I'm generally opposed to it, but could live with it if it was determined by leaders that it was necessary.

Fire Stations are not MAPS-type projects. Cost overruns and delays happen with all kinds of projects, public and private. I don't know the details of why those 2 fire stations are still incomplete (other than the design issues with the BT one). If it was a problem, it should have been included in last year's bond issue, and I would have wholeheartedly supported it. But I prefer MAPS funds to be used for what we think of as traditional MAPS-type projects.How many bond programs should we have to pass and pay for in order to build 2 simple projects? Since the construction crews are already set up at the Ford Center lets go ahead and show Jerry Jones what he could have built for an extra billion dollars. Why not spend all of MAPS 3,4,5 on the F.C. then complete the MAPS 3 projects with MAPS 6,7,8?

Sooner Dave, the spin you are putting on the title of the event is quite offending to me. The transit initiative is FOR the People, BY the people. If there is any one proposal that is defiantly "grass-roots", it is the transit proposal.

Now, if you want to debate the language of resolutions that is another matter. Yes, we are trusting the leadership that WE elected to see these proposals out to their fruition. Planting seeds of doubt would probably be completely acceptable if it weren't for the stellar track record of our elected municipal representatives.

If you study this Public Forum's language, you can see that great pains have been taken to engage the grassroots community. That diverse leadership will be present at this very public event for frank discussion stimulated by your questions.

If anyone has complained about not enough time for question answering or complete forthrightness, that cannot, does not, and will not apply to this transit initiative.

It has been and shall be,
For the People, By the People

Urban, I've been out of pocket for a few days and haven't been by the forums.

I'm sorry if you're offended. It doesn't change my position one bit.

The "spin" as you call it isn't about what the forum calls itself, it is about the way it is characterized as "The transit system in MAPS3", when in reality MAPS3 provides for NOTHING of the kind. I have no doubt this is among the truly grassroots elements, but no matter what level of offense you may take to the characterization, nothing will change the fact that MAPS3 obligates the city to do *absolutely nothing*.

...why is this such a FREAKIN' big deal??...it's not like this would be a gross mishandling of funds....

But it would be a misuse of the stated "intent" of the MAPS 3 funds. If money is diverted to ANY project other than those that have been "proposed", that logically means one of the other projects is going to get less (if the diversion of funds is significant enough, the project may not get done at all). The Ford isn't mentioned anywhere in the infamous Resolution of Intent.

What is YOUR definition of "gross mishandling of funds"? Is it a specific dollar amount? Is it a percentage of the overall budget? Is it the project itself?

Fire Stations are not MAPS-type projects. ... But I prefer MAPS funds to be used for what we think of as traditional MAPS-type projects.

No argument there, but again, the definition in the Ordinance of "capital improvement" is so broad, the fire stations could easily qualify and money be diverted. Again, there is nothing in the Ballot/Ordinance preventing that from happening.

What is YOUR definition of "gross mishandling of funds"?



You'd think it was being used to build a concentration camp or an execution chamber the way people are acting.

That.

That.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable (even if illegal) for them to use funds other than the stated purpose (as long as it isn't being used for concentration camps)? Gotchya.

:LolLolLol

So you think it is perfectly acceptable (even if illegal) for them to use funds other than the stated purpose (as long as it isn't being used for concentration camps)? Gotchya.

:LolLolLolThat = I do not care how the money is spent. I do not care what they spend the money on. As long as I can, in my mind,( if the CoC and Mayor tell me so) consider it a MAPS-type project.

Mayor: ?Mind-boggling? number of paddle sports, boating events could come to Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4991/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Mayor: ?Mind-boggling? number of paddle sports, boating events could come to Oklahoma City | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4991/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Very interesting article. Obviously, I don't think many of us forsaw what MAPS was going to do for the Oklahoma River, and these improvements would definitely give us a "venue" (interesting thought, considering it's a river) that is somewhat unique in any city. There was one paragraph that confused me, however.

"Proponents of MAPS 3 say it would bring connectivity between the north and south sides of the river, and the Bricktown canal would also be connected. The public would be able to ride water taxis to the river venue."

Did I miss something? I thought the Bricktown canal project was not going to be a part of MAPS. It's actually something I was in favor of, so if it's slipped in there somehow I'm not going to complain, but it would be nice to determine the veracity of the above statement.

I've posted more about today's Gazette article here: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/19628-maps-3-news-compendium-2.html#post269705 and including the very nice video by Boathouse District Masterplan (http://boathousedistrict.blogspot.com/) which shows a bunch about the Charlotte facility ... very nicely done.

It looks like there will be a MAPS3 presentation at the Urban Neighbors gathering at the Untitled Arts Space on Thursday.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable (even if illegal) for them to use funds other than the stated purpose (as long as it isn't being used for concentration camps)? Gotchya.

Of course not. You asked for an example of "gross mishandling" and I gave it. Actually, I had already given it.

SoonerDave, although we have disagreed on a number of issues in the past, I have to say we are definitely on the same page here. I also think LarryOKC has made a very valid point that is simply fact. Both of your concerns have been voiced in a civil manner and contain valid facts with regard to the upcoming MAPS 3 vote.


I think I can say with confidence that most, if not all, here want to see OKC move forward and improve as a city. No one is playing hate, politics, brainwashing, or any other tricks to influence people to vote a certain way "just because". Any such claims are opinion and not fact--as I have stated before: "Go sell crazy somewhere else." Nothing personal, but please, let's stick to the facts folks. No one has said that the mayor, the leader(s) of MTP, or anyone else has or will misuse the funds -- That is fact. However, all must understand that the current ballot, as written, forms a contract that only authorizes a tax and places no contractual obligation on the city to spend the funds on any specific project, or at all. If there were to be an issue after the vote, there are no legal grounds to force the city to do anything. Political power and demands from the citizens do not guarantee that we will get our projects, as promised.


Now, having said all that, I think the projects themselves are a pretty good way to spend whatever moneys we collect and I think the MTP guys have done a good job at putting some much needed "punch" behind the sell of the transit ideas to the city's leaders.


Here is my specific question: What is so hard about writing a simple, binding contract, containing all of the mayor's promises for MAPS3 and sticking it on the ballot? If he is telling the truth and everyone is on the same page, then what is the holdup??? Why is it necessary to even bother talking about who has political power and who doesn't? If we're all on the same page, then why not spell it all out in writing and form a full contract with the voters? No reason to raise money to fight, nothing. That's smart business.


It costs us no more to write the ballot the right way the first time and ensure that everyone is on the same page and that no "political powers" have to come into play, even further delaying progress.


I see posts on here that simply state that if one doesn't vote yes that they are not in favor of progress! This is silly. We should always challenge our leaders to keep them honest and ensure that our city gets our projects on-time and on-budget. That's smart progress!


One poster brought up the fire stations that were "promised" as part of an earlier vote that were never delivered "as promised", therefore evidence exists to suggest that promises have fell through in the past, and enforces the reason why it might just be smart to include binding language, so that we do get what we pay for and at the correct price and not double the price!



Here are some facts that I present to you as "food for thought":

1. Promises were made, particularly with regard to the public's input and what exactly we were voting on.

2. No ballot exists, to-date, that places a contractual obligation on the city to spend any moneys on any specific projects, nor to place priority on any specific project, nor what projects are implemented in the case of a revenue shortfall, etc... There are no guarantees that any political pressure or demands from the public will get the Mass Transit project implemented before other projects.

3. Evidence suggests that past promises have not been delivered on, therefore indicating that it may, just may, be a bit wise to include binding language in the ballot ("Contract").

4. Although I think we should all think positive, no amount of "just think positive and vote for it" is going to change the fact that there are no guarantees that any of these projects will happen just because we vote yes.

5. As another poster pointed out, in the past things have been voted down, not because the voters didn't want them, but because of the way in which the ballot was written. There is nothing to prevent a quick MAPS3 re-vote with a modified ballot containing a binding contract with the voters, ensuring that voters get what they pay for and how they want it (such as order of implementation and what happens if revenue is less or more than estimated). Notice that bills in congress go back for re-votes all the time and have to be re-written to get the language to be more agreeable.

Let's keep a positive attitude, but not lose our heads and get crazy to where we just start rubber stamping everything "yes" without demanding results while we still can.


SoonerDave and LarryOKC, please chime in with your thoughts on this.

I think there are people who will disagree with your concept of a "quick MAPS 3" revote being a simple process.

I don't like the way the ballot is written, but it doesn't bother me enough to vote "no". I have significant concerns that if it doesn't pass we won't see a similar version put before the voters for any significant period of time. Those concerns outweigh the minor concern I have about the ballot language.

Ditto what Betts said.

If today's press announcement by the city, and union votes on the city's proposal which I understand will occur this evening, passes union muster, the part of MAPS 3 which has to do with union opposition should quickly change. See http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/19628-maps-3-news-compendium-2.html#post270010 for the press release and a few comments.

sgray,

I think you've captured my position on things quite reasonably.

It isn't about whether I "trust" any one member of "this" government; it is about whether it makes sense to hand anyone a blank check without some enforceable guarantee of performance. Money doesn't leave my hand without a contract signed from your hand.

The City, unfortunately, is very well prepared to skirt the issue of binding commitment by running to legislation barring cities from encumbering tax funds beyond the year in which they're collected. I know Midtowner has expressed some very serious misgivings on the legitimacy of that contention, extending the notion that the current MAPS ballot could, itself, still be considered illegal on the same basis. While I understand many aspects of the law at a general basis (for a layman), I regret I'm not at all well-versed enough in subtlety and practice to assert much either way.

I know I've tried as best I can, through my own small letter writing campaign to the council, to require the City to commit itself to doing the projects MAPS outlines, and the response was an abject refusal to do so. I proposed the creation of a Maps 3 Civic Trust to receive all funds derived from the tax, but was told by the City Manager that a) a trust would only be valid for the year it was created, and b) such a trust was likely illegal anyway because it encumbered funds for more than a year. I seriously considered writing a further reply suggesting the Trusts be constructed as a series of "chained" trusts revolving each year, with the Trustee directed to render as a proper disbursement of funds any monies present in the Trust at the end of one year for deposit (think rollover) into the new trust for the following year. This would eliminate the ongoing issue of encumbrance. As I believe the City has no intention of *binding* itself to do these projects, I felt such an effort would have been fruitless, and opted not to pursue it. The disingenuity of the encumbrance response rang for me in light of the realization that a very similar trust exists from the 2nd MAPS effort....but I digress.

Rest assured that if the City would do what I believe is the *right* thing in *guaranteeing* its commitment to accomplish *all* the projects only now loosely associated with MAPS3, I would heartily endorse it. Right now, as much as I know we need a new convention center, but also realizing there's no commitment to do *anything*, I must admit to great reticence in offering my unqualified support.

I realize my position on this irritates many here, and I regret that. I regret that it seems an "anti progress" stance. I want progress. I just want that progress to be ensured to the extent it is possible *beforehand* - merely because it is smart business to do so.

So long as we have a council that has established precedent to change a Resolution of Intent, which it has done, with the affirmation of the latitude to do so affirmed by the City Manager ("The city can always change its intent"), and knowing that precisely the same tool has been used to associate the MAPS3 projects with their "intent," I find myself having a very difficult time being comfortable with the notion that its OK to hand the city this particular blank check.

That "blank check," combined with the fiscal reality that the MAPS3 tax will never generate the revenue that is projected, compels me to believe that the list of projects has built-in sacrificial lambs, implying that a differing priority exists among those with the ear of either the council, the mayor, or both; and that the things like aquatic centers are a disingenuous (and almost patronizingly insulting) way to lure votes to support a slate of projects they know would not otherwise pass.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It isn't being anti-progress to gain a binding commitment from our city leaders to do what they say they will do, just as I would obtain a signed contract from a vendor promising me certain work for a certain payment. Our city leaders should be held to no *lower* a standard.

I think it's probably all about one's view of human nature. Personally, I trust that the people in city government want our city to improve as much as I do. They selected projects carefully, to offer something to many different people, as well as to give people in our city a better way of life, just as the first MAPS did. I am simply not willing to take the chance that any of these proposals will happen on their own, if MAPS does not pass. Improving our city is way too important to me. What am I out, if I'm wrong, which I earnestly and honestly do not believe is the case? A few pennies a day. What do I get if I'm right? Hopefully, a plan which will take Oklahoma City as far from where it is now as the first MAPS took the city from where it was when it passed. I'm voting for something transformative.

sgray,

I think you've captured my position on things quite reasonably.

It isn't about whether I "trust" any one member of "this" government; it is about whether it makes sense to hand anyone a blank check without some enforceable guarantee of performance. Money doesn't leave my hand without a contract signed from your hand.

The City, unfortunately, is very well prepared to skirt the issue of binding commitment by running to legislation barring cities from encumbering tax funds beyond the year in which they're collected. I know Midtowner has expressed some very serious misgivings on the legitimacy of that contention, extending the notion that the current MAPS ballot could, itself, still be considered illegal on the same basis. While I understand many aspects of the law at a general basis (for a layman), I regret I'm not at all well-versed enough in subtlety and practice to assert much either way.

I know I've tried as best I can, through my own small letter writing campaign to the council, to require the City to commit itself to doing the projects MAPS outlines, and the response was an abject refusal to do so. I proposed the creation of a Maps 3 Civic Trust to receive all funds derived from the tax, but was told by the City Manager that a) a trust would only be valid for the year it was created, and b) such a trust was likely illegal anyway because it encumbered funds for more than a year. I seriously considered writing a further reply suggesting the Trusts be constructed as a series of "chained" trusts revolving each year, with the Trustee directed to render as a proper disbursement of funds any monies present in the Trust at the end of one year for deposit (think rollover) into the new trust for the following year. This would eliminate the ongoing issue of encumbrance. As I believe the City has no intention of *binding* itself to do these projects, I felt such an effort would have been fruitless, and opted not to pursue it. The disingenuity of the encumbrance response rang for me in light of the realization that a very similar trust exists from the 2nd MAPS effort....but I digress.

Rest assured that if the City would do what I believe is the *right* thing in *guaranteeing* its commitment to accomplish *all* the projects only now loosely associated with MAPS3, I would heartily endorse it. Right now, as much as I know we need a new convention center, but also realizing there's no commitment to do *anything*, I must admit to great reticence in offering my unqualified support.

I realize my position on this irritates many here, and I regret that. I regret that it seems an "anti progress" stance. I want progress. I just want that progress to be ensured to the extent it is possible *beforehand* - merely because it is smart business to do so.

So long as we have a council that has established precedent to change a Resolution of Intent, which it has done, with the affirmation of the latitude to do so affirmed by the City Manager ("The city can always change its intent"), and knowing that precisely the same tool has been used to associate the MAPS3 projects with their "intent," I find myself having a very difficult time being comfortable with the notion that its OK to hand the city this particular blank check.

That "blank check," combined with the fiscal reality that the MAPS3 tax will never generate the revenue that is projected, compels me to believe that the list of projects has built-in sacrificial lambs, implying that a differing priority exists among those with the ear of either the council, the mayor, or both; and that the things like aquatic centers are a disingenuous (and almost patronizingly insulting) way to lure votes to support a slate of projects they know would not otherwise pass.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It isn't being anti-progress to gain a binding commitment from our city leaders to do what they say they will do, just as I would obtain a signed contract from a vendor promising me certain work for a certain payment. Our city leaders should be held to no *lower* a standard.Very well said. I don't understand why they would resist what you have suggested. They're unwillingness to install this good-faith layer of committment throws up a red flag. As for the ballot, although I am a bit troubled with regards to the way it is drafted, I find the reason for why it was drafted in such a manor very insulting. The law needs to be changed so this format used to skirt the laws intent is stopped for future elections.

If I understand it correctly the reason the ballot reads like it does is because someone made a stink about the city putting exactly what it intended to do on the first MAPS ballot.

I'm going with the trust the city government folks on this one. This place was a dump before MAPS. It's the best thing that ever happened to OKC. I haven't seen any mismanagement with any of the MAPS before this, just good things. There are a lot of good things in this MAPS too, and I want to see them accomplished. I don't see where any of these new ballot and new vote ideas have guaranteed accomplishing anything either, so I'll stick with what I know and trust already.

sgray & sooner dave, excellent posts. Listing the issues on seperate ballots would jeapordize each project and I would think that some of there wealthly supporters only truly care about their particular projects. Food for thought: the city is some 12 million short on meeting/finishing their Thunder/NBA obligations and those obligations are considered capital improvement projects and the Maps3 ballot also states for capital improvement projects, you make your opinion on where the first 12 million goes. Also the pro Maps3 folks are projecting that this penny tax will bring in 100 million a year, when this same penny has never brought in more than 92 million in it's best year during good economic times. Thanks for pointing out our leaders past broken promises.

sgray & sooner dave, excellent posts. Listing the issues on seperate ballots would jeapordize each project and I would think that some of there wealthly supporters only truly care about their particular projects. Food for thought: the city is some 12 million short on meeting/finishing their Thunder/NBA obligations and those obligations are considered capital improvement projects and the Maps3 ballot also states for capital improvement projects, you make your opinion on where the first 12 million goes. Also the pro Maps3 folks are projecting that this penny tax will bring in 100 million a year, when this same penny has never brought in more than 92 million in it's best year during good economic times. Thanks for pointing out our leaders past broken promises.

Precisely which of the original MAPS projects do you think would have passed if they had been on separate ballots? The beauty of MAPS 1 was that there were multiple items on the ballot, any one of which might not have passed alone. Each of the original MAPS items as a stand alone project would have had very little impact on Oklahoma City. As a group, they were transformative. And, where is everyone coming up with this "wealthy supporters" paranoia? Did we all not benefit from MAPS? Personally, I can get excited about almost every project in MAPS 3, with the exception of the convention center. But, looking at the size of the Cox Center in comparison to those in smaller cities, we're falling behind badly. And again, where are you getting the information that the city is $12 million short on meeting their NBA obligations? I'd love to see a link confirming that rumor, and confirming the fact that any financial "fall behind" will not be made up by decreased construction and labor costs, as is what happened with the practice facility.

...I proposed the creation of a Maps 3 Civic Trust to receive all funds derived from the tax, but was told by the City Manager that a) a trust would only be valid for the year it was created, and b) such a trust was likely illegal anyway because it encumbered funds for more than a year. I seriously considered writing a further reply suggesting the Trusts be constructed as a series of "chained" trusts revolving each year, with the Trustee directed to render as a proper disbursement of funds any monies present in the Trust at the end of one year for deposit (think rollover) into the new trust for the following year. This would eliminate the ongoing issue of encumbrance. As I believe the City has no intention of *binding* itself to do these projects, I felt such an effort would have been fruitless, and opted not to pursue it. The disingenuity of the encumbrance response rang for me in light of the realization that a very similar trust exists from the 2nd MAPS effort....but I digress.

Absolutely! Does that mean that the MAPS for Kids trust is illegal as well? His answer definitely doesn't pass the smell test.


I realize my position on this irritates many here, and I regret that. I regret that it seems an "anti progress" stance. I want progress. I just want that progress to be ensured to the extent it is possible *beforehand* - merely because it is smart business to do so.

So long as we have a council that has established precedent to change a Resolution of Intent, which it has done, with the affirmation of the latitude to do so affirmed by the City Manager ("The city can always change its intent"), and knowing that precisely the same tool has been used to associate the MAPS3 projects with their "intent," I find myself having a very difficult time being comfortable with the notion that its OK to hand the city this particular blank check.

That "blank check," combined with the fiscal reality that the MAPS3 tax will never generate the revenue that is projected, compels me to believe that the list of projects has built-in sacrificial lambs, implying that a differing priority exists among those with the ear of either the council, the mayor, or both; and that the things like aquatic centers are a disingenuous (and almost patronizingly insulting) way to lure votes to support a slate of projects they know would not otherwise pass.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It isn't being anti-progress to gain a binding commitment from our city leaders to do what they say they will do, just as I would obtain a signed contract from a vendor promising me certain work for a certain payment. Our city leaders should be held to no *lower* a standard.

:congrats::congrats::congrats:

... I'm voting for something transformative.

No you aren't, you are voting for a penny tax that will last 7.75 years. You are voting to give the Council total discretion in how that $777M is spent with virtually no accountability (unless you are willing to wait 8 years or so, then you might decide to vote someone out, but by then you won't remember being made the promises anyway and when reminded of who said what, your reply will be "words don't matter" and "I believe them THIS time.") This was your response on another "unmentionable" issue.

...
1. Promises were made, particularly with regard to the public's input and what exactly we were voting on.

2. No ballot exists, to-date, that places a contractual obligation on the city to spend any moneys on any specific projects, nor to place priority on any specific project, nor what projects are implemented in the case of a revenue shortfall, etc... There are no guarantees that any political pressure or demands from the public will get the Mass Transit project implemented before other projects.

3. Evidence suggests that past promises have not been delivered on, therefore indicating that it may, just may, be a bit wise to include binding language in the ballot ("Contract").

4. Although I think we should all think positive, no amount of "just think positive and vote for it" is going to change the fact that there are no guarantees that any of these projects will happen just because we vote yes.

5. As another poster pointed out, in the past things have been voted down, not because the voters didn't want them, but because of the way in which the ballot was written. There is nothing to prevent a quick MAPS3 re-vote with a modified ballot containing a binding contract with the voters, ensuring that voters get what they pay for and how they want it (such as order of implementation and what happens if revenue is less or more than estimated). Notice that bills in congress go back for re-votes all the time and have to be re-written to get the language to be more agreeable.

Let's keep a positive attitude, but not lose our heads and get crazy to where we just start rubber stamping everything "yes" without demanding results while we still can. ...

Sums it up pretty well. And agree wholeheartedly.

If I understand it correctly the reason the ballot reads like it does is because someone made a stink about the city putting exactly what it intended to do on the first MAPS ballot.

I'm going with the trust the city government folks on this one. This place was a dump before MAPS. It's the best thing that ever happened to OKC. I haven't seen any mismanagement with any of the MAPS before this, just good things. There are a lot of good things in this MAPS too, and I want to see them accomplished. I don't see where any of these new ballot and new vote ideas have guaranteed accomplishing anything either, so I'll stick with what I know and trust already.

There was some (Bas Pro), but for the most part you are correct. The main reason for that was projects were spelled out, there was accountabilty built in. That isn't there in this Ballot/Ordinance.

A recent article in the Olahoman mentioned that the 1st MAPS was probably illegal too (but no one challenged it). The picture is still a little fuzzy on this one (if it is against the State Constitution or it was a new law). Either way, the point of logrolling everything into an all-or-nothing type ballot is illegal. I don't see how they are getting around it by simply not listing the projects and slapping a very generic "Capital Improvements" label on it.


I'll stick with what I know and trust already.

Again, what you know and trust is illegal (just that no one has challenged it yet).

No you aren't, you are voting for a penny tax that will last 7.75 years. You are voting to give the Council total discretion in how that $777M is spent with virtually no accountability (unless you are willing to wait 8 years or so, then you might decide to vote someone out, but by then you won't remember being made the promises anyway and when reminded of who said what, your reply will be "words don't matter" and "I believe them THIS time.") This was your response on another "unmentionable" issue.

Sorry, Larry. I believe they will build what they say they will. And I believe it will be transformative. My vote, my choice. I suspect we'll know far earlier than 8 years from now, since projects will begin very shortly after the tax is instituted. They won't wait 8 years to start the first one, and you know that. I believe we are getting what we were told on the last "unmentionable issue", and in the timeframe we were told it would happen. We have far more data supporting our city government doing what they say they are going to do with MAPS than we do that they're going to take the money and run, no?

Larry I am just curious about what you think the City will do with the money?

Larry I am just curious about what you think the City will do with the money?

As I understand the concerns raised, the answer to the question is simply 'any danged thang they choose.'

The city fathers receive via a Yes vote on MAPs3 unfettered discretion.

But, with just three weeks to go, absent some 'sure are foolin' them' style private memo surfacing, the thang will probably pass, even if only narrowly.

The vague wording of the ballot and the non-binding resolution give little comfort to some, including Larry, and are of no concern to those who place faith in the city fathers to bind themselves after the fact to certain projects and no others.

Time shall tell. On the bright side for the very concerned folks, as the tax will be collected over several years, there is access to the ballot to rework the council if the fears do prove warranted.

I'm more curious if they'll even collect enough to begin with. If that were to happen we could always extend it for a year or two, unless they decided to forego building the convention center.

I'm more curious if they'll even collect enough to begin with. If that were to happen we could always extend it for a year or two, unless they decided to forego building the convention center.

Isn't the non-binding lan to have the cc be item 2 behind the park? Not necessarily for a shortfall fear, but if you are possibly going back to the people for an extension, probably better to be going back for unkie elmer's swimmin remedies and the sidewalks than to put a fancier finish on a cc.

Not sure how many times the need better tile gambit can work.

I'm more curious if they'll even collect enough to begin with. If that were to happen we could always extend it for a year or two, unless they decided to forego building the convention center.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If we don't collect enough money, which is far from certain, the end of MAPS being almost 8 years away, we can deal with it at that time.

Isn't the non-binding lan to have the cc be item 2 behind the park?...

The only timeframe I have seen given is the Mayor has expressed he wants the Park/Boulevard to open 1st (by 2014) and the Convention Center "staged" last.

Larry I am just curious about what you think the City will do with the money?

Don't really know, but as kevinpate posted right below yours, 'any danged thang they choose.'

For those that haven't bothered to read Ordinance 23,942 (what they are actually voting on), it states the tax "may be expended only for the limited purpose of providing City capital improvements." sounds good until you read their definition:

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY:

* * *

§ 52-23.4. (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:

(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.

(d) Expenditures to provide City capital improvements under this section may include expenditures for any or all item(s), article(s),cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement, including without limitation the following:

(1) Payment of the costs of acquiring real or personal properties or interests therein and appurtenances thereto;

(2) Payment of the costs of construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, furnishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, and maintenance;

(3) Payment of architectural costs, engineering costs, or consulting costs;

(4) Payment of project management costs, administrative costs, and legal costs;

(5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a City capital improvement;

(6) Reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement; and/or

(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.

Oooops, so much for the claim that MAPS 3 is going to be debt free. Come to think of it, the City has already incurred $5M+ in bond debt (actual cost after paying it back is $10M to $15M) when it started buying properties in the Park/Core to Shore area. They are authorized under the same 2007 General Obligation bond issue to spend up to $26M for that purpose (actual cost will be $52M to $78M depending on the length and interest rate on those bonds).

But I digress...after reading what can be included, does it leave anything that wouldn't qualify? Especially with the couple of "without limitation" thrown in for good measure?

I'm pretty sure the city nor its public trusts can issue bonds without the approval of the voters.

And if that's happened, and it was just fine. Bonds are a very popular way of financing important public projects. Probably not the most financially responsible way, and under the constitution, technically unconstitutional (but the Supreme Court has read the Constitution regarding these items to not really mean what it actually says, so it's ok, I guess).

I think "without limitation" is meant to mean that other things could ostensibly fall under the categories listed. What I think "without limitation" pretty clearly does not mean is things like salaries, i.e., stuff not actually related to 'capital improvements.'

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If we don't collect enough money, which is far from certain, the end of MAPS being almost 8 years away, we can deal with it at that time.

A revenue shortfall is a valid question since the amount projected ($100M/year) hasn't been achieved to date. However the Mayor stated the MAPS for Kids tax came within $2M of projections over it's 7 year run. The Ford tax has fallen millions short of projections but it is a relative short term tax (lasting 15 months).

The biggest concern is the cost estimates of the "proposed projects". The City readily admits they are just estimates. Given the fact that there was a 47.75% difference between what voters were told right before the original MAPS vote and the final cost (according to the City's website). It would appear it is fairly certain that the $17M (2.2%) they have included for cost over runs is insufficient. But some might say, "That was 16 years ago, they have this all figured out now". Maybe, maybe not, but the City states that projects typically come in 8% over budget. So does only allowing 2.2% make any sense?

...
I think "without limitation" is meant to mean that other things could ostensibly fall under the categories listed. What I think "without limitation" pretty clearly does not mean is things like salaries, i.e., stuff not actually related to 'capital improvements.'


I dunno mid. I'm betting if you were retained by the city as outside counsel you'd be able to argue that several different municipal salaries for laborers, management and secretarial could be properly plugged under either of these categories:

> (4) Payment of project management costs, administrative
> costs, and legal costs;

> (5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses
> related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a
> City capital improvement;

Sorry, Larry. I believe they will build what they say they will. And I believe it will be transformative.

I'm hearing words such as believe, faith, and fear, in posts. This troubles me, for as I clearly pointed out in my last post that no one person has suggested any misconduct by anyone, but rather a demand to have a complete ballot that spells everything out, thereby keeping them honest and protecting our investment.



I suspect we'll know far earlier than 8 years from now, since projects will begin very shortly after the tax is instituted.

Betts, where are you getting this information? As another poster quoted the mayor as wanting to have the first project (boulevard) in 2014 (5 years from now), I don't see any facts that point to any multiple groundbreakings "since projects will begin very shortly after the tax is instituted."



They won't wait 8 years to start the first one, and you know that.

How do we know that? There are two facilities from 2000 that were promised to be built and have yet to be built, and the updated cost has majorly overrun the initial figures. Fact is, we don't have a specific date in writing, so we don't know how long they will wait.



I believe we are getting what we were told on the last "unmentionable issue", and in the timeframe we were told it would happen.

...and no one has suggested otherwise, other than to point out that there is nothing in writing with regard to what you have mentioned.



We have far more data supporting our city government doing what they say they are going to do with MAPS than we do that they're going to take the money and run, no?

No. Where are the two fire stations from the 2000 vote, as another poster kindly reminded us of? Where is our money? Where are our fire stations?


Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If we don't collect enough money, which is far from certain, the end of MAPS being almost 8 years away, we can deal with it at that time.

Exactly how will we "deal with it at that time"? It will be solely a city judgment call as to whether to nix projects (their choice as to which ones) in the event of a revenue shortfall or to extend this MAPS, etc...


Larry I am just curious about what you think the City will do with the money?

As I understand the concerns raised, the answer to the question is simply 'any danged thang they choose.'

There again, please provide a reference to a poster who has suggested any wrongdoing by any city official.


A revenue shortfall is a valid question since the amount projected ($100M/year) hasn't been achieved to date. However the Mayor stated the MAPS for Kids tax came within $2M of projections over it's 7 year run. The Ford tax has fallen millions short of projections but it is a relative short term tax (lasting 15 months).

The biggest concern is the cost estimates of the "proposed projects". The City readily admits they are just estimates. Given the fact that there was a 47.75% difference between what voters were told right before the original MAPS vote and the final cost (according to the City's website). It would appear it is fairly certain that the $17M (2.2%) they have included for cost over runs is insufficient. But some might say, "That was 16 years ago, they have this all figured out now". Maybe, maybe not, but the City states that projects typically come in 8% over budget. So does only allowing 2.2% make any sense?

Useful data...and definitely some facts to consider.



Oooops, so much for the claim that MAPS 3 is going to be debt free. Come to think of it, the City has already incurred $5M+ in bond debt (actual cost after paying it back is $10M to $15M) when it started buying properties in the Park/Core to Shore area. They are authorized under the same 2007 General Obligation bond issue to spend up to $26M for that purpose (actual cost will be $52M to $78M depending on the length and interest rate on those bonds).

But I digress...after reading what can be included, does it leave anything that wouldn't qualify? Especially with the couple of "without limitation" thrown in for good measure?

Thanks for digging up that Emergency Ordinance.

I dunno mid. I'm betting if you were retained by the city as outside counsel you'd be able to argue that several different municipal salaries for laborers, management and secretarial could be properly plugged under either of these categories:

> (4) Payment of project management costs, administrative
> costs, and legal costs;

> (5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses
> related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a
> City capital improvement;

I buy that.

What I meant was salaries not related to building or maintaining stuff, which I suppose probably would just mean emergency services?

Now that you mention it, I suppose just about anything not related to emergency services which the city does could be tied somehow to building and maintaining stuff, thus be permissible as expenditures for capital improvements.

I buy that.

What I meant was salaries not related to building or maintaining stuff, which I suppose probably would just mean emergency services?

Now that you mention it, I suppose just about anything not related to emergency services which the city does could be tied somehow to building and maintaining stuff, thus be permissible as expenditures for capital improvements.

Well, if one positions LEOs for traffic control at a capital improvement site, then while I actually do consider it a bit of a stretch, one might be able to also argue the expense related to the actual officers, and some of their support back at the station as well. Not as comfortable on that aspect of it, but hey, as the old saw goes, everyone recognizes black and what's white, to the bold and victorious goes the grey.

I think with any proposal of this magnitude, the budgeted amounts are just "estimates." We won't know the true cost until bids come in. Same was true with MAPS 1 though too. And at that time there was talk as to whether to nix projects, i.e., the Ford Center after we didn't get an NHL team, or try to extend the tax. I tend to wonder if the original MAPS 1 extension hadn't passed, would we have the Ford Center now?

If money is short on MAPS 3 we'll be faced with the same problem. We can either nix projects or pass an extension. But for now all we can go with is estimates, hypothetical guesses.

Isn't the non-binding lan to have the cc be item 2 behind the park? Not necessarily for a shortfall fear, but if you are possibly going back to the people for an extension, probably better to be going back for unkie elmer's swimmin remedies and the sidewalks than to put a fancier finish on a cc.

Not sure how many times the need better tile gambit can work.You may be right , but I could have swore I've heard the Mayor tell people that the CC wouldn't even be built for 10 years. He probably tells different people different things.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? If we don't collect enough money, which is far from certain, the end of MAPS being almost 8 years away, we can deal with it at that time.Yes betts I guess it could be.

Don't really know, but as kevinpate posted right below yours, 'any danged thang they choose.'

For those that haven't bothered to read Ordinance 23,942 (what they are actually voting on), it states the tax "may be expended only for the limited purpose of providing City capital improvements." sounds good until you read their definition:

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY:

* * *

§ 52-23.4. (c) For purposes of this section, the, term "City capital improvement" shall mean without limitation any one or more of the following:

(1) The acquisition of real or personal properties or any interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(2) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, finishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, or maintenance of City buildings, structures, fixtures, or personal properties or on any City real properties or interests therein or appurtenances thereto; and/or

(3) Any other type of beneficial or valuable change or addition, betterment, enhancement, or amelioration of or upon any real property, or any interest therein or appurtenances thereto, belonging to the City, intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it to new or further purposes.

(d) Expenditures to provide City capital improvements under this section may include expenditures for any or all item(s), article(s),cost(s), or expense(s) related in any way to providing a City capital improvement, including without limitation the following:

(1) Payment of the costs of acquiring real or personal properties or interests therein and appurtenances thereto;

(2) Payment of the costs of construction, reconstruction, demolition, installation, assembly, renovation, repairing, remodeling, restoring, furbishing, refurbishing, furnishing, refurnishing, equipping, reequipping, and maintenance;

(3) Payment of architectural costs, engineering costs, or consulting costs;

(4) Payment of project management costs, administrative costs, and legal costs;

(5) Payment of any other items, articles, costs or expenses related, incidental, or ancillary in any way to providing a City capital improvement;

(6) Reimbursements or paybacks for expenditures made by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement; and/or

(7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.

Oooops, so much for the claim that MAPS 3 is going to be debt free. Come to think of it, the City has already incurred $5M+ in bond debt (actual cost after paying it back is $10M to $15M) when it started buying properties in the Park/Core to Shore area. They are authorized under the same 2007 General Obligation bond issue to spend up to $26M for that purpose (actual cost will be $52M to $78M depending on the length and interest rate on those bonds).

But I digress...after reading what can be included, does it leave anything that wouldn't qualify? Especially with the couple of "without limitation" thrown in for good measure?If by chance they left something out it is not a problem they can resend this one and pass another one

To all, go to notthismaps.com to view in full the fire/police unions offical stance on Maps 3, by the way you will see councilman Walters on it speaking against this Maps 3 proposal. Another thing , the police side was threatened by the pro Maps 3 folks with them stating that they would fire their recruit class once that graduated and that they would also talk to the bricktown merchants not to hire off-duty policeman for security anymore. Sounds like it's starting to get ugly.

Precisely which of the original MAPS projects do you think would have passed if they had been on separate ballots? The beauty of MAPS 1 was that there were multiple items on the ballot, any one of which might not have passed alone. Each of the original MAPS items as a stand alone project would have had very little impact on Oklahoma City. As a group, they were transformative. And, where is everyone coming up with this "wealthy supporters" paranoia? Did we all not benefit from MAPS? Personally, I can get excited about almost every project in MAPS 3, with the exception of the convention center. But, looking at the size of the Cox Center in comparison to those in smaller cities, we're falling behind badly. And again, where are you getting the information that the city is $12 million short on meeting their NBA obligations? I'd love to see a link confirming that rumor, and confirming the fact that any financial "fall behind" will not be made up by decreased construction and labor costs, as is what happened with the practice facility.

I wish had some swampland to sell you because you sound way to trustworthy. Work for the city for over 20 years and you would surely become less trustworthy. The city officals will only tell you what they want you to know, not the full story, wake up.

To all, go to notthismaps.com to view in full the fire/police unions offical stance on Maps 3, by the way you will see councilman Walters on it speaking against this Maps 3 proposal. Another thing , the police side was threatened by the pro Maps 3 folks with them stating that they would fire their recruit class once that graduated and that they would also talk to the bricktown merchants not to hire off-duty policeman for security anymore. Sounds like it's starting to get ugly.

I call 100% BS on this.

I call 100% BS on this.

Trust me, I have no reason to make anything up and you obiviously don't think that all politicians and weathly ex-politicians got where they are at by being honest all the time. I am fixing to retire from the city and I am just trying to opening up some eyes. I would be for another Maps project once they fix all the problems that they have tryed to bury and the next try at Maps needs to be trimed and not be vague and just maybe let the citizens vote on each project seperately. Vote NO this go around, wait for a better proposal, the citizens deserve that. By the way, I have actively campaigned and supported all the previous MAPS Projects.

Then you obviously have no idea how city operates. I have worked for the city for over 20 years myself. Over the past 10 years the city has been increasingly more hostile and disingenuous to all of the unions and their members.

I call 100% BS on this.

It's no bull. The threats are real and WILL happen. We are preparing to lay off 34 Police Officers at the City Managers request or furloughs. That's right. Berkshire Study said we were already short 277 Police officers...It's fixing to be 311...

It was blackmail in black and white. Take this deal or get ready!!! You wanted citizen outcry. Their is not going to be enough to answer those calls. I'm not sure how many are retiring this month...but that 311 will increase rapidly of the next few months. It's going to get ugly. Talking with these ego maniacs is useless. They've made it clear they're gonna get very nasty in their campaign to support MAPS3 and smear their own Policeman and Fireman. Just watch!!!

I call 100% BS on this.

Please explain why you consider this 100% BS. This is exactly how the city manager operates. You might want to meet the real city manager and mayor. Not their alter egos that show up at grand openings and press conferences, but the real them that we have gotten to know.

Please explain why you consider this 100% BS. This is exactly how the city manager operates. You might want to meet the real city manager and mayor. Not their alter egos that show up at grand openings and press conferences, but the real them that we have gotten to know.


Okay, give me any evidence that this is occurring: "the police side was threatened by the pro Maps 3 folks with them stating that they would fire their recruit class once that graduated and that they would also talk to the bricktown merchants not to hire off-duty policeman for security anymore."

I called BS because I'm sure this is a RUMOR someone loosely related to police circles said MIGHT happen. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. Just show me the evidence that this happened. A link, a personal testimonial with name attached, anything.

Wasn't there a separate police and fire needs thread set up for these rantings, warnings, revelations, [insert other preferred descriptive term here]?

King183,
Go to this link:
NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/multimedia/video/50136307001)

Listen to what the representatives say.

At one point Mayor Cornett says "I can assure you that if MAPS does not pass our public safety issues multiply." Cornett continues by saying "We have discussed ideas about how the accompanying MAPS use fee could be used not only to support existing capitol needs for public safety but also to actually increase the number of firefighters and police officers that we put on the streets and in these tough economic times the MAPS use tax could be used to help insure that public safety remains a top priority. We will not have that option if MAPS 3 does not pass."

District Attorney Prater then speaks. He talks about the City's significant gesture concerning the MAPS use tax monies. Immediately after this D.A. Prater says "It will assure us that through the rest of this fiscal year and next fiscal year we will see no cuts of police officers period. No matter what we experience in our sales tax revenue shortfalls."

Councilman Gary Marrs then talks about how public safety constitutes two thirds of the general fund budget. He is VERY careful not to talk about how they have NOT added any additional officers to the department's authorized strength since 1989. He is also VERY careful not to talk about how they have reduced the number of officers assigned to patrol duties since 1989 while the population has grown over 100,000 people and Oklahoma City has added over 55,000 commercial/residential structures during this same time.

This is as blatant as the politicians will get in the public eye. I am curious why it is just NOW that they are mentioning that public safety issues will be in jeopardy. They are using this issue as leverage to scare the public into passing MAPS 3.

You might also find these links of interest:
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.com/Home/Entries/2009/11/12_Comments_from_Mark_Shannon_about_D.A._David_Pra ter_%26_MAPS_3_-_“Prater_Sells_Out!”.html

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/multimedia/video/50148760001)

This is a fact sheet being circulated among the Not THIS maps group.
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.com/Links_&_Documents_files/Not%20This%20MAPS%20info-1.pdf

I hope this information is helpful.

I hadn't seen this video until last night. I apologize if the link has been posted before and I've missed it. I thought it was an excellent presentation and explanation.

YouTube - About MAPS - Vote YES for MAPS on Dec 8! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpRepQqRT-g)

King183,
Go to this link:
NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/multimedia/video/50136307001)

Listen to what the representatives say.

At one point Mayor Cornett says "I can assure you that if MAPS does not pass our public safety issues multiply." Cornett continues by saying "We have discussed ideas about how the accompanying MAPS use fee could be used not only to support existing capitol needs for public safety but also to actually increase the number of firefighters and police officers that we put on the streets and in these tough economic times the MAPS use tax could be used to help insure that public safety remains a top priority. We will not have that option if MAPS 3 does not pass."

District Attorney Prater then speaks. He talks about the City's significant gesture concerning the MAPS use tax monies. Immediately after this D.A. Prater says "It will assure us that through the rest of this fiscal year and next fiscal year we will see no cuts of police officers period. No matter what we experience in our sales tax revenue shortfalls."

Councilman Gary Marrs then talks about how public safety constitutes two thirds of the general fund budget. He is VERY careful not to talk about how they have NOT added any additional officers to the department's authorized strength since 1989. He is also VERY careful not to talk about how they have reduced the number of officers assigned to patrol duties since 1989 while the population has grown over 100,000 people and Oklahoma City has added over 55,000 commercial/residential structures during this same time.

This is as blatant as the politicians will get in the public eye. I am curious why it is just NOW that they are mentioning that public safety issues will be in jeopardy. They are using this issue as leverage to scare the public into passing MAPS 3.

You might also find these links of interest:
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.com/Home/Entries/2009/11/12_Comments_from_Mark_Shannon_about_D.A._David_Pra ter_%26_MAPS_3_-_“Prater_Sells_Out!”.html

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/multimedia/video/50148760001)

This is a fact sheet being circulated among the Not THIS maps group.
http://www.okcissues.com/okcissues.com/Links_&_Documents_files/Not%20This%20MAPS%20info-1.pdf

I hope this information is helpful.

We don't know what the mayor's intentions are. With his statement above, you are either putting words into his mouth or you could be right.

My problem with this whole anti-MAPS campaign is this... the police and firefighters didn't bring up any protests for the first two MAPS packages. Why all of the sudden now? And why the fight over a temporary tax?

I would think public safety would want a PERMANENT funding source and not get a small slice of the temporary fund. Tell me how this is anything but lack of common sense.

MAPS or no MAPS, the public safety problem is still a problem, regardless. If any of you people had a clue about how to create and build a better environment and thus a better city, you'd realize that these projects are good for the environment of the city in the long run. Public safety officials need to work out their differences with the city in a different fashion.

What MAPS does is make it easier to entice skilled people to Oklahoma City because MAPS creates a better environment for people to enjoy. So, I am sorry, but none of these are wants, they are needs. If public safety wants OKC leaders to come to a resolution, they need to approach the city with a better plan than to use MAPS as a pawn. It's a joke.

I can do this all day, people. If you have a problem with how city officials are running a city, create a campaign and take the case to their next election. Don't sell Oklahoma City citizens short just because you don't like city officials.

What MAPS does is make it easier to entice skilled people to Oklahoma City because MAPS creates a better environment for people to enjoy. So, I am sorry, but none of these are wants, they are needs. If public safety wants OKC leaders to come to a resolution, they need to approach the city with a better plan than to use MAPS as a pawn. It's a joke.

I can do this all day, people. If you have a problem with how city officials are running a city, create a campaign and take the case to their next election. Don't sell Oklahoma City citizens short just because you don't like city officials.

I agree. I feel as if police and firemen are making me, as a citizen, the victim of their battle with city hall. They think they're punishing Mick Cornett, the city councilmen and women and the city manager, but in reality, it's the citizens of Oklahoma City who reap the fallout.

What if things were different. Lets say P & F had simply stayed out of this, or lets say they had come out in total support of MAPS 3. Is it a given this was going pass no matter what? Was this a slam dunk? I'm just curious.

You may be right , but I could have swore I've heard the Mayor tell people that the CC wouldn't even be built for 10 years. He probably tells different people different things.
The 10 years is when it would open (instead of construction starting) and has been pretty consistent from the Mayor (the Chamber at one point said 6 years) According to David Holt (is chief of staff) the Mayor wants it "staged last"

Originally Posted by Larry OKC View Post
No you aren't, you are voting for a penny tax that will last 7.75 years. You are voting to give the Council total discretion in how that $777M is spent with virtually no accountability (unless you are willing to wait 8 years or so, then you might decide to vote someone out, but by then you won't remember being made the promises anyway and when reminded of who said what, your reply will be "words don't matter" and "I believe them THIS time.") This was your response on another "unmentionable" issue.


I suspect we'll know far earlier than 8 years from now, since projects will begin very shortly after the tax is instituted. They won't wait 8 years to start the first one, and you know that. ...

I'm sorry, where did I ever say it would be 8 years before they started the 1st one?

You took the stance before that we will need to wait until the end of the time period, when all of the data is in before we can decide anything (then it is too late and the damage already done). Will it really matter to you if we find out in 3, 5 or 8 years? Or will your response then be the same as before?


We have far more data supporting our city government doing what they say they are going to do with MAPS than we do that they're going to take the money and run, no?

It is a mixed bag. Pre-MAPS the City's history was replete with broken promises along these lines. Even post-MAPS there have been instances. I and others have presented it for you in other posts/threads. Does that mean it will happen this time? No, it doesn't but they are purposefully setting everything up to do just that sort of thing. The point you and others seem to keep missing, in previous MAPS there were the safeguards in the ballot and ordinance that actually had some accountability built in (the legally binding stuff). That is missing from this Ballot/Ordinance.

I also have never even suggested that anyone would take the money and pocket it, but that announced projects are iffy on getting built (with other projects taking their place or due to massive cost over runs, the lessor projects being dropped completely). I don't doubt that the Big 3 items will be built (likely functional but incomplete). Those Big 3 items are the Convention Center, Downtown Streetcars and the Park. These are the items the Mayor mentioned in nearly every speech he has given leading up to MAPS. The next on the list is probably to Fairgrounds (Bennett) and the Kayaking/River improvements.

Remember too that they are describing some of these projects as not just "state of the art" (I know how much you love that phrase), but they have ramped it up a bit, calling some "world class". Will love to see some of you defend that a few years down the road and claim that they were built "bare bones" and we knew all along that we would need to make improvements later (to date, no one has supplied a single article written at the time that supports that contention, I have asked for it numerous times, have looked for it myself but nearly every article I found indicated the opposite).