Ponca City has community wi-fi. We could have it for a fraction of the cost of maps 3.

These are some of the reasons we with the Fire department feel we cannot support this version of maps. Councilman Brian Walters also feel that this version is a wrong move.

• The Maps promise that City revenues would increase to pay for needed services has not happened.
• Since the inception of Maps initiatives, our staffing levels have actually gone down. Since the 02/03 fiscal budget year, we have been at the same force strength of 948 uniformed positions. During the 98/99 budget year we had 999 uniformed positions on the Fire Department.
• Call volume (# of incidents/emergency responses), since the passage of the Public safety sales tax in 1989, has almost tripled in the last 20+ years.
• The population of Oklahoma City has grown by an additional 100,000+ in the last 20 years.
• We do not believe that our City leadership at this time is acting responsibly with tax payer money i.e. the two stations that should have been built from the 2000 Bond issue have not been built yet (those two stations will replace two that already exist; stations 4 and 6). *Compare this with how rapidly they built other projects with bond funds. Also compare with how rapidly they built the latest Maps projects (Thunder improvements were passed and completed or nearing completion).
• Three additional fire stations were recommended by a 2006 study, and Bonds were sold to fund the new stations in the 2007 Bond issue. No action has been taken to build the new stations. Three levels of Call volumes were projected in the study, and we have already exceeded the highest projected level in the study several years ahead of the projection.
• Public safety costs have only increased because salary, pension contributions, and health care costs have risen. Not because they hired more people.
• They are only able to staff the stations at current levels by taking away employee benefits. This is a very good indication of how “short handed” they are. May want to say something like “They are having so much trouble staffing fire stations, they have to cancel firefighter’s days off and make them come back to work in order to have enough firefighters to respond to emergencies”.
• At the same time they are asking the citizens to fund a 777 million Maps 3 initiative, they are asking the Fire Department to take a 2% budget cut that may further reduce staffing levels. Which now is going to result in the loss of 27 positions, 2 Engine companies and 1 Brush Pumper.
• The public safety sales tax provides them with total general fund relief.
• Claiming this is about Firefighters not getting a raise this year is erroneous. We have been awarded our raise because the City violated the Fire Police and Arbitration Act. The City failed to bargain in good faith according to the law.
• We are trying to give back the raise if the City will just solve our staffing issues.

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

Everytime I have been there it is mobbed with people. It's pretty cool, actually.

This is in response to a discussion in the Fire/Police thread..it is a long one so feel free to scroll right on by if it doesn't interest you


I think a lot of the momentum will stop if we don't pass MAPS.

You don't say why it will stop. It may very well slow down (and as I said a new round of projects will be a shot in the arm so to speak, no argument there). The items you mentioned did indeed create some forward momentum (no argument there). These successful developments (attributed to MAPS) led to other developments and so on and so on. Why is everything going to stop after the Devon Tower is completed? Won't that success lead to other development?

I still don't see how everything is going to suddenly stop. Even you disagreed with the Mayors statement that basically said the same thing (“The city grinds to a halt if that boulevard isn’t constructed when I-40 is relocated.”) if the Boulevard replacement doesn't get built. How is this any different?


How is voting "no" on MAPS pro-active?

It is being pro-active in the sense, it tells them they screwed up and need to get it right the next time (whenever that is). But you are correct, it is being reactive in one sense (but certainly in a more timely fashion than waiting around 7.75 years and $777M later). Seems better to take care of the problem before all of that happens, rather than after.

We trusted the Mayor when he said MAPS 3 wasn't a done deal, that there was still time for things to be considered...that there would be public input over the summer...etc. As people that would be considered in the pro-MAPS 3 camp have pointed out, that didn't happen. Is this what you are basing your trust on?

The Mayor said repeatedly, the biggest obstacle would be informing the public (giving them the details) as to why these projects are needed and deserve their vote. Beginning in October. We are almost out of October, still no further details reported in the Media. No new information posted on the City/Chamber/Yes Vote websites (as far as I have been able to tell). As Doug asked about posting meetings etc, "How hard is it to do that"? Is this what you are basing your trust on?

We trusted them when the Mayor's office implied that we would be voting on the projects separately. The Mayor said as much as recently as the MAPS 3 press conference:

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

Surely the Mayor had a pretty good idea at that point what format the Ballot was going to take. Yet we get a ballot that not only doesn't have separate propositions, but doesn't even mention the projects at all. Is this what you are basing your trust on?


What precisely will happen to make all these things happen, especially in a timely fashion, if MAPS doesn't pass?
Depends on what your definition of timely is. Since they have already passed the Ballot and Ordinance and set the election date, I don't think they can legally go back and undo any of it at this point. So we are stuck with what they have given us which ain't much. The only option the voters have at this point is to tell them "Yes, full speed ahead, here's $777M, do whatever you want," or "No, go back to the drawing board and get it right next time."

What is the rush on this? They have been talking about MAPS 3 at least as far back as 2003 (Kirk Humphreys was mayor and current OSU president Burns Hargis was head of the Chamber). As a side note, Hargis was still talking about streetcars then, (Humphreys didn't agree), trying to get them up and running for the Centennial. Not sure how that would have worked out since MAPS 2 didn't end until the end of last year. To happen by the Centennial, MAPS 3 would have to have overlapped MAPS 2. They had all of MAPS 2 to work on this. They bought themselves at least a year to work on it when the Ford improvements were pulled out and voted on separately. Remember, we were supposed to have voted on MAPS 3 last December. This is another element that bears repeating, if we were supposed to have voted on this last December, obviously they had more details than what they have given out to date. If not mistaken, David Holt implied that the City doesn't have any details. The only urgency is the timing factor of the expiring temporary penny sales tax. In order to make the misleading claim that it won't raise taxes (it does) they can't let there be any gap. If there is a gap, it will be obvious that it is a tax increase and that makes it a harder sell.


The streetcar plan didn't even come from the city.

Maybe not this particular plan, but downtown streetcars have been in the works since the original MAPS in 1993. Need more info...which plan is that? Do you have a link? Routes haven't been announced yet (heck, they don't even know the length yet...5 or 6 miles) and I would presume that any sort of plan would have those included?


If MAPS doesn't pass, do you honestly think they're going to bend over backwards to figure out a way to get it done in any reasonable time frame?

Yes. Absolutely. Without any doubt.

As discussed before, those items that City leadership consider to be critical will be back in some form or another. If they are going to pay for it with any sort of new tax, it has to be passed by the voters (there's a law). Kind of diminishes one council person's spin:

...Ward 7 Councilman Skip Kelly, who delivered a address Tuesday on the virtues of democracy and leaving big decisions up to citizens. Kelly said he’s pleased voters get to choose what they "believe the growth of this city should be in the next 15 or 20 years.” ... "I’m voting for everyone in this city to have an opportunity to vote,” Kelly said.

Thank you so much, Councilman Kelly, for allowing the people what the law says you have to do!

It may be they figure out another way to get the funding that doesn't require a vote, but don't know what that method might be. I don't have the article handy, but the Mayor has indicated this will be the case for the Park. Maybe not in 6 months, it may take a year or maybe even longer. But those items that are the most critical would be pushed along to the front of the line. That means that projects may get built one at a time (with no overlap) and the time frame may be longer. But even under the MAPS plan, it is mostly pay as you go and projects are staggered over roughly 10 years. Don't really see that much difference.



Does stopping dead really make a city that's trying desperately to improve its self image do anyone any good?

Again, exactly how does anything "stop dead"?



I'm going to trust the mayor and the city council, because I happen to think that most of them actually care about the city, and they've seen what MAPS did and want to continue the progress. It may be their legacy, and a lot of people in public office actually care about their legacy, especially those in public offices that don't pay much.

Based on the historical nature of many of Steve's and Doug's blog posts, am sure they can attest to the myriad of broken promises made by various councils and mayors over the years. Projects approved by the voters that never came to pass. We have even had that happen post-MAPS. What you said may be true of the current council members and mayor but what about the future ones? There is NOTHING binding on this or any future council.


Again, what am I personally gambling? What do I personally lose if I'm wrong? A few pennies a month.
Whoa Nellie! You changed back to "me" pretty quick! What happened to the "we" (the $777M you are also willing to gamble) you mentioned below?


... I think it's dangerous not to take a risk here, personally, and I would never vote against something I think is good for Oklahoma City. The "we" is more important than the "me" to my way of thinking.

and finally....


I actually feel extremely confident that we'll see everything on the ballot built....maybe not precisely in the way we envision them, but built.

I know you have read the Ballot and Ordinance, but please go read them again. How can you be "extremely confident that we'll see everything on the ballot built" when NONE of them are there???

Larry, this is basically a "I believe" and "you believe" issue here. I believe what I posted. I have no proof I'm right. You believe what you posted, but you too have no proof you're right. I may disagree with the methods the mayor is using, but I believe his heart is in the right place, and I like the proposals. Several of the things I am most interested in may never pass on their own, and so I'm going to support the package. The city is spending time and energy on thie election. Elections aren't free. I see no proof that six months from now we're going to see another election, more finely tuned so that it meets your satisfaction. The city isn't going to know that you're voting no because you don't like the format. They'll have no reason to think if they change the language a bit, that it will pass. So, my belief is that we'll see some of these proposals show up, in dribs and drabs, over the years. Some of them won't pass for whatever reason, and Core to Shore may be stopped dead in its tracks. Again, my opinion. No proof, just belief.

Now, I happen to disagree with Mayor Cornett on the boulevard, but that's my opinion as well. I see it as a much less important stimulus to development than the streetcar, the central park and maybe the convention center. I have no proof he's wrong and I'm right here either. Just posting what I think, as always.

Unless any of us have inside information to the contrary, that's pretty much all any of us are doing here.

Larry, this is basically a "I believe" and "you believe" issue here. I believe what I posted. I have no proof I'm right. You believe what you posted, but you too have no proof you're right. ...

My information is based on the reporting that's out there, I have given you the reasons for my belief and the quotes etc where appropriate. What exactly would you consider to be proof? I have asked for the "why" and what you are basing your beliefs on, they appear to be further beliefs. I don't understand.

And as we have discussed before, the City makes an analysis after an election (even ones that barely passed, like MAPS). Why wouldn't they do the same for an election that failed? They are just going to say "guess they didn't like the projects so we will never mention them again?" Of course not.

With MAPS, they determined it failed on the South side. Why? The MAPS projects were seen as being for the North Side (primarily Downtown area) and there was nothing in it for them. They fixed this when they did MAPS 2, and made sure that EVERY school in the OKC school district would get at least $1M in renovations and of the new schools that would be built, they were evenly distributed. To make sure that those who were within the OKC city limits but weren't in the OKC school district didn't pull MAPS 2 down, they ensured that 30% of the MAPS 2 money would go to those districts. MAPS 2 passed by a much larger margin, as everyone could see how it would impact their neighborhood school.

MAPS 3 is sort of a hybrid. As the Mayor pointed out, there are about a third that think it should be all downtown/bricktown focused. About a third think it should be spread out all over the City. The remaining third don't really care where, just that it be built in the best place.

If it passes or fails, there will be an analysis to see what went right and what went wrong.


...Several of the things I am most interested in may never pass on their own, and so I'm going to support the package....

Again, what things and what package? None of them are mentioned. NONE. NADA. ZERO

Betts: To clarify, it is never an attempt to attack or belittle, it truly is trying to understand the "whys" behind people's opinions. We aren't talking about religion where faith is a major component and isn't based on a belief that can be proven or dis-proven. I have no problem with you having a belief or an opinion either (we all have them), just trying to understand if that belief or opinion is based on. If it runs contrary to the reported information.....

Larry, you know there is also a resollution of intent associated with the ballot. Pretending it doesn't exist is an expresion of lack of faith that the city council will be true to its word. If you have that lack of faith, fine. I simply don't. I honestly believe that the mayor and the city council intend to complete MAPS 3 as outlined in their resolution of intent.

Yes, if things don't pass in MAPS, there will be a study to see what didn't pass where. First of all, elections cost money and studies take time. There's a time lag there. Then, do you honestly believe that the majority of people who vote against this will do so because of the vagueness of the wording, that they'll find this out and they'll fix it and we'll all happily vote again? I think the majority of people will take them at their word and vote for or against the projects in MAPS that are outlined in the letter of intent, for the same reasons they usually vote for or against resolutions. My opinion, of course, and perhaps I will be wrong. We already know people are not in favor of the Central Park and the Convention Center. You're right, the convention center will show up again at some point in time. But, since there's not positive support for it now, it's going to take a bunch of politicking and fact finding and television tours of the current convention center to convince people we need a new one. Again, my prediction: 5 years. The Central Park may never happen. Where's the political will to keep plugging with it? Bike trails will show up in some bond issue and they may or may not pass. Same with the kayak course, after a bunch of threats to move the Olympic Center elsewhere perhaps. The senior centers will never be heard from again. Maybe they'll increase the hotel tax at some point to improve the fairgrounds. And, maybe, if people push enough there will be some sort of vote for a downtown streetcar. But, I'd love to see Jeff Bezdek comment (he hasn't been around here recently) on whether, if MAPS 3 fails, how interested he actually thinks the city will be in a streetcar. They weren't interested before he became so active, as far as I can tell. But again, each of these things will have to be pushed independently of each other, and it's going to take time. How much time? I don't know. I would guess it would delay everything by a minimum of 5 years, and perhaps more. Personally, I don't want that delay. Simple as that.

It is hard for me to imagine that any of the measures would win approval if individually presented to voters regardless of funding mechanism. None of the projects alone seem to have sufficient support to even attract a champion much less garner sufficient support for enactment.

That leaves the possibility for another MAPS type effort. But it seems to me that the coalition supporting the measure would be fractured if this one fails. There would be a lot of arguing over why the measure failed and what to do about it and finger pointing and so on. So it is unlikely there would be sufficient energy to mount a new MAPS quickly and even more unlikely that the same package would be presented in any event.

So probably the park and the downtown transit system would be lost for a long time. Convention center might make it if business improved sufficiently but that would be against the backdrop of a defeated MAPS. The other projects would have very little chance.

I think the most likely outcome would be a several year period of inaction and stalemate.

But that's just my opinion.

These are some of the reasons we with the Fire department feel we cannot support this version of maps. Councilman Brian Walters also feel that this version is a wrong move.

• The Maps promise that City revenues would increase to pay for needed services has not happened.
• Since the inception of Maps initiatives, our staffing levels have actually gone down. Since the 02/03 fiscal budget year, we have been at the same force strength of 948 uniformed positions. During the 98/99 budget year we had 999 uniformed positions on the Fire Department.
• Call volume (# of incidents/emergency responses), since the passage of the Public safety sales tax in 1989, has almost tripled in the last 20+ years.
• The population of Oklahoma City has grown by an additional 100,000+ in the last 20 years.
• We do not believe that our City leadership at this time is acting responsibly with tax payer money i.e. the two stations that should have been built from the 2000 Bond issue have not been built yet (those two stations will replace two that already exist; stations 4 and 6). *Compare this with how rapidly they built other projects with bond funds. Also compare with how rapidly they built the latest Maps projects (Thunder improvements were passed and completed or nearing completion).
• Three additional fire stations were recommended by a 2006 study, and Bonds were sold to fund the new stations in the 2007 Bond issue. No action has been taken to build the new stations. Three levels of Call volumes were projected in the study, and we have already exceeded the highest projected level in the study several years ahead of the projection.
• Public safety costs have only increased because salary, pension contributions, and health care costs have risen. Not because they hired more people.
• They are only able to staff the stations at current levels by taking away employee benefits. This is a very good indication of how “short handed” they are. May want to say something like “They are having so much trouble staffing fire stations, they have to cancel firefighter’s days off and make them come back to work in order to have enough firefighters to respond to emergencies”.
• At the same time they are asking the citizens to fund a 777 million Maps 3 initiative, they are asking the Fire Department to take a 2% budget cut that may further reduce staffing levels. Which now is going to result in the loss of 27 positions, 2 Engine companies and 1 Brush Pumper.
• The public safety sales tax provides them with total general fund relief.
• Claiming this is about Firefighters not getting a raise this year is erroneous. We have been awarded our raise because the City violated the Fire Police and Arbitration Act. The City failed to bargain in good faith according to the law.
• We are trying to give back the raise if the City will just solve our staffing issues.

I had no idea that you guys were that bad off. If what you say is true, I as a citizen of OKC am truly outraged. These issues need to be addressed....

Maps 3 is not about Fire/Police..............................

Lets please keep this about maps 3.

Fire/Police needs are legit but Maps 3 is about moving the city forward and we don't need other issues mucking it up.

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.
The Gazette's 10/21 article on the park (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/gazette_2009_10_21.jpg) isn't very reassuring about the park. A copy of quotes from city officials appearing in that article appear below:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/maps3/gazette_2009_10_21_crop.jpg

Sometimes, it almost seems that the city is trying to turn off supporters, which of course it is not. So if the vote passes, THEN a more accurate cost number will be made?

The next "Breaking Through" COC-sponsored luncheon is on October 29 at the Petroleum Club ... go to http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/www.okcchamber.com/events ... to register ($35 for non-COC members) but the event will presumably be available to everyone via streaming video here in this area of the Chamber's website: Greater Oklahoma City Chamber - YES for MAPS - Vote YES for MAPS (http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=1947) ... in the sidebar at the left, there will presumably be a new link, below the one which presently reads, "Breaking Through 10/21."

According to what David Thompson said at the end of the 10/21 event, the principal topic will be the proposed park. He said that the person who designed the park, Mary Margaret Jones with Hargreaves Associates, will be the principal speaker.

So we're just supposed to fork over nearly a billion dollars when the government has absolutely no idea how much they'll really need and how it'll be spent?

-- sounds like normalcy to me. Sign me up.

I'm thinking any day now OKCitians may start seeing these T-shirts

Vote Yes in December!
Trust Us
We're the govt. and we're here to help

:kicking::kicking::kicking:

You have to ask yourself why the Mayor would not want the voters to vote on each project separately. Also, is it true that MAPS for Kids has not been completed?

All:

I would like to add something here regarding my personal effort to suggest a means to compel the city to commit specifically to the highly touted MAPS3 projects. I have already relayed a copy of this letter to some folks on this board whom I felt have demonstrated a willingness to hear both sides of this issue.

I wrote a letter to each member of the city council as well as the mayor expressing my concerns on what amounts to a blank check for MAPS3, binding the city only to its noted "resolution of intent." It was my suggestion that a MAPS3 Public Trust be established to receive all funds from the proposed tax, and that Trust be chartered specifically to fund the design, development, construction, and maintenance of exclusively those projects enumerated in that resolution of intent.

The only reply I received was from the city manager, who relayed that my Trust idea violates state law against cities encumbering tax revenues beyond the year(s) in which they are collected, and that even if they did enact such a trust, it wouldn't be valid for more than the year it was created.

In that vein, the entire MAPS3 process is intended to skirt that issue, which is why we have this smoke-and-mirrors effort not to commit the city to anything.

I thought seriously about replying with the suggestion that the trust be constructed on a revolving basis, consisting of multiple, separate one-year trusts, with any funds remaining at the end of a given year be designated as a disbursement for the express purpose of the trust into the next "trust year." I opted not to, because I further realized the city has no intention of binding itself to anything in precisely this manner, because they don't want to be bound. They want plans, costs, and priorities as vague as possible.

What I strongly suspect is that a rather unsettling "back door" arrangement has been made that links what the Chamber wants to what certain "vital players" want out of MAPS3, none of which necessarily mesh with what the general public wants. I personally think the Chamber wants a new convention center, despite the fact it polls so poorly. I stress that's an opinion, an inference, a "reading of the tea leaves." The city does not want to be put in a position of being forced to do what it is promising to do. I just don't see any other way of putting it.

I hate to sound cynical, but I am more than a bit disheartened at what I see as a clear effort to avoid speciously any effort to tie the city to the promises it has made for MAPS3.

And that, quite frankly, bothers the crap out of me. For all the folks who have smaller stakes in MAPS3, and might be persuaded to support it for those smaller projects, I fear those will be the very ones sacrificed for whatever it may be that the "good ol' boys" have decided they want.

I wish we had a media outlet in the city with the chops to get in front of this. Its reprehensible that the Oklahoman is leading the parade for MAPS3 and thus precluding any honest coverage of it. Its absolutely reprehensible.

All I can say is I tried as best I know how, as a private citizen, to translate my gripes into a constructive suggestion to address the concerns I have over MAPS3. And, after the effort, I think I feel even worse.

Its very, very frustrating.

OKCRT, this thread is about Maps3, I was discussing support or lack of support for it. As a voting member of this community and a member of the Fire Dept. unfortunately these issues are intertwined and for me are not seperate. Lets move forward with the cities needs, before we move forward with the cities wants.

All:

I would like to add something here regarding my personal effort to suggest a means to compel the city to commit specifically to the highly touted MAPS3 projects. I have already relayed a copy of this letter to some folks on this board whom I felt have demonstrated a willingness to hear both sides of this issue.

I wrote a letter to each member of the city council as well as the mayor expressing my concerns on what amounts to a blank check for MAPS3, binding the city only to its noted "resolution of intent." It was my suggestion that a MAPS3 Public Trust be established to receive all funds from the proposed tax, and that Trust be chartered specifically to fund the design, development, construction, and maintenance of exclusively those projects enumerated in that resolution of intent.

The only reply I received was from the city manager, who relayed that my Trust idea violates state law against cities encumbering tax revenues beyond the year(s) in which they are collected, and that even if they did enact such a trust, it wouldn't be valid for more than the year it was created.

In that vein, the entire MAPS3 process is intended to skirt that issue, which is why we have this smoke-and-mirrors effort not to commit the city to anything.

I thought seriously about replying with the suggestion that the trust be constructed on a revolving basis, consisting of multiple, separate one-year trusts, with any funds remaining at the end of a given year be designated as a disbursement for the express purpose of the trust into the next "trust year." I opted not to, because I further realized the city has no intention of binding itself to anything in precisely this manner, because they don't want to be bound. They want plans, costs, and priorities as vague as possible.

What I strongly suspect is that a rather unsettling "back door" arrangement has been made that links what the Chamber wants to what certain "vital players" want out of MAPS3, none of which necessarily mesh with what the general public wants. I personally think the Chamber wants a new convention center, despite the fact it polls so poorly. I stress that's an opinion, an inference, a "reading of the tea leaves." The city does not want to be put in a position of being forced to do what it is promising to do. I just don't see any other way of putting it.

I hate to sound cynical, but I am more than a bit disheartened at what I see as a clear effort to avoid speciously any effort to tie the city to the promises it has made for MAPS3.

And that, quite frankly, bothers the crap out of me. For all the folks who have smaller stakes in MAPS3, and might be persuaded to support it for those smaller projects, I fear those will be the very ones sacrificed for whatever it may be that the "good ol' boys" have decided they want.

I wish we had a media outlet in the city with the chops to get in front of this. Its reprehensible that the Oklahoman is leading the parade for MAPS3 and thus precluding any honest coverage of it. Its absolutely reprehensible.

All I can say is I tried as best I know how, as a private citizen, to translate my gripes into a constructive suggestion to address the concerns I have over MAPS3. And, after the effort, I think I feel even worse.

Its very, very frustrating. Agree. There appears to be a lack of transperancy on the city leaders part. I hope MAPS 3 does not go down in defeat do this very thing. That is the last thing city leaders need to do and put a smoke screen and try to cloud the issues and not offer full disclosure. That is the last thing OKC needs to have worked all these years to make the city a better place to live and it goes down in defeat. Then OKC will become the laughingstock of Tulsa. I hope the city voters keep the momentum moving forward and not make OKC previous hard work be "all in vain".

BOBTHEBUILDER, those are the facts, nothing I posted has been massaged to make it sound better for us. Ask your council member about these things.

OKCRT, this thread is about Maps3, I was discussing support or lack of support for it. As a voting member of this community and a member of the Fire Dept. unfortunately these issues are intertwined and for me are not seperate. Lets move forward with the cities needs, before we move forward with the cities wants.

Sorry, disagree. Now that this vote has been set, let's decide MAPS based on the MAPS proposals merits alone, which have nothing to do with what the city needs in terms of police and fire. One does not preclude the other. Yes, let's have a dialogue about what these departments need, and it sounds like they either need more personnel, or fewer duties, but let's do it concommitantly. MAPS 3 failing will do absolutely nothing to help conditions for either of these departments, and may have a negative effect on their requests, if it is perceived that the MAPS failure is due to campaigning against it on the part of these two unions.

Larry, you know there is also a resollution of intent associated with the ballot. Pretending it doesn't exist is an expresion of lack of faith that the city council will be true to its word. If you have that lack of faith, fine. I simply don't. I honestly believe that the mayor and the city council intend to complete MAPS 3 as outlined in their resolution of intent.

Maybe you mis-spoke, but you said the Ballot in the previous post. I am not pretending the Intent Resolution doesn't exist. As others have pointed out, and the Oklahoman even mentioned, the Intent document is non-binding on this or any future Council. Essentially, it is meaningless. The Intent is NOT associated with the Ballot at all. It is not mentioned or referenced in the Ballot or the Ordinance. That is the problem. They could have easily done so but didn't. WHY??

Of course they intend to do it, but things can certainly change in the next 7 years. For instance, if the State's funding for the Boulevard for some reason doesn't come though, there is nothing in MAPS 3 that prohibits them from diverting $100M (the last cost estimate on the Boulevard) from any of the proposed projects. The Mayor has said how critical the Boulevard is to the whole C2S plan and he wants the Park and Boulevard to open at the same time by 2014

You have to ask yourself why the Mayor would not want the voters to vote on each project separately. Also, is it true that MAPS for Kids has not been completed?

The Mayor implied at the MAPS 3 press conference that we WOULD vote on each separately. I don't have the exact quote in front of me but it went like this: "...each of these projects must stand on it's own..."

The MAPS for Kids projects are ongoing. The tax has ended but construction is supposed to be complete in 2-3 years. More info can be found on the City's website City of Oklahoma City | OCMAPS (http://www.okc.gov/ocmaps/index.html) for more info

...The only reply I received was from the city manager, who relayed that my Trust idea violates state law against cities encumbering tax revenues beyond the year(s) in which they are collected, and that even if they did enact such a trust, it wouldn't be valid for more than the year it was created....

That’s interesting as there is a trust set up for MAPS for Kids, that trust seems to still be around and even though the tax has ended (12/31/08) and the year deadline hasn’t passed, construction is expected to be complete 2 to 3 years from now??? Guess MAPS 2 is in violation of State law?!

City of Oklahoma City | OCMAPS (http://www.okc.gov/ocmaps/index.html)

The Structure

The OCMAPS Trust is the governing body in charge of sales tax funds and management of bond projects.

I had no idea that you guys were that bad off. If what you say is true, I as a citizen of OKC am truly outraged. These issues need to be addressed....Regarding the two Fire Stations from the 2000 G.O. Bond Election MikeMarsh51 mentioned, that have not been built as of yet. One was to be built in far N.E. OKC, the other in Bricktown. Both were voted on at a cost of $1,875,000. As per a City Manager report given at last weeks Council meeting the cost of the Bricktown station now has a projected cost of over $3,400,000. Ten years, double the original cost, and it's still not built. Who is going to pay for the increase? Where is going to come from? The City must not be hurting too bad if they can afford to pay double. I wonder how much the 3 stations listed in the 2007 bond package will cost 12 to 15 years from now.

Maybe you mis-spoke, but you said the Ballot in the previous post. I am not pretending the Intent Resolution doesn't exist. As others have pointed out, and the Oklahoman even mentioned, the Intent document is non-binding on this or any future Council. Essentially, it is meaningless. The Intent is NOT associated with the Ballot at all. It is not mentioned or referenced in the Ballot or the Ordinance. That is the problem. They could have easily done so but didn't. WHY??

Of course they intend to do it, but things can certainly change in the next 7 years. For instance, if the State's funding for the Boulevard for some reason doesn't come though, there is nothing in MAPS 3 that prohibits them from diverting $100M (the last cost estimate on the Boulevard) from any of the proposed projects. The Mayor has said how critical the Boulevard is to the whole C2S plan and he wants the Park and Boulevard to open at the same time by 2014

Larry, I did not misspeak. When I consider the ballot, I also consider the resolution of intent. Sorry, but to me, the two coexist as part of the same proposal. Would I prefer it was binding? Yes. Will that stop me from acting as if it isn't? No. I've said repeatedly that I'm going to trust the council on this one. Personally, and obviously its my opinion, but one I have a right to, I think that it is simply too important to continue working on improving the city to vote "no". I'm not changing my mind on this one. I vote in a way that I think puts Oklahoma City first, and that's what I believe I'm doing here. If you disagree, that's your right, but also only your opinion.

You have to ask yourself why the Mayor would not want the voters to vote on each project separately. Also, is it true that MAPS for Kids has not been completed?

I see why people would want to vote on things separately and I defintely think that has some merit and advantages. However, me personally I like the all or nothing approach. If we voted on MAPS I separately think about the result. Would we have a Ford Center? Would the river be there? We would have some of it but a lot of MAPS I would have probably been voted down.

As far as MAPS for Kids. I have no idea but I doubt it is completed. For one, you have to remember part of MAPS is not starting projects until the money is collected so we are debt free. MAPS for Kids was a massive undertaken and one that we knew was going to take years and years to complete.

The Mayor implied at the MAPS 3 press conference that we WOULD vote on each separately. I don't have the exact quote in front of me but it went like this: "...each of these projects must stand on it's own..."

The MAPS for Kids projects are ongoing. The tax has ended but construction is supposed to be complete in 2-3 years. More info can be found on the City's website City of Oklahoma City | OCMAPS (http://www.okc.gov/ocmaps/index.html) for more info

not what he implied ... he said that they would need to stand on their own and valueble projects ....

of course it is an all or none ... that is the best way for it to pass ..

not what he implied ... he said that they would need to stand on their own and valueble projects ....

of course it is an all or none ... that is the best way for it to pass ..

Boulder, that's the whole point - no, he didn't say we'd literally vote on each one, but this notion that each would "need to stand on their own" is borne of hubris, naivety, or startling disingenuity.

Look at the Convention Center project. I, personally, think the Chamber is the one pushing it, but we also know from at least one (two?) polls that this idea pulls the *worst* support from the people. How is that "standing on its own," conceptually, ethically, or even politically?

But that's just it. The City has wrapped a bunch of expendable populist frosting on MAPS (senior aquatic parks, etc) when, in reality, I think the *only* things that are going to remain on *anyone's* agenda are things that they already know can't stand on their own. And who are the most removed from the process? The people who will be footing the bill. That couldn't be more contrarian to the spirit Cornett has publicly embraced.

My whole take is that those folks who are voting for MAPS3 because (perhaps excusively) because of (for example) senior aquatic centers darned well have a right and an expectation to hold this city government's collective feet to the fire to get those centers built because that is what was promised, not because they were seen as election leverage for an otherwise DOA slate of projects. And, right now, the city is working overtime to make sure they're committed to do absolutely nothing. And we know that our City Manager has expressed changing resolutions of intent as a means to rationalize (which held up legally) the diversion of funds to efforts outside the scope of their original intent - see Bass Pro.

And, mind you, this opinion comes from someone who thinks a Convention Center is a GOOD idea!

Boulder, that's the whole point - no, he didn't say we'd literally vote on each one, but this notion that each would "need to stand on their own" is borne of hubris, naivety, or startling disingenuity.

Look at the Convention Center project. I, personally, think the Chamber is the one pushing it, but we also know from at least one (two?) polls that this idea pulls the *worst* support from the people. How is that "standing on its own," conceptually, ethically, or even politically?

But that's just it. The City has wrapped a bunch of expendable populist frosting on MAPS (senior aquatic parks, etc) when, in reality, I think the *only* things that are going to remain on *anyone's* agenda are things that they already know can't stand on their own. And who are the most removed from the process? The people who will be footing the bill. That couldn't be more contrarian to the spirit Cornett has publicly embraced.

My whole take is that those folks who are voting for MAPS3 because (perhaps excusively) because of (for example) senior aquatic centers darned well have a right and an expectation to hold this city government's collective feet to the fire to get those centers built because that is what was promised, not because they were seen as election leverage for an otherwise DOA slate of projects. And, right now, the city is working overtime to make sure they're committed to do absolutely nothing. And we know that our City Manager has expressed changing resolutions of intent as a means to rationalize (which held up legally) the diversion of funds to efforts outside the scope of their original intent - see Bass Pro.

And, mind you, this opinion comes from someone who thinks a Convention Center is a GOOD idea!

maps is not just about what we (as a whole) want it is also about what we need .. and we very much need a new convention center .. and what makes you think any of the stated projects won't get built? they will all get built .. and the citizen oversight board will make sure it happens in a good way

the city worded the vote according to state law ..and passed a resolution of intent saying what the projects will be ...

Bass pro was not original maps money ..

What do you think would happen to the current and future mayor or council if they tried to fleece the public on maps 3??

maps is not just about what we (as a whole) want it is also about what we need .. and we very much need a new convention center .. and what makes you think any of the stated projects won't get built? they will all get built .. and the citizen oversight board will make sure it happens in a good way

the city worded the vote according to state law ..and passed a resolution of intent saying what the projects will be ...

Bass pro was not original maps money ..

What do you think would happen to the current and future mayor or council if they tried to fleece the public on maps 3??

There is absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, that compels the City of OKC to build so much as one brick towards a Senior Aquatic Center. Nothing. Yet I assure you that kind of project was included in this slate of projects solely because the City knew they could not pass a convention center by itself. And I have no doubt whatsoever that when (not if) tax receipts fall, and the budgets aren't what is projected, that Senior Aquatic Centers will get cut LONG before the Convention Center does.

That's, in my opinion, a dirty, scummy political trick to get people to pay for something they don't want. Again, I AGREE with you that we need a Convention Center, but its also true that the *vast* majority of voters DON'T. That has to weigh for something.

If I were a gambling man, and I'm not, I would bet you a 12 oz Mountain Dew right now that at least one of these MAPS3 projects will never see the light of day. I don't even think Cornett really believes they'll all get done. He/they don't care. I personally think they've identified maybe two core projects - Convention Center, maybe the Park, as projects they *really* want to get done. The rest are expendable political cannon fodder.

It doesn't matter that Bass Pro wasn't original MAPS money, it was a demonstration by a flip City Manager that the City can always change its intent. The "Resolution of Intent" for these current MAPS projects is WORTHLESS.

There is absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, that compels the City of OKC to build so much as one brick towards a Senior Aquatic Center. Nothing. Yet I assure you that kind of project was included in this slate of projects solely because the City knew they could not pass a convention center by itself. And I have no doubt whatsoever that when (not if) tax receipts fall, and the budgets aren't what is projected, that Senior Aquatic Centers will get cut LONG before the Convention Center does.

That's, in my opinion, a dirty, scummy political trick to get people to pay for something they don't want. Again, I AGREE with you that we need a Convention Center, but its also true that the *vast* majority of voters DON'T. That has to weigh for something.

If I were a gambling man, and I'm not, I would bet you a 12 oz Mountain Dew right now that at least one of these MAPS3 projects will never see the light of day. I don't even think Cornett really believes they'll all get done. He/they don't care. I personally think they've identified maybe two core projects - Convention Center, maybe the Park, as projects they *really* want to get done. The rest are expendable political cannon fodder.

It doesn't matter that Bass Pro wasn't original MAPS money, it was a demonstration by a flip City Manager that the City can always change its intent. The "Resolution of Intent" for these current MAPS projects is WORTHLESS.

ok 2 things ... which original maps project didn't get built??

and why are you so sure the tax revenue will fall short ..

the city estimated the maps for kids tax revenue 2 mil under the number pretty good for over 500 mil in tax

what would happen to the city council and the mayor if they didn't get the maps projects built?

Yet I assure you that kind of project was included in this slate of projects solely because the City knew they could not pass a convention center by itself. And I have no doubt whatsoever that when (not if) tax receipts fall, and the budgets aren't what is projected, that Senior Aquatic Centers will get cut LONG before the Convention Center does.

I guess you could be right, but that statement includes an assumption of conspiracy and an unsubstantiated economic prediction. One could just as easily say that they felt that the only way they could ever pay for such a low profile project for a special interest group such as a Senior Aquatics Center was to lump it together with higher profile broader impact projects like a convention center a community park. I for one know that I will benefit economically and personally from a new convention center and downtown park LONG before I will ever even set foot in any public aquatic center.

Also, given the horrible year retail sales have had, it's very possible that tax receipts will be on the rise very soon. And, really, one could easily point to the fact that if Oklahoma City does not create and maintain a strong competitive presence through public improvements, sales tax will decline even as the economy improves as more and more commerce continues to leave the city limits for places like moore, norman, edmond, and mustang.

So, we can all make conjectures that support our predisposed opinion of MAPS 3 or other public projects, but none of us have crystal balls that actually work.

ok 2 things ... which original maps project didn't get built??

What difference does that make? I am assessing *this* MAPS project on its own merits, and stand by my assertion that these projects will not all be completed, and that some have been added merely for popular support.



and why are you so sure the tax revenue will fall short ..


The seven-year nine-month tax is designed to collect $777 million. That's $100 million annually.

During the 5.5 years the original MAPS tax was in place, just under $310 million was collected. That's $56 million annually. MAPS for Kids projected $500 million in tax revenue over seven years, which works out to $71 million per year.

Now, we're expecting to see an average sales tax revenue increase of 30% to bump that $71 million figure up to $100 million annually during one of the nation's worst economic cycles since the great depression. We already know that tax revenues were down 9.7%, 5.5%, and 12% in July, August, and September, respectively. (source: Oklahoma City Sales Tax Revenue at All Time Low - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11136546)).

That means this tax and project slate is designed to fail, except for those who have access to a city council that is not bound to do anything with the money aside from whatever they may choose to include in a resolution of intent. The budget will be short, and projects will have to be cut. You think the Chamber is going to allow its convention center ox to be gored?



what would happen to the city council and the mayor if they didn't get the maps projects built?

Given that Mayor Cornett already has his future employment secured, I'm quite sure he doesn't care; and as for the rest, I can't fathom any current council members are particularly concerned about their political future on a council seat that pays, what, $20K annually?

In honesty, its a brilliantly conceived plan, bases are covered, and the City doesn't have to do one thing with the tax money it collects, and wraps itself in the state constitution to preclude any notion of institutionalizing the projects into anything that remotely looks binding. And none of the smaller projects will carry much political consequence such that their cancellation will have little to no impact on those who might have concerns about their political future.

The argument against encumbering future funds is bunk.

Future funds can be encumbered by a vote of the people, precisely what we're doing with MAPS III. Yes, that'd require changing the ballot language which is probably unconstitutional as it's written anyhow.

These guys really don't seem to know what they're doing.

Sorry, disagree. Now that this vote has been set, let's decide MAPS based on the MAPS proposals merits alone, which have nothing to do with what the city needs in terms of police and fire. One does not preclude the other. Yes, let's have a dialogue about what these departments need, and it sounds like they either need more personnel, or fewer duties, but let's do it concommitantly. MAPS 3 failing will do absolutely nothing to help conditions for either of these departments, and may have a negative effect on their requests, if it is perceived that the MAPS failure is due to campaigning against it on the part of these two unions.

Betts, after reading through all of these posts, if seems very evident to me that MAPS 3 and the needs of city services are very connected. If we are to maintain the high level of city services our citizens have come to expect over the last 20 years, these needs of not only the police and fire service, but the needs of the public works, parks, streets etc. need to be addressed as well. The issue of streets and bridges are being addressed through a bond from 2007. Fire and Police needs addressed in this bond were strictly equipment based and not staffing based. If staffing for city services has not been increased in the last 15 years, what has the city been doing with all of this increased revenue being brought in with Maps 1, 2 etc. There has been a record amount of homebuilding and housing developing in the OKC area for the previous 15 years, up until last year at this time. This tells me that there has been a significant amount of population increase over the last 15 to 20 yrs. about 20% increase, as noted in one post. This would translate into increased tax revenue, yet why hasnt the city increased personnel to keep up with the population and the increased work loads that are demanded of them. I have read a post on here that suggests the city services need to run more efficient. After a recent visit to a local police briefing station and a local fire station, I have determined that their workload over the last 20 years has been almost tripled with less staffing. The last time I went to school, that was doing more with less, which translates into increased efficiency. In my dealings with the public works department they are also doing more with less. The problem you run into is, there comes a point when doing more with less is not efficient anymore, because the work is not getting done to a satisfactory level and things get overlooked and/or missed entirely......So to say that MAPS and city personnel woes are not related is not true... They are very connected. Supporting MAPS 3, will do nothing to help out with these staffing issues with the city personnel, because the previous MAPS proposals, along with increased population and increased revenues over the last 15 years have done nothing to help those staffing issues. I can completely see the point of the city workers coming out against this.....
We need to address the issues of city workers before we move forward with MAPS 3, I have always been in support of the MAPS projects in the past, but we need to address the needs of the city workers before moving forward and not discount their needs any longer, because these men and women keep this city running 24/7/365. In this form of MAPS 3, I personally cannot and will not support it, while knowing these issues with city workers are not being addressed. However, I will support a new MAPS 3 after city services have been addressed and will be instrumental in doing my part to see its passage......DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE VAGUE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSALS..........I WONT GIVE ANYONE A BLANK CHECK TO BUILD ANYTHING, NOT EVEN A GOOD FRIEND.....THATS GOOD BUSINESS....
NO LOOPHOLES, NO PROBLEMS........

Betts, Explain to me how this will work. Maps in good years has generated 85-90 million a year. How in a down economic cycle is it going to produce 110-111 million dollars a years. 777 million over 7 years would be 111 million a year. This plan is crap and is designed so projects can be chosen by the powers that be. Obviously they are selling projects that will never be built. Can't wait for your explanation.

Betts, Explain to me how this will work. Maps in good years has generated 85-90 million a year. How in a down economic cycle is it going to produce 110-111 million dollars a years. 777 million over 7 years would be 111 million a year. This plan is crap and is designed so projects can be chosen by the powers that be. Obviously they are selling projects that will never be built. Can't wait for your explanation.

what do you base this on?? stop just making stuff up .. the worst of the down turn is over we are now into the recovery ...

i can just as easily say the city plans to add more maps projects and they just haven't told us about them ...

last time the city projected a maps fund they were within 2 mil over a 5 year period ..

I agree with Boulder Sooner. Who knows what the economy will do? They're projecting this with the economy in the tank, so perhaps they will generate more than anticipated. Again, who knows? I don't expect my elected officials to have a crystal ball. First of all, the monies may be collected before some projects are started. That will generate interest which will add to the principle. Also, if we don't end up collecting enough money to fund everything, I can live with that. I think funding most of them is better than funding none of them.

Betts, Explain to me how this will work. Maps in good years has generated 85-90 million a year. How in a down economic cycle is it going to produce 110-111 million dollars a years. 777 million over 7 years would be 111 million a year. This plan is crap and is designed so projects can be chosen by the powers that be. Obviously they are selling projects that will never be built. Can't wait for your explanation.

Slight correction. MAPS 3 is going to last 7.75 years, raising a projected $777M or roughly $100M a year. Currently, for the Ford tax, it is bringing in less than expected but it is short term (15 month) As another pointed out, over the long term Maps for Kids brought in about what they were expecting.

Don't disagree that it is "designed so projects can be chosen by the powers that be" as the Ballot and Ordinance language is so broad/vague that one can drive the proverbial Mack truck through it. I am in favor of most of the proposed projects (but NONE of them are mentioned in the legally binding Ordinance). I am all for some flexibility, but this is extreme. IMO

It's really this simple.
If you want OKC to continue to grow and compete with other cities vote yes.

If you want OKC to stay pretty much the way it is now then vote no.


OKC still has a long ways to go to be a major city. I am all for going for the gold. There is no perfect plan but MAPS3 is better than anything else we have in front of us. Maps is good for OKC and that's the bottom line.

Betts and BoulderSooner, First, no project will be done until the money for it is all collected. Secondly, we are losing 2 Engine companies and 1 Brush Pumper as of Jan 1, 2010. That is 27 more positions gone. Why if we are in a recovery are we going to lay off people? The city needs to get it's house in order and take care of business before they run off chasing dream projects.

And by the way neither of you answered my first post, why don't you try again, instead of the fantasy rhetoric you posted.

Betts and BoulderSooner, First, no project will be done until the money for it is all collected. Secondly, we are losing 2 Engine companies and 1 Brush Pumper as of Jan 1, 2010. That is 27 more positions gone. Why if we are in a recovery are we going to lay off people? The city needs to get it's house in order and take care of business before they run off chasing dream projects.

And by the way neither of you answered my first post, why don't you try again, instead of the fantasy rhetoric you posted.

First of all, before losing Engine Companies and Brush Pumpers (have no idea what that is, but I assume it fights fires), why do we not stop other activities by the fire department? Again, stop sending 2 people on every ambulance call. Don't send firemen to schools. Figure out what your nonessential duties are, and get rid of those. Perhaps, if we don't need parks or streetcars, in your opinion, we don't need as many firemen either. If firemen were only putting out fires, which, as far as I'm concerned, should be their primary concern, we'd probably need far less of you.

I cannot answer your first question, but neither can you. None of us know what is going to happen in the next seven years. There may be plenty of revenue for all, or there may not be. However, when I vote for MAPS, I get to decide what one penny of every dollar of MY money is going to be spent for. If I want to spend my pennies for a park, or a streetcar or bike paths, then that's my decision. It doesn't mean I'm not equally willing to spend a penny for firemen and policemen. I'll decide that when we have an election that relates to them. I happen to believe that MAPS is an excellent economic stimulus, and that what is good for the city as a whole will ultimately be good for all. So, I'm voting "yes", because it's one of the few times I actually get to pick how someone spends my penny.

You sadly do not get to decide where your one penny of every dollar spent goes. You can believe that if it helps you sleep. I have voted at every oppertunity since 1982. I have seen bad ideas voted down and come back as better versions. That is exectly what I intend to see happen here.

I like how you solve manning issues! The city council that you so blindly support also hired the Medical Director who decides what type of responses are made. Basically we are a catchall. We respond to every type of emergency, that is what fire departments do nation wide. We have trained on every possible situation. I personally don't like to bring this up. What would you have done on April 19, 1995 or May 3, 1999 or any other of those days if you by your own words had us fighting fire only?

Needs before wants Betts!!!

I agree with Boulder Sooner. Who knows what the economy will do? They're projecting this with the economy in the tank, so perhaps they will generate more than anticipated. Again, who knows? I don't expect my elected officials to have a crystal ball. First of all, the monies may be collected before some projects are started. That will generate interest which will add to the principle. Also, if we don't end up collecting enough money to fund everything, I can live with that. I think funding most of them is better than funding none of them.

Betts, there are no secret predictions. The tax is designed to collect $777 million over 7.75 years. That's $100 million annually no matter how you do the math. And that's 30% more than the best annual average the previous tax generated. That's not smoke and mirrors or secret, either.

Just like the old lottery was never going to generate the $$ promised, the tax is virtually destined not to generate the revenues our leaders are promising, which means the entire slate of projects almost certainly cannot be fulfilled before so much as even one shovel of dirt has turned or even one vote has been cast..

And why is it acceptable to allow the city to promise a slate of projects, then say "funding most of them is better than funding none of them." Why are you willing to let city government become so free with tax money? Why can't we demand that the City do exactly what it says it will do? Why the inherent desire to allow the city to bail out?

Supporters of this tax talk about keeping up this "momentum," but if all that is realized is what a certain set of "well-connected" movers and shakers want, rather than the people, whose momentum have we leveraged?

I say again, I am an advocate of a new convention center. We need one. But lots of folks in the city don't - a HUGE chunk, apparently. A bunch of us here want to keep that momentum, but we also want to make sure the city is *compelled* to do *exactly* what they've promised - and that is precisely what they're unwilling to do. We have only this abstract notion of a park, and now we don't even know what kind of amenities are even being discussed, and we won't know until we, as voters, sign that blank check.

Sure, the current council has passed the famous resolution of intent. But what about the next mayor, or set of councilmen that decided they don't like that old resolution of intent, and decided to route that $777 million into something entirely different? The voters will have absolutely ZERO recourse. None.

I would never hand a blank check to a contractor because he's a "good guy" and he's "trustworthy." We lay out up front what I'm spending and what I'm getting. For heaven's sake, that's basic smart business. For some reason, those of us who want to hold our city to that same basic business standard are being villified as anti-progress, and that's nothing short of amazing. I want progress, and I want it done in a way that benefits the people, not the cronies of those who happen to be in power at the Oklahoman, Ackerman-McQueen, the Chamber, or anyone else that seems to have their fingers too deep in this particular pie.

I want progress. But I'm not so desperate for progress that I"m willing to sign anything with the word "Progress" at the top.

-soonerdave

For some reason, those of us who want to hold our city to that same basic business standard are being villified as anti-progress, and that's nothing short of amazing. I want progress, and I want it done in a way that benefits the people,

Thank you SoonerDave. I agree it is unfortunate that the people - enthusiastic citizens like you and Betts and, in fact, most of the commenters on this board - have been put in such a position. To be forced to choose between voting yes for MAPS or making a point about our need for a legitimate process disturbs me a great deal.

Here is what I propose. I say we all vote yes for MAPS 3! That we get behind it, pass it, and then demand our legitimate process. OKC will live to fight another day with or without MAPS 3. However, with MAPS 3 and active citizenry engaged in its implementation, we can propel ourselves forward by leaps and bounds.

Many tough decisions will have to be made following the vote. It is quite clear, at least to me, that there will not be enough money to do everything that is planned. For example, the estimated cost of the Central Park was lowered from $154 million to $130 million just in time for the MAPS 3 announcement. So I encourage people to get educated on the issues and be prepared to get involved. We must insist that a legitimate process takes place as we finalize plans and decide on spending.

The first order of business is to begin figuring out which projects should be built first, and conversely, which should be built last. Thoughts?

The streetcar should be first, IMO. While we are getting that planned and built, we can be acquiring and clearing land for the park. Although I think the park is incredibly important, I really see the streetcar as the most important symbol that our city is taking a major step forward. I think efficient mass transit that the public will use is a key item in an urban environment, and I think this system, even though it will be small, will show people that mass transit is an acceptable, and sometimes even more convenient, alternative to the car. I think it is the stone that might be able to create ripples that spread throughout the pond.

The streetcar should be first, IMO.

I agree that the streetcar is the most important, and as such, it is also the one that deserves the most thorough analysis and deliberation. It is going to take a while for the money to roll in - probably 15 months to get the money needed for a streetcar system - maybe we will be ready by then. If so, I am down to have it first.

In truth, I think that the fairest thing to do is build the senior aquatic centers first. I know it sounds strange, but here is my thinking: if a senior, living in the suburbs, votes yes for MAPS 3 strictly for an aquatic center - I think we should give them their aquatic center. Without sounding crass, this is a situation where time may really be of the essence.

Here is what I propose. I say we all vote yes for MAPS 3! That we get behind it, pass it, and then demand our legitimate process. OKC will live to fight another day with or without MAPS 3. However, with MAPS 3 and active citizenry engaged in its implementation, we can propel ourselves forward by leaps and bounds.

I appreciate your posts, but I have a question...how do you propose that it happen? For example, we were told that we would have input over the summer, but it didn't happen. We have been told repeatedly that the process would be an open one etc, etc. That hasn't happened either. So I am curious how after giving the $777M over to them to spend however they want, they are going to be inclined to do what you suggest, when they haven't been inclined to do so to date?

The streetcar should be first, IMO. While we are getting that planned and built, we can be acquiring and clearing land for the park. Although I think the park is incredibly important, I really see the streetcar as the most important symbol that our city is taking a major step forward. I think efficient mass transit that the public will use is a key item in an urban environment, and I think this system, even though it will be small, will show people that mass transit is an acceptable, and sometimes even more convenient, alternative to the car. I think it is the stone that might be able to create ripples that spread throughout the pond.

The streetcar should be started first. If for any greater reason than to maximize the dollar power by sharing resources with the Devon TIF streetscape planned. Plus, who would want to tear up streets twice?

I am committed to making sure that there is proper and thorough public participation in deciding the route and design of our World Class system.

Blair is right. We need to stop ranchoring over the process and consider the MAPS vote a vote for "shell" funding by which the real and substantive debates can occur. More public forums and more architectural competitions for each and every project. Let's pass this vote and get engaged to make sure that the projects justify our confidence.

The streetcar should be started first. If for any greater reason than to maximize the dollar power by sharing resources with the Devon TIF streetscape planned. Plus, who would want to tear up streets twice?

I am committed to making sure that there is proper and thorough public participation in deciding the route and design of our World Class system.

Blair is right. We need to stop ranchoring over the process and consider the MAPS vote a vote for "shell" funding by which the real and substantive debates can occur. More public forums and more architectural competitions for each and every project. Let's pass this vote and get engaged to make sure that the projects justify our confidence.

Urban, that's a delightful philosophical position, but you're talking about a situation bathed in politics, power, money, and influence. You, me, and most of the posters on this board have all but four of those elements.

If we cannot force the powers that be to commit to anything prior to giving them a blank check, how on earth can you possibly "make sure" the projects justify that confidence after the vote is taken? It's too late then. We have leverage now. Once we've said yes because we're so enamored at the thought of the bright, shiny candy counter, its too late to do anything about it after the fact.

I build a house, I have plans and a contract up front. I have a departure process defined. This "shell" process is not what is being advertised nor sold to the public, but that's precisely what the ballot measure will implement.

In case you guys don't realize that there is a pre-determined agenda at hand here, be advised that members of the media are being personally invited to visit Houston (presumably at city expense?) to see their convention center and park, so they can talk it up through their outlets. I don't see anyone being invited to see their streetcar system or their senior aquatic centers.

I know a lot of people here don't like him for his politics, but that notwithstanding, a sample of this invitation can be seen at MarkShannon.com Home Page (http://www.markshannon.com). The media is being, in effect, schmoozed.

The point here is that the people are being sold one thing, but have intentions to establish priority on projects that did not poll well with the people being given this hard sell. That's wrong, plain and simple.

That's why this city should be compelled to do everything it says it wants to do with MAPS3, not merely those things being driven from positions of influence.

Botom line if there is no guarantee now, there will never be one in the future.

SoonerDave, you obviously don't know who Urban Pioneer is. He does have power and influence over city leaders, can raise money and is good with working politics. FYI, he's also the head cheerleader and organizer of the MTP and transit aspect of the transit project in MAPS.

Urban, that's a delightful philosophical position, but you're talking about a situation bathed in politics, power, money, and influence. You, me, and most of the posters on this board have all but four of those elements.

If we cannot force the powers that be to commit to anything prior to giving them a blank check, how on earth can you possibly "make sure" the projects justify that confidence after the vote is taken? It's too late then. We have leverage now. Once we've said yes because we're so enamored at the thought of the bright, shiny candy counter, its too late to do anything about it after the fact.

I build a house, I have plans and a contract up front. I have a departure process defined. This "shell" process is not what is being advertised nor sold to the public, but that's precisely what the ballot measure will implement.

In case you guys don't realize that there is a pre-determined agenda at hand here, be advised that members of the media are being personally invited to visit Houston (presumably at city expense?) to see their convention center and park, so they can talk it up through their outlets. I don't see anyone being invited to see their streetcar system or their senior aquatic centers.

I know a lot of people here don't like him for his politics, but that notwithstanding, a sample of this invitation can be seen at MarkShannon.com Home Page (http://www.markshannon.com). The media is being, in effect, schmoozed.

The point here is that the people are being sold one thing, but have intentions to establish priority on projects that did not poll well with the people being given this hard sell. That's wrong, plain and simple.

That's why this city should be compelled to do everything it says it wants to do with MAPS3, not merely those things being driven from positions of influence.

Botom line if there is no guarantee now, there will never be one in the future.


In no way, shape or form could the city pay for that. That would be highly illegal. I would guess the campaign would be.

In no way, shape or form could the city pay for that. That would be highly illegal. I would guess the campaign would be.

It's the Chamber of Commerce doing this and they can do whatever they want (within the bounds of the law) as they're just a not-for-profit corporation.

SoonerDave, you obviously don't know who Urban Pioneer is. He does have power and influence over city leaders, can raise money and is good with working politics. FYI, he's also the head cheerleader and organizer of the MTP and transit aspect of the transit project in MAPS.

And, I believe, is the person who convinced the mayor both that mass transit should be on the MAPS ballot and that the most logical first step is a streetcar system. He's also forward thinking enough to propose that our streetcar be powered by alternative energy sources. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Urban.

Correct. I'm fortunate to have him as a friend for the last 7 years or so as well. Great guy.

Betts, since you choose to ignore my post I am going to let you know what my plan is. Since my oldest sons are voters I am planning to throw a party/dinner on election night. And all of their friends who vote no are going to be invited to the party/dinner. As of yesterday the total was at 23. Buh bye.

After the alternatives analysis is complete, we'll have a better idea about what is fiscally possible and what the system will look like. However, I'd be more worried about who is going to be operating it. They don't have the best track record.

Betts, since you choose to ignore my post I am going to let you know what my plan is. Since my oldest sons are voters I am planning to throw a party/dinner on election night. And all of their friends who vote no are going to be invited to the party/dinner. As of yesterday the total was at 23. Buh bye.

Mike, I have absolutely no idea which of your posts I am ignoring. All my family and friends are voting "yes". I was actually quite touched that my 20 year old son made sure he was registered to vote, so that he could support MAPS 3. My husband is an avid kayaker, a bike rider and has been complaining about the lack of a downtown park since we moved here (he grew up in NYC and went to college in Boston, both of which have iconic city parks), so it's a no brainer for him. It's a democracy, so we will see what the will of the people is.

SoonerDave, you obviously don't know who Urban Pioneer is. He does have power and influence over city leaders, can raise money and is good with working politics. FYI, he's also the head cheerleader and organizer of the MTP and transit aspect of the transit project in MAPS.


No, I do not know the actual identity of Urban Pioneer. I am very curious to know what his legal power over our city council is, however.

legal power, none, influence quite a bit though...