed miserably.

I've gotten to the point in the article about writing about Mayor Norick's term and have pretty much finished my research. In fact, voters were presented a good bit more information about proposed projects than we've been given in MAPS 3, for whatever that's worth. The article will be quite specific about that detail when it gets to that point.

Thanks for the interesting info Doug & Midtowner...there were a couple of articles/blogs that mentioned a new law/change in law and logrolling but they never cited the law...any info on that? (Will try to find the articles where mentioned).

What may become real interesting, not necessarily in a good way, is if someone initiates litigation challenging the absence of specificity and its resulting blank check grant to the city by the taxpayers.

There are time crunches at play in order for MAPs3 to be promoted as only an extension of an existing tax. Not real sure the time crunch allows much room for a detour through the courts.

In the long run, an extension of any set to expire tax is actually a new tax, but to some folks, being able to not call it a new tax sits much better with them. if litigation does muddy the water, if the projects are desired enough, new, old, even more than a penny, shouldn't get in the way.

Time will tell.

You are correct and it could be a concern. In all likelihood the challenge would come after the fact (sometimes courts don't want to act until the "harm" has happened). But that can cause other problems as some of the Supreme Court ones with the Legislature point out, they were reluctant to "unstir the pot" as it were (a longer time had passed, bond issues had already been sold, etc.) Think some were only partially stopped (some bonds hadn't been sold yet, so those were stopped but the other log rolled ones that had been sold were left undisturbed). Correct me if I'm wrong Midtowner ;-)

Thanks for the interesting info Doug & Midtowner...there were a couple of articles/blogs that mentioned a new law/change in law and logrolling but they never cited the law...any info on that? (Will try to find the articles where mentioned).

All of those cases (various cases titled Fent v. someone else) were brought by Jerry Fent in response to various acts by the legislature. I think there have been three fairly recently. In the first, the Supreme Court said (I'm paraphrasing) "We'll let it by this once, but don't let it happen again." The second time, they invalidated some 160 page measure which had lots of parts which clearly had nothing to do with each other (I read it, it was no big thing, some if it was about certain new types of partnerships and whatnot); finally, we had a measure which contained cash for projects -- one benefiting OKC, one benefiting someone else, one benefiting the Tulsa area -- all but the 'something else' was invalidated (since construction had already started on the something else).

The key is that ALL of those cases were about promulgations by the state legislature, not a municipality.

One does not necessarily affect the other, and by the clear terms of the Constitution, it shouldn't. This "one subject" thing, IMHO, is an attempt by someone to justify something which shouldn't be there. They could have had multiple subjects so long as they were enumerated. No one has ever challenged section 57 because no municipality has tried to do this before.

Just FYI, I was referring to an action post election. I don't see someone trying to challenge a lack of specificity in a rejected ordinance. Most folks have beeter use for their funds. Regrets if that was not clear.

Since we are clarifying...

Since I wasn't sure if it was the state constitution provision or a new/changed law (as other places have said), that is why I said: "But the problem with the MAPS styled "all or nothing" format is that it is called "log rolling" a CONCEPT that the State Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional."

In other words, I didn't mean to say that the Ballot was unconstitutional, only that log rolling was unconstitutional for the Legislature (and some have said that it applies to every subdivision government function in the State as well...again, don't know if that is the case or not.)

Probably not saying it right again....LOL

Not to get bogged down into if it is a State constitutional question or a State Law question as either would be illegal, right? Obviously, a constitutional provision would trump a state statute, if in conflict. Maybe Steve could get together with Mr. Estus and we can get a clarification on this mess (or get response from the City).

But this is what is causing my uncertainty about the constitution or law question...

From Steve's Blog (in part)

David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/07/20/david-holt/)

David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot (7/20/09)

"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 (Mayor's office)


From Steve's blog (in part)
MAPS 3: The Ballot | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/25/maps-3-the-ballot/)

MAPS 3: The Ballot (9/25/09)

"The original 1993 MAPS ballot listed all of the projects that were to be funded by the tax (to see copy of ballot found by Doug Loudenback, go here). A COURT RULING later determined such an ALL-OR-NOTHING ballot CANNOT be duplicated."


I read both of these to refer to the Supreme Court cases already mentioned, which would seem to indicate that log-rolling was unconstitutional (don't know if that is the case or not). More importantly, It also seems to indicate they were NOT going to use the "all or nothing" ballot, yet that is exactly what we have (minus the individual projects being mentioned, but still an all or nothing format).

Combine the above statements with what the Mayor said at the MAPS 3 press conference when he implied we would be voting on the items individually:

“... each of these projects is going to have to stand on it's own ... ".

Maybe he was talking about MAPS 3 standing on its own (and not depending on the legacy of MAPS & MAPS 2 for an automatic "Yes" passage). But that isn't what he said. So I don't know.

From an Oklahoman article (in part)

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/council-to-vote-on-maps-ballot/article/3404790)

Oklahoma City Council to vote on MAPS ballot: Specific plans for $777M proposal won’t be included because of a CHANGE IN STATE LAW (BY JOHN ESTUS, 9/29/09)

One reason the proposed MAPS 3 ballot lacks specifics is a CHANGE IN STATE LAW that REQUIRES A SEPARATE VOTE for each project listed on a ballot.

That means if each individual MAPS 3 project were listed on the ballot, voters would vote for each project rather than all projects at once.

As they did with MAPS and MAPS For Kids, city leaders decided to make the MAPS 3 ballot an all-or-nothing question; voters will not vote on individual projects.

Mayor Mick Cornett, who has spearheaded the MAPS 3 initiative, said an all-or-nothing approach for MAPS 3 was chosen because it has worked with voters in the past.

"This is the process they are going to be comfortable with,” Cornett said.

Again, this seems contradictory if the state law and/or constitution REQUIRES that they be listed separately, why are we getting a ballot that doesn't do that? Breaking the law just because people are comfortable with it doesn't seem valid, does it?

I've no clue how the vote will end up, but one ting appears clear at present. Voters will be voting to extend the tax, but will NOT be voting on any set list of projects. Several posts throughout the threads relating to MAPs3 have noted the December vote boils down to approving the collection of 777 million, mol, with the intent certain projects will get built, but sans any binding commitment to do so.

Maybe I could state it better myself, but that is how it appears to me. basically, if one trusts the leadership of OKC to go forward with a certain vision, a YES vote is likely. if one doesn't like the perceived plan, or just has reservations about it possibly being too blank-checky for their tastes, a NO vote will arise. Or a NO vote can arise because someone's friend or brother or cousin or shop steward encourages it. And of course, a whole passle of folks will just leave it to others to decide, like they do so frequently.

Overall, that general apathy may be the best shot of the pro MAPs3 folks. Mobilize your own, perhaps quietly, and hope enough of the rest stay home.

It will be interesting if the YES prevails, to see
(a) what projects actually do get approved by city fathers
(b) what order projects get started
(c) what in-fights, if any, on the order of projects
(d) whether moving individual project decision post-election flies at all.

As for me, 38 yard line, 9 rows up, enjoying the game thus far.

Not to get bogged down into if it is a State constitutional question or a State Law question as either would be illegal, right? Obviously, a constitutional provision would trump a state statute, if in conflict. Maybe Steve could get together with Mr. Estus and we can get a clarification on this mess (or get response from the City).

But this is what is causing my uncertainty about the constitution or law question...

From Steve's Blog (in part)

David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/07/20/david-holt/)

David Holt Reports on Structure of a MAPS 3 Ballot (7/20/09)

"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 (Mayor's office)


From Steve's blog (in part)
MAPS 3: The Ballot | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/25/maps-3-the-ballot/)

MAPS 3: The Ballot (9/25/09)

"The original 1993 MAPS ballot listed all of the projects that were to be funded by the tax (to see copy of ballot found by Doug Loudenback, go here). A COURT RULING later determined such an ALL-OR-NOTHING ballot CANNOT be duplicated."


I read both of these to refer to the Supreme Court cases already mentioned, which would seem to indicate that log-rolling was unconstitutional (don't know if that is the case or not). More importantly, It also seems to indicate they were NOT going to use the "all or nothing" ballot, yet that is exactly what we have (minus the individual projects being mentioned, but still an all or nothing format).

Combine the above statements with what the Mayor said at the MAPS 3 press conference when he implied we would be voting on the items individually:

“... each of these projects is going to have to stand on it's own ... ".

Maybe he was talking about MAPS 3 standing on its own (and not depending on the legacy of MAPS & MAPS 2 for an automatic "Yes" passage). But that isn't what he said. So I don't know.

From an Oklahoman article (in part)

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/council-to-vote-on-maps-ballot/article/3404790)

Oklahoma City Council to vote on MAPS ballot: Specific plans for $777M proposal won’t be included because of a CHANGE IN STATE LAW (BY JOHN ESTUS, 9/29/09)

One reason the proposed MAPS 3 ballot lacks specifics is a CHANGE IN STATE LAW that REQUIRES A SEPARATE VOTE for each project listed on a ballot.

That means if each individual MAPS 3 project were listed on the ballot, voters would vote for each project rather than all projects at once.

As they did with MAPS and MAPS For Kids, city leaders decided to make the MAPS 3 ballot an all-or-nothing question; voters will not vote on individual projects.

Mayor Mick Cornett, who has spearheaded the MAPS 3 initiative, said an all-or-nothing approach for MAPS 3 was chosen because it has worked with voters in the past.

"This is the process they are going to be comfortable with,” Cornett said.

Again, this seems contradictory if the state law and/or constitution REQUIRES that they be listed separately, why are we getting a ballot that doesn't do that? Breaking the law just because people are comfortable with it doesn't seem valid, does it?

When I met with David Holt September 25, he had no specific legal authority in mind but mentioned a couple of names (Myriad Gardens, Fent) that were enough for me to locate the series of cases which deal with state and initiative petition matters. See Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS III — The Actual Proposal Redux (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/09/maps-iii-actual-proposal.html#davidholt) .

David is not a lawyer. Neither is Steve, neither is the other Oklahoman reporter you mentioned. While it may or may not be true that log rolling is not OK for municipal ballots (I found no Supreme Court case which addressed whether or not multiple subjects in municipal sales tax or bond issues), what has happened here, I think, is that someone (perhaps David Holt since his name is the earliest mentioned in this context) said something and it was then picked up by others and was just assumed to be true.

David is not a lawyer.

David's very close to being a lawyer. He's currently attending OCU Law and is pretty close to graduation. He's a smart guy, he's fully capable of competent legal analysis. In fact, he's running in my district (Glen Coffee's old seat) and he's one of the few statewide or local Republicans I plan on supporting.

Interesting, he didn't mention any of that info, but, of course, I wasn't there about him so much, was I.

Vote No!

MAPS Investments Hit $3 Billion
KSBI News

MAPS Investments Hit $3 Billion | KSBI Thunder TV | News Sports Radar Weather Cams | Oklahoma City | News (http://www.ksbitv.com/news/64288212.html)

Oct 14, 2009 at 4:08 PM CDT

New figures out tonight show Oklahoma City's MAPS Project is turning in big profits for the city. The original plan for MAPS cost the city about $350 million. But 15 years later, studies show that the total value of new investment projects related to maps reached more than $3 billion.

MAPS was behind the Bricktown Ballpark, the Oklahoma River, the Ford Center, and the Bricktown Canal. The initial investment by the community has been returned almost 10 times, and another $2 billion in future growth has already been announced. The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce says the impact continues to increase within Oklahoma City's core.

Roy Williams the President of the OKC Chamber of Commerce said, "You build that infrastructure where opportunity could present itself. We don't know what the next 10-20 years brings but if we make some great investments right now we have a chance of capturing those. if we don't make investments there's no chance of that happening."

The chamber says this dramatic renaissance should be great momentum heading into MAPS 3. The next big plan for expansion, MAPS 3, will go to voters December 8th.

Curious, how does the city, or the chamber, or whomever is tracking, decide what new project is or is not MAPs related. Some are easy enough, ala a top dawg behind says X is happening here not elsewhere primarily because of MAPs and the city's commitment to the future.

But beyond "cause I say so", what's the determining factor that X is MAPs related growth instead of good ol fashioned annual growth?

Curious, how does the city, or the chamber, or whomever is tracking, decide what new project is or is not MAPs related. Some are easy enough, ala a top dawg behind says X is happening here not elsewhere primarily because of MAPs and the city's commitment to the future.

But beyond "cause I say so", what's the determining factor that X is MAPs related growth instead of good ol fashioned annual growth?If the Chamber says it's related then thats all you need to know.

Curious, how does the city, or the chamber, or whomever is tracking, decide what new project is or is not MAPs related. Some are easy enough, ala a top dawg behind says X is happening here not elsewhere primarily because of MAPs and the city's commitment to the future.

But beyond "cause I say so", what's the determining factor that X is MAPs related growth instead of good ol fashioned annual growth?

On one of these threads, Steve had a list of every development that almost assuredly would not have happened without MAPS 1. It was a very impressive list and it was hard to argue with any of them. I believe Larry Nichols said that without MAPS, he would have moved Devon to Houston, which obviously would have had a significant negative impact, even without the incredibly positive impact of the new tower. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the Nichols statement.

But beyond "cause I say so", what's the determining factor that X is MAPs related growth instead of good ol fashioned annual growth?

A better question might be, what development in downtown would have occurred without MAPS? Is it really feasible to believe that downtown would have made even a quarter of its present progress without MAPS? MAPS redefined the terms for downtown development, making it attractive.

I imagine without MAPS, we might have seen the type of stuff that was going on in Tulsa before the BOK Center and their recently opened ballpark. A few scattered bars/restaurants/music venues (basically Bricktown pre-MAPS) and a handful of infill or residential conversion units.

I would argue that 100% of downtown development can be attributed to MAPS. MAPS projects have brought millions of people downtown who never would have gone, and that has made it possible for every downtown district to thrive. I even believe pretty strongly that MAPS's indirect psychological/social effects created interest in the entire inner city- Plaza, Paseo, Western Ave, 23rd St, Asian District, Medical Center, and that a lot of development completely outside of downtown is related, indirectly, to MAPS.

Curious, how does the city, or the chamber, or whomever is tracking, decide what new project is or is not MAPs related. Some are easy enough, ala a top dawg behind says X is happening here not elsewhere primarily because of MAPs and the city's commitment to the future.

But beyond "cause I say so", what's the determining factor that X is MAPs related growth instead of good ol fashioned annual growth?

Good question and the posts that follow as well. As you are pointing out, some are obviously directly MAPS related, others are a result of the previous development "Nothing breeds success like success" or something like that. For some reason the relocated I-40 has been included in the MAPS economic impact numbers in the report the Chamber commissioned. Don't think any of the MAPS projects resulted in the relocation of I-40 (in fact one of the proposed routes was keeping it right where it is, that was the City's preferred route but ODOT wanted the other). Can see how it would relate to any MAPS 3 stuff (if it didn't happen the land between downtown wouldn't have been opened up...)

If MAPS 3 can deliver the same ratio of development that MAPS brought, that would be an undeniable great thing (even if the cost/budget over runs are similar or not). MAPS 3 is double the original MAPS and if the private investment can be double ... (or is this considered to be conjecture...LOL).

One unanswered question I have is since all of this development HAS happened, where have the results been to the city in the return on investment (for lack of a better term) .

By that I mean, have the property values and subsequent property taxes increased (over costs/inflation)? From my understanding (please correct if wrong), Bond issues are paid with property taxes and the anticipated increase in those property taxes. One article about MAPS budget shortfall said that they were considering a $10M bond issue (don't know if that ended up happening or not, but that isn't the point). It said it was a 20 year bond, the debt service (interest) would be $1M a year. That $10M plus the 20 year interest means it is actually costing you $30M. Don't know the length of the 2007 bond issue, but if it is similar, that $835.5M is actually costing 3 times that much ($2.506 BILLION). This is an excellent argument for a sales tax over bond issue funding methods.

Have the resulting sales taxes increased (again, over costs/inflation).

I guess the question I am asking is the resulting development giving us any "bonus" or is it just keeping us current?

Then there is the question are new restaurants, retail etc, just shifting the money from one area of town to another (thus minimizing the actual economic impact on the City as a whole)?

Thoughts?

Then there is the question are new restaurants, retail etc, just shifting the money from one area of town to another (thus minimizing the actual economic impact on the City as a whole)?

Thoughts?

I don't really have any knowledge of how you could calculate the increase in property values over what they would have been without MAPS, but remembering what was within a several mile radius of downtown prior to MAPS, I would guess the answer would be a fairly unequivocal "yes".

As far as the above question goes, it's almost impossible to say. Larry Nichols says he wouldn't even be here, if not for MAPS, and the absence of Devon would definitely have a negative impact. I think, if there had been similar development, and my gut says there would not have been anywhere near the magnitude of development we've seen in downtown, it would have happened in Edmond. We would have a situation more akin to Phoenix, where the downtown has suffered in comparison to Scottsdale at best, and we'd be a mini Detroit, at worst. We certainly wouldn't have an NBA team, and I think our population growth would have been slower. I know I wouldn't live here, that's for sure.

Hi betts,

Wasn't asking for a comparison of property values etc if no MAPS versus with MAPS, just if the increased value etc had kept up with costs/inflation/expenses etc. Sorry if that wasn't clear. For further clarification, wasn't trying to be argumentative, just asking stuff and asking for thoughts.

Undoubtedly there is definitely a positive economic impact downtown/bricktown, but is there a negative impact in other areas of town because of it? Hopefully there is a net positive impact

Would agree that economic impact numbers are very hard to determine but most are accepted without any questioning (that may be why). Agree that some businesses would have moved out of state and some would have built anyway but not necessarily in that location.

What are property values but a reflection on how desirable someplace is to live? Of course these things would affect property values all over the metro area as they would boost the reputation and desirability of the city as a whole. And if we lure another corporate HQ downtown (which is what the TIFF aims to do)? We could be looking at a lot of growth fast.

yea where did the money go? Where is it?

What did we improve? What did we buy?

If voters approve MAPS 3 proposal, downtown could house $130 million park | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4847/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

yea where did the money go? Where is it?

What did we improve? What did we buy?

I guess I don't follow? Where did what money go? Are you talking about the original MAPS?

Vote No!No!

MAPS PRESENTATION AT NOVEMBER U.N. SOCIAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 12, the Untitled Artspace on 3rd Street will host the November social. Not only will the Skirvin’s John Williams and Nonna’s Avis Scaramucci be honored with U.N. Ambassador awards, but Chamber President Roy Williams will be speaking on MAPS 3.

As always, the social will be 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. and free appetizers and a cash bar will be available. See you there!

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/luncheons-map-out-citys-tax-plan-details/article/3410984?custom_click=headlines_widget)

Luncheons ‘map’ out Oklahoma City’s tax plan details (10/22/09)

Hmmm did anyone else notice that although the headline reads: " Luncheons ‘map’ out Oklahoma City’s tax plan DETAILS"

...During his short speech, Cornett revealed details of the proposal...

and the mayor reiterated what he has said many times:

...the biggest issue facing the MAPS 3 proposal is making sure people living in Oklahoma City are well-informed about the MAPS 3 proposal.

"These projects are strong, but we’ve got to communicate them so people truly understand what it is they’re voting for,”


WHERE ARE THE DETAILS that we were told would be coming, "starting in October"? We are 3/4 of the way thru the month.

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/luncheons-map-out-citys-tax-plan-details/article/3410984?custom_click=headlines_widget)

Luncheons ‘map’ out Oklahoma City’s tax plan details (10/22/09)

Hmmm did anyone else notice that although the headline reads: " Luncheons ‘map’ out Oklahoma City’s tax plan DETAILS"

...During his short speech, Cornett revealed details of the proposal...

and the mayor reiterated what he has said many times:

...the biggest issue facing the MAPS 3 proposal is making sure people living in Oklahoma City are well-informed about the MAPS 3 proposal.

"These projects are strong, but we’ve got to communicate them so people truly understand what it is they’re voting for,”


WHERE ARE THE DETAILS that we were told would be coming, "starting in October"? We are 3/4 of the way thru the month.

I got a kick out of the statement where it says " these luncheons are designed to give members of the public an opportunity to learn about the MAPS 3 proposals and to ask question " There should have been a disclaimer after that statement that said... If you dont mind spending $39.00 for lunch (parking not included), you have enough time on your lunch hour to get Downtown, park, get up to the 34th floor, eat, get back to your car, and get back to work on time. Then make your reservation to learn more on MAPS3. Why would anyone want to miss out on this wonderful opportunity?

andy, come to the UN social in November and you can hear a MAPS 3 presentation by the Chamber's President Roy Williams (head cheerleader) for free, AND you get free appetizers! This way you don't have to worry about adequate parking or paying $39. So cost shouldn't be an excuse. There are plenty of other options to learn about MAPS 3 in a free environment. Read the paper.

MAPS 3 faces date with voters; chamber hopes for good turnout
by Brian Brus
The Journal Record October 23, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY – Voter turnout for each of Oklahoma City’s major penny sales tax issues has increased slightly over the years, as has the margin of support, and MAPS 3 promoters are hoping for even bigger numbers Dec. 8, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber spokeswoman Cynthia Reid said.

“Our goal is a big turnout, because we really believe it’s important that everybody who is excited about what’s happening in the city comes out and votes,” Reid said Thursday. “So we want a big turnout.”But political science experts said they’re not certain that a large turnout will necessarily be good for passage of the $777 million issue.

In September, Oklahoma City Council members voted to set a special election for the public to decide whether to continue a 1-cent, limited-use sales tax for seven years to support a package of major infrastructure and facility improvements, dubbed MAPS 3.

The first MAPS, or Metropolitan Area Projects, was passed in 1993 and included projects such as construction of the Bricktown Ballpark, renovation of the Cox Business Services Convention Center, and development of the Oklahoma River. The second issue in 2001, MAPS for Kids, focused on the Oklahoma City Public Schools District with new buildings and technology upgrades.

If passed, MAPS 3 will provide for the creation of a 70-acre park downtown, a fixed-rail streetcar system and new convention center downtown, trails and sidewalks throughout the city, state fairgrounds improvements, wellness aquatic centers for senior citizens, and upgrades to facilities at the Oklahoma River at the heart of the metro area.

The first MAPS was passed with the support of 53.8 percent of about 60,000 voters, Oklahoma County Election Board records show. The follow-up MAPS for Kids issue passed with about 61-percent support, but the question was divided into two portions – 60,000 ballots were cast for the municipal components and about 34,000 ballots were cast for school district components.

In early 2008, city officials proposed a penny tax worth $120 million to upgrade the Ford Center arena in downtown in order to lure an NBA team. Arena improvements were originally intended to be part of a larger MAPS package, officials said at the time, but had to be moved forward because of NBA board of directors’ voting priorities. That issue passed with the support of 61.9 percent of about 74,400 voters.

Keith Gaddie, a professor in the political science department at the University of Oklahoma, said the MAPS 3 vote has an inherent component that will likely keep numbers down: scheduling. The election takes place shortly after Thanksgiving when people start getting busy for winter holidays and thinking about buying Christmas gifts.

Small voter turnouts generally benefit passionate supporters, he said, because indifferent voters just won’t bother.

“But the downside is that in a low-turnout election, it’s also a lot easier for an intense opposition group to get organized and get their vote out together,” Gaddie said.

At Oklahoma City University, political science department chairman Richard Johnson said the MAPS 3 campaign needs to do a better job of informing constituents.

“Unless the supporters do a better job of getting out in front of this, they really risk having it fail,” Johnson said.

“People have felt really good about the MAPS projects generally and getting a reasonable return on their dollar. But there’s not really enough out there yet. The public really needs to be educated about MAPS 3 and what’s in it – something like the need for an expansion of the Civic Center, for example. The benefits really need to be laid out for people to motivate them to vote.”
He agreed with Gaddie: “There will be some people who are anti-tax no matter what,” Johnson said.

Other major elements most likely to negatively affect the election outcome, Gaddie said, are grass-roots voters and the unions of first-responder emergency workers.

“Firefighters and cops are a significant threat to an election like this, because people know them and respect them, and they’re organized,” Gaddie said. “And even though unions are weak in Oklahoma, there are more union workers in Oklahoma City than any other part of the state.”

Phil Sipe, president-elect of the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 157, said that although his group supports economic development through MAPS tax issues, they are bothered that an increased workload for city employees has not been addressed also. The union originally announced its membership could not support MAPS 3. On Thursday, Sipe confirmed his group would actively oppose the issue.

“We’re trying to plan our some kind of campaign against it. And what form that’s going to be, nobody really knows at this time,” Sipe said. “We have a big uphill battle ahead of us. Let’s face it, we don’t have anywhere near the financial support or wherewithal to mount a massive campaign against it. We’ll just do the best we can with the limited resources we have.”

City leaders have been promoting the issue through various small events, appealing to other opinion influencers in meetings such as Cornett’s presentation at a chamber of commerce luncheon earlier this week.

“We are doing so many speaking engagements, it’s out of control,” Reid said. “We are everywhere right now, and although the big television and media campaign hasn’t started yet, we are very active on the ground, talking to voters and opinion-leaders and people who have questions … from neighborhood meetings to six employees at a company to the Downtown Rotary Club.”

The Journal Record - Article (http://journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=103709)

Thanks for that, Warreng88. At least someone is doing some reporting on MAPS 3. It's high time that the Oklahoman got on board, if it is willing.

andy, come to the UN social in November and you can hear a MAPS 3 presentation by the Chamber's President Roy Williams (head cheerleader) for free, AND you get free appetizers! This way you don't have to worry about adequate parking or paying $39. So cost shouldn't be an excuse. There are plenty of other options to learn about MAPS 3 in a free environment. Read the paper.

Metro,

Does it bother that the Mayor's MAPS 3 press conferences cost $35 to attend? Just wondering what you thought.

Metro probably got (and will get) a comp ticket. So far for Doug Dawg, nada. I'm still hoping, though ... but about the mayor's presentation being a press conference? Is that what it was? See my revised http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-our-principal-bee-watcher.html for my thoughts about that.

andy, come to the UN social in November and you can hear a MAPS 3 presentation by the Chamber's President Roy Williams (head cheerleader) for free, AND you get free appetizers! This way you don't have to worry about adequate parking or paying $39. So cost shouldn't be an excuse. There are plenty of other options to learn about MAPS 3 in a free environment. Read the paper.

Thanks for the invite, I may take you up on your offer. You can't beat free food. All off us can learn something new everyday, and we never get to old to do so. However, I've seen enough of these MAPS/Tax/G.O. Bond deals to know all I need to know. I have also seen and heard enough of Mr. William's cheerleader routines. They're all pretty much the same, only the names have been changed.

Some of us look beyond the "cheerleader routines" and ask ourselves what it will mean to those of us who aren't cheerleaders. This isn't about who the leadership of Oklahoma City is and whether you agree with them, it's about whether you think it will make Oklahoma City a better place for your and your family to live. Mayors, city councilmen, newspaper editors and city managers change. Regardless of who is in power, this is where we live, and we have to rise above petty politics and ask ourselves what is good for our city and ourselves. I happen to think the MAPS programs have been the best thing I've ever seen in Oklahoma City, a transformative concept, and I'm not going to shoot myself and my city in the foot to play politics. I'll vote for what I want for myself, my family and my fellow citizens.

... I'm not going to shoot myself and my city in the foot to play politics. I'll vote for what I want for myself, my family and my fellow citizens.

That all sounds good and this isn't an attack, I really want to understand...what projects mentioned in the MAPS 3 Ballot or Ordinance are you "voting for"?


...Mayors, city councilmen, newspaper editors and city managers change. ...

And that's precisely the problem with the Ballot, Ordinance and the NON-BINDING "intent" resolution.

Some of us look beyond the "cheerleader routines" and ask ourselves what it will mean to those of us who aren't cheerleaders. This isn't about who the leadership of Oklahoma City is and whether you agree with them, it's about whether you think it will make Oklahoma City a better place for your and your family to live. Mayors, city councilmen, newspaper editors and city managers change. Regardless of who is in power, this is where we live, and we have to rise above petty politics and ask ourselves what is good for our city and ourselves. I happen to think the MAPS programs have been the best thing I've ever seen in Oklahoma City, a transformative concept, and I'm not going to shoot myself and my city in the foot to play politics. I'll vote for what I want for myself, my family and my fellow citizens.Betts, thats all fine and good, and please, don't sell yourself short. You have done a magnificent job of leading the cheers for MAPS. Really you have. Furthermore, if you support each and every project on the list, and would vote for each of them if they were single stand alone issues, you should do just that.

Now lets say of the nine projects there are five of them you support no matter what. Now of the remaining four, there are three which don't interest you one way or another, but if they are part of the deal then you can live with them.

Now when it comes to the last issue. You don't like it, you don't think it should be built and/or supported with MAPS funds, and, if you were given the chance to vote on it as a separate issue you would vote no.

However, you don't have that option, it is all or none. If your principals allow you to vote for something you oppose in order to save those which you support, thats fine with me, I respect your justification, go for it.

I have issues with the Fairgrounds receiving MAPS funding. Look at the record, it will show my opposition to MAPS on that issue, long before the Police and Fire issues came to light. The justification for my opposition is based moreso on my principals than on my politics.

Regarding the Police and Fire's opposition. I have heard you, as well as others, refer to that opposition as "Blackmail". Those mean old Unions are trying to Blackmail the City in order to get what they want, and those type of tatics appal you.

That takes me back to the vote on the remodeling of the Ford Center, which I supported 100%. The practice facility was just the opposit. I could not, and would not, support that. Why? because it was Blackmail, nothing more, nothing less. Since I chose not to allow myself to be threatened by that tatic into voting for one thing in order to get another, I had to vote no on a project that had my total support. If my memory serves me correctly you did not consider the P.F. demands by the owners to be Blackmail. But even if you did, again you were able to justify being Blackmailed in order to get what you wanted. Seems to me theres a bit of irony somewhere in all of this.

Andy, despite the fact that I am pro MAPS, I also have to respect someone's position who cannot vote for it because there is something about the proposal they cannot support. If the fairgrounds is a deal breaker for you, I can accept that. If you were an anti all taxes person I could understand that, because at least it relates to the issue on which we will be voting.

I guess you could consider David Stern's Ford Center update demand blackmail, but that happens in every city, and at least we were voting on whether to accept his demands or not, and we did get improvements to the Ford Center, as well as a team. It was fairly straightforward.

Actually, I've always voted for monies to be given to the police and fire departments when it was on the ballot, even though I have never, in the entire time I've been in Oklahoma City, used a policeman or a fireman for anything. Obviously, I'm paying for potential, and I'm paying because it's good for OTHER people. That's really why I vote for MAPS, even if there are things on it I don't support. Any one particular thing may not be good for me as an individual, but it may be good for someone else in my city.

That's my problem with the opposition to MAPS for a reason other than the proposals themselves. If you couldn't vote for the Ford Center MAPS because you didn't support building a practice facility, that was opposition to the language of the proposal itself. The police and fire unions are campaigning against it not because of language in the proposals, or even the concept. Some of them have even come out and said they like the concept. This is "You won't give me what I want, so I'm going to find an unrelated way to punish you for that opposition". Nevermind the fact that the 9 people you're trying to punish are transitory, and your opposition will affect all of the rest of us as well. Collateral damage, right?

To me, the fair thing would be to go to the city and say, "We're understaffed, and we cannot fulfill our duties. Therefore, these are the duties that will not be fulfilled. I'd pick the things that have either proven to be less successful or activities that are less critical and I'd stop doing them. I would cut nonessential or unrelated programs until my employees didn't have to work overtime, and didn't have to miss vacation. Then, if the city complained, I'd say: " You can have that back when you give us the money to staff them." That's Ford Center comparable "blackmail", and to me, that's how you get what you need. If the city doesn't need those things, then maybe you don't need the new employees. If they do, you'll get them, believe me.

... I guess you could consider David Stern's Ford Center update demand blackmail, but that happens in every city, and at least we were voting on whether to accept his demands or not, and we did get improvements to the Ford Center, as well as a team. It was fairly straightforward....

Do you have a link for that? The info I have on Stern before the vote was this:

OKC mayor calls on public support for $100M spending proposal - NBA - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3163932)

Cornett said he had spoken with the NBA and had preliminary discussions about a lease with the SuperSonics but the decision to seek public funding for the upgrades was not forced upon him. NBA commissioner David Stern said during an April visit that the Ford Center, which cost only $89 million to build, did not necessarily need upgrades to host an NBA team permanently. (12/20/07)

Just curious where this "blackmail" idea came from when it came to the Ford Center. Yes, it was that way up in Seattle and probably will be here in a few years...IMO

Do you have a link for that? The info I have on Stern before the vote was this:

OKC mayor calls on public support for $100M spending proposal - NBA - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3163932)

Cornett said he had spoken with the NBA and had preliminary discussions about a lease with the SuperSonics but the decision to seek public funding for the upgrades was not forced upon him. NBA commissioner David Stern said during an April visit that the Ford Center, which cost only $89 million to build, did not necessarily need upgrades to host an NBA team permanently. (12/20/07)

Just curious where this "blackmail" idea came from when it came to the Ford Center. Yes, it was that way up in Seattle and probably will be here in a few years...IMOThe way I remember issue, and where it became Blackmail, had to do more with the practice facility than the Ford Center. The Mayor informed us the owners would not move the team to OKC if a practice facility was not built and paid for by the taxpayers of OKC. By the way Larry, you are 100% right. We have not seen the last of this business model. Someday they will be back with a list of demands that we must meet, or else.

The way I remember issue, and where it became Blackmail, had to do more with the practice facility than the Ford Center. The Mayor informed us the owners would not move the team to OKC if a practice facility was not built and paid for by the taxpayers of OKC. By the way Larry, you are 100% right. We have not seen the last of this business model. Someday they will be back with a list of demands that we must meet, or else.

It may take me awhile, as most of the stories are now archived, but I'll get you that David Stern quote, Larry. Bennett may have told the mayor he had to have the practice facility, but there's no way the other owners would ever have voted to move the Sonics from a 40 year NBA city (3 x the size of Oklahoma City) that was losing them only because they wouldn't build a new arena, to a marginal city that refused to improve a marginal arena. Wasn't going to happen. Clay Bennett isn't that powerful, believe me.

They may be back with a list of demands that must be met, or else. It will depend on how financially successful and well supported the team is. They will ask for a new arena eventually, and yes, they probably will say that's what it will take to keep the team here. Many of the other smaller cities (and a few big ones) have heard that threat as well. We're not unique. Larry and I simply disagree on the time frame for that particular "business model".

Betts, I recall a statement that Stern said when the BOD voted to move the team to OKC that the vote would not have happened without the vote of the citezens to improve the Ford Center. As I recall, it was implied before the vote and expressed explicitly afterwards. I may be wrong (which I know I misremember some things) but that is how I recall it.

Although this is not new info on MAPS, we don't really have a thread for each project. This is a quote from an article in the New York Times Steve posted on his blog at OKCCentral.com. It is made in regards to Milennium Park in Chicago, one of the parks I believe Oklahoma City may be trying to emulate. It too stretches from the Core to the Shore, is completely urban, and so much a part of what Chicago is today. This is what I want for Oklahoma City:

Yet this period (recent eclecticism in city public architecture) produced powerful efforts to create a new model for the post-cold-war American city. The most obvious of these is Chicago’s Millennium Park, a somewhat traditional arrangement of cultural buildings and sprawling lawns built on top of a derelict rail yard. Completed in 2004, the park is mobbed with office workers and tourists on an average weekday. It feels as if it has been part of the city’s life for decades.

I guess I don't get out much ... LOL ... but the only grand city park that I had ever really heard of was NY and Central Park (have been to Boston, Chicago and other cities mentioned but that was decades ago). The first I had even heard of most of these was in relation to MAPS 3/C2S

What betts described certainly sounds appealing, but how much of that are we getting in our $130M version? The renderings only show one remaining building (Union Station) and there isn't an amphitheater Steve had mentioned over in his blog. Many of the things that were stated in the C2S report that the Park should include, appear to be missing.

Actually, most of Millenium Park is simply lawn, although the bean is a huge tourist magnet (Millennium Park :: Art and Architecture :: Cloud Gate on AT&T Plaza (http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/cloud_gate.html)). It would be great to have something iconic like that. Chicago has many, many festivals that take place in the park, but I do believe Union Station, if done right, could have the same appeal as some of the other public structures in it and other parks.

I'm not sure we really know we're not getting an amphitheatre ultimately. When I went to the last Core to Shore meeting, the amphitheatre in their plans was on the river. So, it would be in phase II of the park. Since we don't have any final plans, it's also possible it could be in the park that would be funded by MAPS 3. Too early to tell, I think.

Actually, most of Millenium Park is simply lawn, although the bean is a huge tourist magnet ...

Seriously? I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but that is a tourist attraction? Course we have our giant coke bottle and others have the worlds largest ball of string...:LolLolLol